|
Haha Greenpeace your daddy says your wrong on nuclear. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
I agree ,also never trust a women.... anything which bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die is not to be trusted!!!
:haha: :tongue2 :haha: :tongue2 :haha: |
BWAHHHAAAA! For once I agree!
On the women, but not the argument in general...
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Dervish |
I don't know really, just a speculative suggestion. But if the whole world was to be running off (all) nuclear power and all the waste was to be ejected they would be awhole lot of waste.
The main problems with rail guns is the 1) Small payloads (so far) and 2) The fact that the rails will be wreaked basicly everytime they are used.
I've no doubt these problems could be fixed but I don't know if they could be before alt energy could actually be used/stored properly. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
Because it's "too expensive" to launch pollutants and nuclear waste that will end up saving the planet if it's sent into space. |
I don't think it would be any more expensive than the "Chunnel". seriously.
you just need to bore a two mile hole into some stable bedrock.(maybe deeper if permitted)
hollow out another 1/4 or so sq. mi. at the bottom adjacent to the barrel for command and control.
mongo sized capacitor banks up top.
fill the barrel with a semi-conductor rail similar to a subway system or roller-coaster.
provide the juice with a small dedicated power plant (nuclear or whatever)
...and BAM! 500Kg capsules can be hurled out of orbit at mach 30. They wouldn't be in the atmosphere long enough to come back down! |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
I don't know really, just a speculative suggestion. But if the whole world was to be running off (all) nuclear power and all the waste was to be ejected they would be awhole lot of waste.
The main problems with rail guns is the 1) Small payloads (so far) and 2) The fact that the rails will be wreaked basicly everytime they are used.
I've no doubt these problems could be fixed but I don't know if they could be before alt energy could actually be used/stored properly. |
semi-conductors. the projectiles never touch the rails!
it can be repeated as fast as you can recharge the capacitors.
...and you should know that it doesn't take long for a nuclear powerplant to load a bank of capacitors. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| But arn't the rails actually hugely powerfull magnets? So you couldn't float them? Also does the projectile or projectile cradle (sabot) not need to be incontact with the rails to conduct through it? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
But arn't the rails actually hugely powerfull magnets? |
Yes. and switches.
| quote: | | So you couldn't float them? |
The magnets? No. The "windings" are similar to what you would see in an electric motor or the stator and they are stationary.
| quote: | | Also does the projectile or projectile cradle (sabot) not need to be incontact with the rails to conduct through it? |
Therein lies the problem. The armature is the "working end" of a conventional rail gun, again similar to an armature in a motor. The armature, influenced by the magnetic field made by current, moves the projectile kinda like a catapult is to a big rock. very large mag. fields combined with high speed friction and oodles of free electrons cause massive heat, enough heat to develop plasma particles within the field when using the kind of energy we're talking about.
Thats why it is crucial for a semiconductive rail that eliminates the need for an armature, or any moving parts for that matter. It's an entirely new way of thinking when it comes to accelerating an object without all of the heat. The problem is that you would need, in theory, two magnetic fields. One perpendicular to the rail for acceleration, one parallel to the rail for suspension working together but not interfering with oneanother. The insulating properties of semiconductors would be ideal for this (maybe an imbalanced field between the two?)
limiting factor here is semiconductor technology IMO. |
|
|
| tathi |
when most people think of nuclear power they think of chernobyl
anyway, most sustainable energy sources are harmful to teh environment. nuclear power is by far the cleanest source we have discovered (btw i vote for the Greens :haha: )
| quote: | tathi
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...sh&pagenumber=2
'sustainable' energy is not as benign as it appears:
- soil under solar farms spread over a wide geographical area becomes barren. After rain, sediment from runnoff can infect water sinks
- wind farms adversely manipulate wind flow
- hydroelectric dams piss fish off
- greenhouse gases produced in the manufacture and construction of sustainable energy plants exceed the energy created by the renewable energy plants.
In some cases these sustainable energy plants will be in the red for 30 years before they actually contribute any safe energy. And then one of the windmills breaks down, so you drive out there in your V8 Ute to fix it up, which puts the plant in the red for a few more years
(i think this is called negative energy, although i may have mixed the term up with the astrophysics definition ) |
didn't artic mention that he was a vegetarian? :stongue: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
didn't artic mention that he was a vegetarian? :stongue: |
Don't trust him!!!!
/converting to fundi-ism as we speak |
|
|
| Q5echo |
fusion. now that is a hell of a concept
if the europeans can do anything in 21st century to leave the last one behind, it's fusion. |
|
|
| imokruok |
Yep, this guy is right. The future is nuclear whether you like it or not. Not just because we want it to be, but because it has to be. There is no other solution to a growing world that will have growing energy needs, and we can't keep burning coal and oil to keep up. (For both reasons of diminishing supply and the environment.)
But the fact that movies and TV continually portray nuclear plants as things that can explode like a nuclear weapon do nothing to help the debate. They also don't take into account new designs that are greatly more reliable and safe. Anti-nuclear reactions are typically knee-jerk, but they can afford to be, because history and popular culture backs up their lame assertions.
The goal needs to be fusion. It's the "holy grail" of energy. I had a chem prof at one point who worked on the Tokamak reactor at my university, and he always used to say, "We know it works. We look up and see the sun everyday." We just need to get it to work on a smaller scale.
As to the issue of waste, that issue is being constantly worked on. Los Alamos scientists have already figured out how to render fissile material inert with high powered lasers. They just need to make it economical to do so. There are also some promising chemical reactions that are in development. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Yay, go nukes!
The whole waste issue is greatly overblown. The waste can be reprocessed for further use in some other applications, and its amount is rather miniscule. I hope this will make all those green hippie treehugging vegetarian bastards get a little more grip on reality. |
|
|
| dukes |
the whole reason the waste is not mearly lobbed into space is just to do with the practicality of it. rockets are pretty waistefull themselves and very expensive. on top of that there are barely enough launches globaly to keep up with the growing demand for more satelights. (nasa'a crazy plan for low orbit global satelight cover is probly still under way)
if it was done it would not be nasa that would do it it would be the european space agency since its them that deal with the bulk of satelights that end up in space. the fastest they can do it is one launch every 3 months whitch is far superiour to nasa (not just time but cost wise that ESA is better)
the way to deal with the waste is the method of reducing the half-life of the waste material. i cant remember the name of the process but it has been done (altho only experamentaly i think) to reduce a half-life of 10,000 years to just 5 or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
