Wind v Nuclear - Page 3

Jerrek · 26-11-2003, 22:40

In Canada, more than 55% of our energy comes from hydo electricity. We do have an advantage though. We have lots of rivers, dams, and falls that provide us with the ability to get hydro electricity. Plus, Ontario Hydro is the largest supplier of heavy water in the world.

downquark1 · 26-11-2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

We do not have the technology to make fusion a feasable source of energy. You're probably thinking of fission.

Fusion is the fusing of two hydrogen (deuterium, which is hydrogen with an extra neutron) atoms to get helium and energy. We can do it, but it requires high temperatures and pressure. The amount of energy put into the system is more than we get out of it, so that isn't really good.

Fission is the splitting of uranium or other fissionable materials by bombarding it with a neutron. The neutron splits the atom into two parts, some neutrons, and some energy. The neutrons released bombard other atoms, and the process continues.

Indeed Jerrek, but fusion is being researched in France it seems

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm

Jerrek · 26-11-2003, 22:50

Fusion is being researched in many places in the world... I would, however, support Japan rather than France. Japan has a better infrastructure to support such a project.

downquark1 · 26-11-2003, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Fusion is being researched in many places in the world... I would, however, support Japan rather than France. Japan has a better infrastructure to support such a project.

regardless of the location the important quote is:

Quote:

Scientists say the new reactor will be the first such prototype to give out a lot more power than it consumes.

26-11-2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That's something I've always wondered.
All this CO2 that we're releasing from fossil fuels originially came from the atmosphere anyway

ok I'll 'call' you on that one Xaccers - in the poker sense btw

"fossil" fuel locked up ancient CO2 - putting it back 'now' is, apparently, the problem.

- power stations based on trees/straw - now, could be another 'renewable' energy resource, to complement wind/wave/sun? - and no-one has mentioned waste fermenters, producing methane for burning, now - so long as it is just recycling, it should be ok?

- fusion - maybe in the future - now is more important?

downquark1 · 26-11-2003, 23:14

Quote:

"fossil" fuel locked up ancient CO2 - putting it back 'now' is, apparently, the problem.

The problem is balance, yes it was originally in the atmosphere, plants used to it leave and produce oxygen, animals used the oxygen to eat the plants and put the carbon back in the air. Plants formed a balance with the animals so enough carbon is in the air for the plants and enough oxygen is in the air for the animals.

Humans are putting too much CO2 back in the air too quickly (or at least this is the idea) and there are less plants to counter it.

Places where balance has failed are deserts.

Jerrek · 26-11-2003, 23:16

Actually, 61% of Canada's power is from hydro. 27% is from thermal energy sources.

How's that for clean energy! :canada:

Manitoba - 99% of the power is hydro electricity
British Columbia - 98%
Quebec - 96%
Newfoundland - 96%
Yukon - 88%

But Ontario is 25%... We have a dozen nuclear reactors to assist since we probably use half of the electricity in Canada. :canada:

Quote:

fusion - maybe in the future - now is more important?

Good point. Fusion isn't yet ready, and won't be for at least 10 years.

downquark1 · 26-11-2003, 23:26

Quote:

fusion - maybe in the future - now is more important

Quote:

Good point. Fusion isn't yet ready, and won't be for at least 10 years.

What can go wrong in 10 years that hasn't already?

I guess it boils down to money:

Put it all in fushion and hope it's a saviour
Or put it in expensive renewable projects that will delay the inevatable.

Such is the choice of our time

26-11-2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

What can go wrong in 10 years that hasn't already?

I guess it boils down to money:

Put it all in fushion and hope it's a saviour
Or put it in expensive renewable projects that will delay the inevatable.

Such is the choice of our time

I'd like to think 'renewable', meant just that, not just a "delay" - I'm not denying fusion a place, but there is a gap to fill between fossil running out & fusion kicking in?

- the project in France would have gone down better with me if "JET" had been expanded, as well?

downquark1 · 26-11-2003, 23:37

Quote:

I'd like to think 'renewable', meant just that, not just a "delay" - I'm not denying fusion a place, but there is a gap to fill between fossil running out & fusion kicking in?

I know - I was just trying to be dramatic

26-11-2003, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

I know - I was just trying to be dramatic

- and why shouldn't you - I'm thinking all the controversy about 'colour', whether you were 'strange', or just 'charming' - you say bosun - I say bo-selecta.

- and 'why not?'

- cue 'cold fusion' conspiracy theories?.........

markmarkymark · 27-11-2003, 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

- and why shouldn't you - I'm thinking all the controversy about 'colour', whether you were 'strange', or just 'charming' - you say bosun - I say bo-selecta.

- and 'why not?'

- cue 'cold fusion' conspiracy theories?.........

ah - quark, strangness and charm - always liked that Halkwind Album

downquark1 · 27-11-2003, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

- and why shouldn't you - I'm thinking all the controversy about 'colour', whether you were 'strange', or just 'charming' - you say bosun - I say bo-selecta.

- and 'why not?'

- cue 'cold fusion' conspiracy theories?.........

If people are a bit confused see here:
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-p...uide/quark.htm

paulyoung666 · 27-11-2003, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

We do not have the technology to make fusion a feasable source of energy. You're probably thinking of fission.

Fusion is the fusing of two hydrogen (deuterium, which is hydrogen with an extra neutron) atoms to get helium and energy. We can do it, but it requires high temperatures and pressure. The amount of energy put into the system is more than we get out of it, so that isn't really good.

Fission is the splitting of uranium or other fissionable materials by bombarding it with a neutron. The neutron splits the atom into two parts, some neutrons, and some energy. The neutrons released bombard other atoms, and the process continues.

this is what i was refering to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm

Theodoric · 27-11-2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Fusion isn't yet ready, and won't be for at least 10 years.

Hmm. You may be being optimistic here. You are far too young to know about it, but in the 50s there were splash headlines in British newspapers about a fusion project called Zeta. It never succeeded. Speaking from memory, and I stand ready to be corrected here, the next big advance was the Russian Tokamak (sp?) design in the 70s (or 80s? - but still a while ago). And over 50 years on we still haven't got a practical design. It always seems to be jam tomorrow. Now, I'm not objecting to the research; I'm just not holding my breath.