Hydrogen

[teamlseep13]

They were thinking and still are about using solar engery collectors in space.
Sure it sounds kinda out there but it could work very well.

Start up would be pricey and getting a system to get the engergy, in form of batteries I think, to Earth would be expensive but who knows.
No atmosphere to worry about, no space issues really either.

Nuke plants do not explode unless they have explosives placed in them
Nuke bombs do explode
Nuke pant meltdowns are just huge overheatings of the core reactors which then rupture and let out huge amounts of radiation

[Fastback86]

I was once told a story about the real danger of nuclear meltdowns. The story goes that if a nuclear reaction were to get too out of control, it would get so hot that it would melt through the floor and into the ground. The dangers comes if it were to hit an underground water source, as it would instantly superheat and vaporize the water, creating a huge amount of radioactive steam under extreme pressure that would have to go somewhere, conceivably blasting out of the ground and spreading radiation all over the damn place. Only reason it didn't happen at Chernobyl, according to the story, is that the giant melting mass hit some major bedrock on the way down and stopped.

No idea of any of that is true, but it sounds at least plausible.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Nuclear reactors ARE awesome heat sources.

Nuclear power plant explosions are never nuclear explosions. The Chernobyl accident was a steam explosion.

Power plants are designed for maximum containment in the event of a meltdown. The Uranium would vaporize itself before it burned through the containment vessel. Remote controlled robots have found the flows of molten uranium in the lower reaches of the ruins of the reactor vessel at Chernobyl.

[bookster]

Ever seen movie chain reaction
guess what it works and there is a very true and easy way to get hydrogen out of water. you heat it to the point that it breaks down and collect the elements before they react and burn plumb it to a burner that heats water to steam turning a turbine generator creating the power for the 40 mega Jules laser to break down the water. there is a 92% efficiency in hydrogen production and 72% use for power. leaving 8% in mineral deposits in water and assorted other elements 20% of hydro can be tanked for other use.
Where's the problem fed's don't want free fuel or near free fuel. the overhead to produce the plant would be astronomical let alone the safety factor evolved with a take of hydrogen in your car.
Did you see myth busters hydrogen works fine and in the proper proportion it will perform 187% better than oil based fuel.
thus reducing the size of the engine to power said auto. :3some:

[The Dark Side of Will]

Got anything to back this info up?


There's no such thing as free fuel.

[dratts]

The problem with nuclear energy that I have never seen addressed successfully is the storage of the radioactive waste. The feds are pushing Yucca mountain as a repository, but the last I've heard, There are problems with ground water infiltration, and Nevada doesn't want it forced on them. I also don't know of any containment vessel that will last as long as the material is a threat. I'm willing to believe that a reactor can be built that won't blow up or melt down. I admit to a bias. I spent several years designing and building solar systems.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.

During the course of the nuclear reaction, U-235 breaks down into a multitude of components along its path to becoming iron. These get in the way of the chain reaction that allows nuclear material to produce heat. There is still much uranium remaining in a "spent" fuel rod, and this is part of the "problem".

A spent fuel rod can be "recycled" back through the uranium purification and enrichment process to recapture its remaining uranium in new fuel rods. Voila... no nuclear waste.

The "problem" as those who have created it for us would have us believe, is the potential terrorism risk of transporting nuclear material.

I can't be made to believe that the alternative solution (storage) is any better...

[bookster]

http://nuclear.inl.gov/docs/papers-pres ... 3-3-03.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?q=hydroge ... t&ct=title
some light reading

[dratts]

Will, Although I've heard of reprocessing the spent fuel, I've not heard of using that process as a way of dealing with the waste. Why then would the feds spend billions(?) on Yucca mountain? I'll admit also that I don't trust the nuclear industry or the government to tell the truth. I used to hear that nuclear never would have been feasable if it weren't subsidized and a cap put on liability. Not looking to start a flame, but you sound as though you've done some reading on this and I'm always open to another veiwpoint.

[aaron88]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.
....

What about all the radioactive heavy water? That's the storage problem.

Aaron

.

[Kohburn]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.
....

What about all the radioactive heavy water? That's the storage problem.

Aaron

.

isn't Iran our new dumping grounds for heavy water?

[Series8217]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.
[...]
A spent fuel rod can be "recycled" back through the uranium purification and enrichment process to recapture its remaining uranium in new fuel rods. Voila... no nuclear waste.

If they're NOT doing this, then nuclear waste isn't fiction . It's just not necessary.

The "problem" as those who have created it for us would have us believe, is the potential terrorism risk of transporting nuclear material.
.

Err? Aren't they transporting nuclear material whenver they deliver fuel to the plants, or move the spent fuel rods to storage? What's the difference?

[txf]

I watched some specials on Sunday that showed Alternative fuel vehicles. One was hydrogen pawered car that the 7000 sq ft solar panels that powered the pump station and generated the Hydrogen coud only produce enough fuel for one fill up a week.

Another point that was made was there is a 0% teriff on Oil comming into the U.S. but there is a 100% Teriff on Brazilian Ethanol which could have a good impact on our reliance on oil. But due to the Teriff it's not economical. Hmm wonder how come up with the teriff on the ethanol. Could it be Government official's who's families have made their money and still make their money in oil?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.
[...]
A spent fuel rod can be "recycled" back through the uranium purification and enrichment process to recapture its remaining uranium in new fuel rods. Voila... no nuclear waste.

If they're NOT doing this, then nuclear waste isn't fiction . It's just not necessary.

Haha... ok, the Necessity and concept of nuclear waste are fictions

The substance is just inspent fuel waiting to be recycled.

The "problem" as those who have created it for us would have us believe, is the potential terrorism risk of transporting nuclear material.
.

Err? Aren't they transporting nuclear material whenver they deliver fuel to the plants, or move the spent fuel rods to storage? What's the difference?

I probably should research the specifics of the policy, but it's just policy. When has government policy ever been about good sense and efficiency?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Nuclear waste is a fiction created by fear mongers.
....

What about all the radioactive heavy water? That's the storage problem.

Aaron

ALL the radioactive heavy water? heavy water isn't necessary for fission... only fusion.

Water can become heavy by absorbing high energy neutrons from the decaying uranium... but the only radioactive isotope of hydrogen is Tritium, which is made by normal hydrogen absorbing not just one but TWO neutrons... I can't see it getting very radioactive.

If you have more info on how radioactive the reactor water is, I'd like to see it.

[whipped]

I thought water normally has some small percentage of heavy water in it?


I'm made of 3% deuterium! Wheeee!

[The Dark Side of Will]

Yes. There is a small fraction of water that's naturally heavy. Deuterium water isn't harmful at all. The naturally occuring Tritium water isn't in high enough concentrations to be harmful.

[Mach10]

Even then, it's really only the gamma radiation (electrons) and [beta?] readiation (protons) that are truly harmful.

Neutrons don't fuck up protein chains like electrons and protons. When you change teh charge in a hydrogen bond, crazy shit starts to happen. :thumbleft:

[aaron88]

I thought water normally has some small percentage of heavy water in it?


I'm made of 3% deuterium! Wheeee!

Just boil off a bunch of water and the little bit left over before the end will be Heavy Water, (the hydrogen atoms in the water have a neutron as well).

[Series8217]

I thought water normally has some small percentage of heavy water in it?


I'm made of 3% deuterium! Wheeee!

Just boil off a bunch of water and the little bit left over before the end will be Heavy Water, (the hydrogen atoms in the water have a neutron as well).

Umm, no.
D2O boils too, and its all mixed in well with the other water you're boiling (esp due to the convection currents if you're boiling it with a burner at the bottom of the flask!). The little bit left will be pretty much the same percentages of regular ol' water and D2O with a teeny tiny bit higher % D2O in the mix than before. The boiling point difference is like 1 or 2 deg C. It will work to a degree, but you'd have to boil thousands of gallons of water to finally end up with any usable amount of D2O.