Nuclear Power is the only option....

...

 

Sure, then why aren't there power plants that sustain themselves on water alone?

In a previous post, you yourself admitted that when ya start with energy and water, after electrolysis and the fuel cell, you'll be left with water and that same energy...no more of it! Only less with the losses (and the energy required to pressurize the hydrogen, etc)...

 

Refer to this post.

 

Wow, energy from nothing! You actually believe that's possible?

 

I don't think you completely understand what you're dealing with. That 48 kJ is provided from the environment as a result of an increase in entropy. Similarly, 48 kJ is lost to the environment (as heat) going from hydrogen fuel cell -> electricity as a result of a decrease in entropy. So, NO, there is NOT a net production of 48 kJ. Whenever you convert energy there is ALWAYS a loss in the form of heat. Here's a quote from your website - notice the 83% efficiency of IDEAL fuel cells. Also note that "real" fuel cells don't reach that efficiency level.

 

Thanks for the answer.

I was thinking about what you said about the laws of physics being rewritten. Very true, but with the energy picture the way it is we need technology that was developed and avaliable last Tuesday. We don't have time to develop new theories of physics. (And no, you did not advocate that. Your comments lead me in this direction.)

We don't have time to change people's behaviour.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread. Given the current situation and the current options (each with their pluses and minuses) is nuclear power a good idea?

Its not an easy question. Would building neuclear plants divert attention away from developing other power sources that don't have the long term waste problems of nuclear?
Would it be good for society for energy to become so dear that people can't afford to continue their current habits?

 

Good point, Humandrayel. I will look into the answers tomorrow...

Peace and love

 

agreed, there is no time to waste. and laws of physics in the common reality (the physical world we live in) have held constant for a long time. the recent additions such as relativity theory obviously don't affect us, we can't travel at the speed of light damn shame, really.

It depends who you ask. Will the rich folks at the top of the food chain think nuclear power is a good idea? Of course - they literally turn energy into gold. And they'll sure as hell never live near nuclear waste.

Would building nuclear power plants divert attention away? ABSOLUTELY! and THAT is why it's so dangerous. nuclear power is amazing....massive amounts of practically "free" energy. sadly, it may come down to that as the only option to continue this energy fueled frenzy of "growth" that so many nations are seeing. because i'll tell you this - if it comes down to "no growth and sustainable energy sources" vs. "massive growth and nuclear power".....guess which one wins?

Would it be good for society for energy to become so dear that we can't continue our addiction? it'll be a helluva lot better for generations down the line. not that anyone cares...

 

I think, big companies prefer nuclear power because it is profitable. they will own the infrastructure and charge people as they see fit.

 

You really need to re-read what you write...

Tell me again about discussing BOTH sides of the argument, please.

 

This is different from what we're doing right now how?

 

implications for today? http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

Dr. Peter W. Becker ​

The United States is faced with an acute energy problem. Our dependence on imported petroleum, which accounts for half of the country’s consumption, has caused rising balance of payments deficits that weaken the dollar and contribute to inflation. More worrisome in the long run for the future of this country is the realization that eventually most oil deposits, both foreign and domestic, will be depleted. This grim specter is accompanied by a lack of control over foreign supplies, leaving us dependent on the goodwill and mercy of the oil-producing states.​

There are, of course, other sources from which energy can be derived, sources such as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, solar and thermal power, and the like. But for the foreseeable future they either present many environmental threats or are not yet sufficiently developed to replace our dependence on foreign oil supplies. A sensible energy policy for the time being no doubt would rely on many different sources of energy until a more efficient, effective, and safe method has emerged. Such an approach will include the production of synthetic fuel derived from coal. This method was first effectively used by the Germans during World War II, so an examination of Germany’s situation at that time could be instructive.

As a highly developed industrial state, Germany was dependent even in peacetime on external sources for an adequate supply of oil. Even though Germany’s 1938 oil consumption of little more than 44 million barrels was considerably less than Great Britain’s 76 million barrels, Russia’s 183 million barrels, and the one billion barrels used by the United States, in wartime Germany’s needs for an adequate supply of liquid fuel would be absolutely essential for successful military operations on the ground and, even more so, in the air.1 For Germany, it was precisely the outbreak of the war in 1939 and the concurrent termination of overseas imports that most endangered its ability to conduct mobile warfare.

German oil supplies came from three different sources: imports of crude and finished petroleum products from abroad, production by domestic oil fields, and syntheses of petroleum products from coal.

In 1938, of the total consumption of 44 million barrels, imports from overseas accounted for 28 million barrels or roughly 60 percent of the total supply. An additional 3.8 million barrels were imported overland from European sources (2.8 million barrels came from Romania alone), and another 3.8 million barrels were derived from domestic oil production. The remainder of the total, 9 million barrels, were produced synthetically. Although the total overseas imports were even higher in 1939 before the onset of the blockade in September (33 million barrels), this high proportion of overseas imports only indicated how precarious the fuel situation would become should Germany be cut off from them.2

At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.3

The smallest of the Russian oil fields at Maikop was captured in August 1942, and it was expected that the two remaining fields and refineries in Grozny and Baku also would fall into German hands. Had the German forces been able to capture these fields and hold them, Germany’s petroleum worries would have been over. Prior to the Russian campaign, Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels.4

Grozny and Baku, however, were never captured, and only Maikop yielded to German exploitation. As was the case in all areas of Russian production, the retreating forces had done a thorough job of destroying or dismantling the usable installations; consequently, the Germans had to start from scratch. In view of past experience with this type of Russian policy, such destruction was expected, and Field Marshal Hermann Göring’s staff had begun making the necessary preparations in advance. But a shortage of transport that was competing with military requirements, a shortage of drill equipment as well as drillers, and the absence of refining capacity at Maikop created such difficulties that when the German forces were compelled to withdraw from Maikop in January 1943 in order to avoid being cut off after the fall of Stalingrad, Germany had failed to obtain a single drop of Caucasian oil. Nevertheless, the Germans were able to extract about 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, a quantity that they would have received anyway under the provisions of the friendship treaty of 1939.5

 

Respect to what lies up to my post

The fact is, since the very beginning, it is assumed that we need more and more energy

what do you want to do with that?

You want keep producing what we are producing?

Keep producing M1 Abraham and Leclerc, F 18 and Mirage 2000 ?

Go on...

Nuclear energy is the easy choice when you look at the problem of energy with the environmental and sustainability of earth point of view

Easy means it considerably increase the risks, in terms of pollution and war
It is certainly the cheap way

Lots of scientists are paid to increase the amount of energy extracted from the process, and they succeed in it, they slowly increase the amount of energy extracted
But the other side shows you can also be more destructive in explosions...

Go on...

 

actually it dont matter france have allready built enough nuclear plants to kill earth several times over with radiation .

 

While we burn fossil fuels we are causing harm, with nuclear power it is possible to not damage the environment if its handled properly. Half lives can be long (although that doesnt necessarily mean intense) although this can be reduced by new techniques that induce futher reaction to less active isotopes although any further processing requires energy end reduces the net gain from the reactor.

The way I see it we need energy and that demand isnt going anywhere. Fusion and solar will some day take the bulk of the demand, presumably with wind and tidal being used locally and of course there will always be the others producing a few kW. But right here, right now its nuclear or fossil fuels everything else is just a novelty. In 50 years id say that fusion and solar will take over but in that 50 years I rekon nuclear will do a lot less damage than fossil fuels, in developed countries at least where demand is high and safety is good. Besides we can then get all the waste and safely accelerate its decay to harmless products, well I say harmless the decay path for uranium ends up at lead.

 

This is what I have on Hydrogen fuel cells. The cell which I am discussing is the proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell. It uses H2 as the fuel and operates at 80C. The cell reactions are as follows:

Anode (oxidation reaction): 2H2 (g) ---> 4 H+ (aq) + 4e-
Cathode reaction (reduction): O2 (g) + 4 H+ (aq) + 4e- ---> 2H2O (g)
Overall cell reaction: 2H2 (g) + O2 (g) ---> 2H2O (g) Ecell = 1.2 V

An electrocatalyst is required to decrease the activation energy, which is Pt based catalyst deposited on graphite.

According to the text, the cells convert about 75% of the fuel's bond energy into useable power, while coal plants only convert 40% and 25% with gasoline powered vehicles. This technology is still being developed.

Every fuel source has its pros and cons. Anyone who says there are no negatives to a fuel source is full of shit, and I am not saying that hydrogen is the perfect fuel source. However, I feel that the pro's do outweigh the con's. I am doing my research paper on this fuel source, since it deals with the topics discussed in my class. I am going to do a little investigating on the thermodynamics of PEM hydrogen cells, PM me if anyone is interested in the free energy and Nernst equation.

Peace & love

 

longlongago
Yes we do !

But we still can walk back?

 

I like hydrogen as a fuel souce except to you whacking amount of energy to break the water up in the first place. While i think it would be great in cars we would need to get a better source of grid electricity as usage would go through the roof producing the oxygen/hygrogen. Infact I guess you need exactly the same amount to liberate the gas as you get by putting it back together again.