Quote :

"why not? the space station runs on solar, and you could put it into orbit using hydrogen powered rockets with the fuel generated through electrolysis."

i'm just toying with his child-like mind of him thinking we are literally going to slap solar panels on the actual Atlantis Space Shuttle and expect it do the same things it does now.

of course it's not going to happen like that. and i totally agree with your thoughts.

heck, when a space elevator is finally built we won't even need shuttles. we'll just use magnetic drive like devices and gravity to boost and recall items to and from orbit. perhaps some of that energy could be derived from solar or electrolysis as well.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 3:11:00 PM

Quote :

"you apparently have no idea how the future of solar power is going to work. Once we stop piddling with solar panels and start installing massive solar thermal plants that actually have ride-through capabilities, we're still going to need the exact same grid we have now. The only exception being that we need smarter devices with more active load management that will use power when it's available and curtail use when it's not. "

I don't think this is how it will work.

Solar only makes sense because the sun casts its rays everywhere. A solar plant is going to have a very small, very hard upper limit, because there's only so much sunlight that can reach a particular geographic location.

Maybe in the mid-west where they have large swaths of useless land, they can use solar plants, but in a suburban or urban environment, micro-plants would make the most sense (IMO, microplants should be the future, but companies wouldn't like this).

As someone pointed out earlier, solar is really a shadow of what nuclear fusion can provide, but the vast majority of households only need a shadow.

12/29/2011 3:14:35 PM

Quote :

"why not? the space station runs on solar, and you could put it into orbit using hydrogen powered rockets with the fuel generated through electrolysis."

OMG I hope this is a fantastic trolling

12/29/2011 3:20:19 PM

^^something will eventually eclipse solar. i completely agree. but until our matter/antimatter or fusion are realized.... we'll have solar and nuclear.

^maybe today 1 new person (maybe even you!) will learn about electrolysis and other sources of energy. it's a good day for science and knowledge.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 3:29:06 PM

eclipse solar. get it?

12/29/2011 3:30:14 PM

^^^ I came to page 2 to make the same comment.

The fact that he used wording "you could put it into orbit using ..." leaves no redemption for this comment. There's no way to soften the claims to make it workable, this is just 100% fail.

Quote :

"^maybe today 1 new person (maybe even you!) will learn about electrolysis and other sources of energy. it's a good day for science and knowledge."

Nooo! You should have stopped. I feel sorry for you.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 3:31:08 PM

Shearon Harris sits on 14,000 acres of land (plant and cooling lake) and produces ~7.2 billion kWh per year, roughly 500,000 kWh per acre. Nevada Solar One sites on 400 acres and produced 134 million kWh per year, roughly 335,000 kWh per acre. Factor in the mines and processing plants required to make fuel rods, and the land usage issues disappear.

The best climates for installing solar thermal units are out in the sunbelt states and possibly in the deep south, which would require serious upgrades to our existing transmission systems. HVDC technology has come a long way in the last few years though, and I think we'll start seeing a lot more long distance interconnects being planned for this reason.

12/29/2011 3:32:26 PM

care to explain why? the old shuttle used hydrogen rockets aided with solid fuel booster rockets. just because the hydrogen fuel in the old shuttle was produced through catalytic methods using natural gas doesn't mean electrolysis isn't viable - it's just cheaper.

12/29/2011 3:35:34 PM

^^^ a school boy took this picture




using nothing but helium

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 3:38:04 PM

if you are saying that we will split water beforehand and use that as rocket fuel, then fine. but your previous post suggested that the water would be split on the launchpad and then ejected out the back after being ignited. that will, more than likely, always be infeasible. as far as electrolysis as an energy source in its own right, that is simply pointless, barring some magic catalyst that makes water split by itself with little to no energy input. this is basic thermo here

^ there you go again, moving those goalposts and makin up strawmen

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 3:38:12 PM

???????? ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

china and everybody with a brain is laughing at your anti-solar power logic right now.



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 3:40:18 PM

Quote :

"you said we can't put something into orbit based on the electricity generated from electrolysis or solar."

no, I didn't. but, if you tried to generate electricity using electrolysis, you'd be a freaking moron, unless you had that magic catalyst I spoke of earlier

Quote :

"china and everybody with a brain is laughing at your anti-solar power logic right now."

actually, anyone with a brain is laughing that you think I am anti-solar power. you could be a liberal with that logic, dude: anyone who disagrees with me hates whatever I am talking about.

12/29/2011 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"Last year, when asked to name the most pressing scientific challenge facing humanity, Professors Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox both gave the same answer: producing electricity from fusion energy. The prize, they said, is enormous: a near-limitless, pollution-free, cheap source of energy that would power human development for many centuries to come. Cox is so passionate about the urgent need for fusion power that he stated that it should be scientists such as Cowley who are revered in our culture – not footballers or pop stars – because they are "literally going to save the world". It is a "moral duty" to commercialise this technology as fast as possible, he said. Without it, our species will be in "very deep trouble indeed" by the end of this century."

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 3:51:58 PM

stop replying? why? because you are making a fool of yourself with strawmen and goalpost moving?

12/29/2011 3:55:04 PM

Quote :

"if you are saying that we will split water beforehand and use that as rocket fuel, then fine. but your previous post suggested that the water would be split on the launchpad and then ejected out the back after being ignited. "

my previous post did nothing of the sort. I mentioned using hydrogen as the fuel source and the fuel being generated through electrolysis. It wasn't even hinted that I was talking about electrolysis being performed on the rocket itself. That would be beyond stupid to think that I'm recommending putting enough massive amounts of solar panels and water onto a device where weight is critical.

No one ever mentioned anything about electrolysis being an energy source either- that's just horrendous reading comprehension on your part.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : electrolysis is being mentioned as an electrical method to generate a chemical fuel source]

12/29/2011 4:23:00 PM

I've been saying it all along that fusion needs to be this generation's space race. While I'm cynical realistic enough to believe that the oil and coal lobbies would oppose this all the way, the fundamentals are there if we just made it a priority. In the interim, we should embrace nuclear, geothermal, solar and wind (Just found out about windstalks which are super cool).

12/29/2011 4:25:49 PM

Quote :

"my previous post did nothing of the sort."

looking at it again, it did not directly do so. I think it got swept in with pack_bryan's drivel, as mrfrog apparently thought the same as I did.

Quote :

"No one ever mentioned anything about electrolysis being an energy source either"

pack_bryan most certainly did.

12/29/2011 4:35:18 PM

^lol. where the fuck did i say electrolysis is used as a fucking rocket engine? that doesn't even makes sense. you are fucking retarded. and you're even more retarded if you think energy and elements can't be separated during the process of electrolysis to be used to aid in the fueling of a hydrogen rocket as stated by eluesis.

at this point it's beyond obvious that today is the first time you've even heard about this process. don't lump me into your shitty world just because you have no company down there in your dumbassery!



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 5:19:54 PM

back on topic:



i too hope they figure out a cheap and efficient form of fusion during our lifetimes. even advocates for it say it could be 70 or 80 years before it's good enough to be commercialized.


[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 5:23:48 PM

The real power of solar, pun intended, is that it doesn't need to use lines. You can put them anywhere. This is a large reason it's the only viable option for power in the 3rd world.

12/29/2011 5:34:01 PM

Quote :

"where the fuck did i say electrolysis is used as a fucking rocket engine?"

you move the fuck out of some goalposts, dude. i never said you said such a thing. jesus. you are like a fat kid with diarrhea, spraying shit all over the place, and then wondering why no one can counter all of your shit stains.

you most CERTAINLY mentioned electrolysis as an energy source, unless you had a massive non-sequitur above.

Quote :

"you are fucking retarded."

it's beyond obvious, to use your words, that you have no argument at this point, as all you do is call people names. you are, effectively, a less eloquent version of hooksaw.

12/29/2011 5:36:29 PM

^lol. say goalposts a few more times.

^^exactly. while everybody is arguing about nuclear, and having wars over oil.. i'll be sitting around laughing with my 'primitive' yet never-ending supply of watts

it's almost laughable how easy it is too. for about $1000 you can get a basic-medium setup to run your pc, several lights, a tv, a fan, and a few appliances actually. and run most of them all day and night as well.

or you can keep paying $250 a month to duke power and do that 250x12 every year. sure. whatever your value of energy independence is.



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 5:41:34 PM

Quote :

"you most CERTAINLY mentioned electrolysis as an energy source"

hahahahahahahahaa
you think electrolysis can't create energy. hahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

welcome to science 101 you dumbass.

12/29/2011 5:46:27 PM

The government is about to place steep tariffs on those affordable Chinese solar panels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/business/global/us-and-china-on-brink-of-trade-war-over-solar-power-industry.html?pagewanted=all

^LOL at the idea of carrying a 75 pound boat battery camping. You can buy this generator for $100.
http://www.harborfreight.com/engines-generators/gas-engine-generators/800-rated-watts-900-max-watts-portable-generator-66619.html

12/29/2011 5:50:13 PM

^^ what are you trying to show there?

You won't get more h2 energy out that you are putting in in electricity.

If you're going to do that, you would just use the electricity directly.

That type of electrolysis is only good for making hydrogen from water, and electrolysis is a very inefficient method if you need hydrogen (it's only talked about because we have tons of water).

^ yeah the chinese gov. is directly subsidizing the manufacturing of solar panels, little do they know that public ventures always fail...

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 5:56:30 PM

lol @ needing 1.1 gallons fuel for only a few hours of power. Have fun drilling lol

12/29/2011 6:03:12 PM

even if the technical hurdles to fusion reactors are overcome arent they still just going to use them to drive steam generators?

when are we going to get away from that fundamental?

12/29/2011 6:09:42 PM

Quote :

"lol. say goalposts a few more times."

keep moving them, and I sure as fuck will. and it looks like you very much did.

Quote :

"you think electrolysis can't create energy."

and, right on cue, you moved the goalposts. good work! the irony, of course, is that your cute little picture didn't show how energy is created. rather, it showed how you separate the two gases, WHICH TAKES ENERGY TO DO. so, the sad thing is, not only did you move the goalposts, but you failed to set them back up and tripped over them on the way to the parking lot.

12/29/2011 7:49:22 PM

Quote :

"when are we going to get away from that fundamental?"

They're more efficient at higher temperatures than lower temperatures. That's why this guy is pushing LFTR. You can achieve higher temperatures without the need for pressurized water.

12/29/2011 9:06:53 PM

Quote :

"1.1 gallons fuel for ... a few hours of power"

I marvel over this. In days past giant dynamos and brisk streams or perhaps teams of horses were required to generate the electricity that tiny briefcase and splash of fuel can produce.

Also, my pupil, you should resurrect the nuclear thread I ran for a while, see what you can do with those guys. I had plenty of fun with them and definitely changed the discussion, although trolling nuclear fanboys after the worst atomic catastrophe in human history was like shooting contaminated fish in a barrel.

Good work on that last post though. One photo is worth a thousand trollish words, and I've been amazed at the results one subtle and infuriating error can produce. Your skills are improving.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2011 10:09:52 PM

No worries! Russia extinguishes massive nuke sub fire...by sinking it in the ocean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-russia-submarine-fire-idUSTRE7BS0MJ20111229

12/29/2011 10:53:06 PM

fuck, the dumbass is back

12/29/2011 11:21:19 PM

@smc, did you even read the article you posted?

Quote :

"submerging the stricken vessel at a navy shipyard "

THE SHIPYARD...

12/29/2011 11:32:27 PM

hey smc,

let's go camping together for 3 months up in montana. me and you.
i'll bring my 200w panel and battery and inverter... you bring your generator.

so in conclusion, i'll bring around 35lbs of equipment and have power every day and night.
and all you'll need is 576 gallons of gasoline. that's all your gonna need up there for 3 months.

so i'm gonna carry a backpack and a single 20lb panel. and you're going to carry one of these with you:



yeh man. that's really convenient. and when you are out of gasoline i'll let you borrow some solar power for the next 35 years since you'll be 100% done in just 120 days

12/29/2011 11:32:37 PM

^^

Quote :

"one subtle and infuriating error"

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 11:54:27 PM

what are you going to do with a 200W panel in Montana, run a 17W CFL all day? recharge your cellphone? between panel inefficiency and inverter / battery inefficiencies, you'll be lucky to make 0.5kWh a day with a setup like that so far north.

12/30/2011 12:06:05 AM

^yes. in fact somedays i'll get a lowly 5Wh (no not kW, i'm talking barely even single digit watts!!) on a poor day. but that is still enough to have a fully charged cell phone. saving up several amp hours daily and storing it for when i need it.
on sunny days with no clouds i'll be getting a full 200W per hour during the peak load times (5 to 6 hours at that altitude during winter, even more during summer) and storing it in a marine battery for later. that 30-40lbs of equipment i took with me. i won't be giving a shit about anything but enjoying the outdoors and keeping all my equipment charged, laptop, batteries, cell phone, lights, tvs, hell even running a microwave for a few minutes each day.


he'll be looking around for gas stations after only 5 total hours of using his 1.1 gallon tank... unless he brings his 500 gallon truckload with him. let's say he was bold and took 10 gallons with him during our hike (thats 80lbs of gas btw). he'd be out of that in just 2 days.


[Edited on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ,]

12/30/2011 12:25:02 AM

Quote :

"After hours of trying to put out the flames, officials decided to partially submerge the hull of the 18,200-tonne submarine at the Roslyakovo dock, one of the main dockyards of Russia's northern fleet 1,500 km (900 miles) north of Moscow. Local media reports were vague, but the blaze was believed to have started when wooden scaffolding caught fire during welding repairs to the submarine, which had been hoisted into a dry dock."

So they flooded the dry dock, big deal. I know little about Russian Submarines, but the concept is similar where while it is a nuclear submarine...not all of it is nuclear...only a majority of the aft portion

You have no idea how common fires occur in the shipyard....having worked in Norfolk Naval Shipyard for 6+ months, we had 4-5 fires. 2 of them were caused from welding sparks. IT HAPPENS. It was a nuclear vessel also. I now work at at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and while not as prominent, we still have fires.

The reactor was shutdown and if its in dry-dock probably in some crazy shutdown condition that you cant do shit with. But then again it is the Russians...not American Navy.

[Edited on December 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ya]

12/30/2011 12:25:58 AM

Quote :

"one subtle and infuriating error"

12/30/2011 12:42:09 AM

Wow. And here I was thinking we could talk about liquid flouride thorium reactors when I had a mod resurrect this thread. I could have posted this in Chit Chat and would have gotten less off topic comments.

12/30/2011 8:25:35 AM

Liquid flouride thorium reactors will never be built commercially in the US.

If you don't support our currently-subsized nuclear industry you hate america.

12/30/2011 9:07:11 AM

^ this guy sometimes

i watched that video last night finally^^
all i can say is, i hope this guy is right and did all his hw, and that we take him serious soon. that sounds pretty awesome.

12/30/2011 9:42:28 AM

^Well the homework was done in the 30s and 40s, he's just trying to bring it to light.

12/30/2011 10:01:15 AM

well you did your part by sharing that video. it totally convinced me. hopefully more and more people figure out a way to fund it now and make it a reality.

12/30/2011 1:51:43 PM

Amen.

12/30/2011 4:08:51 PM

China's funding it, but they have no regard for human life and a government that doesn't have to worry about oppositions.

That video made me skeptical though because they spent very little time going over the LFTR design, but lots of time talking about other peoples' designs.

It seems the LFTR reactor requires highly-pressured vessels of sodium-uranium mixtures which seems a tad bit more dangerous than current designs.

But... im curious to see what China figures out.

12/30/2011 6:40:15 PM

The videos they link to after the first 5 minutes are full length and some of them go into more technical details of reactor design.

Where did you see pressurized sodium-uranium?

1/1/2012 9:16:00 AM

Watched the video... interesting at least. Not knowing much about nuclear energy, I can't really say much other than I hope LFTR gets a fair shot and soon. There's no reason the U.S. should stick to old technology/designs when better options may exist. I really hope this gets vetted well and if the video is truthful about AEC, I'd be highly disappointed in our government for playing politics with nuclear technology.

1/3/2012 10:04:28 AM

Quote :

"hahahahahahahahaa you think electrolysis can't create energy. hahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha"

hahahahahaha. you think an ENDOTHERMIC reaction creates energy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

1/4/2012 9:54:42 AM

Quit shitting in my resurrected thread. Fuck each other through a PM.

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM. Reason : -]

1/4/2012 1:56:16 PM