Very Cool

Imagine these puppies..modified.. for generating power via a geared, torque oriented system... underwater.. on ocean and sea currents. Dat dere water..she certainly generates torque!....

If you have moving water... you've got power. Tons of it. Literally.

Ocean current.. with one of these.. built at 100 feet across. Yikes!

Vertical axis turbine

Properly used.. you could generate power in rivers.. with no dams! Just more and more turbines.....hhm..... wide discs, with small flaps.... and minimal, nearly non-existent enviromental impact.

Small operations, in your local stream, on your property. The shaft (inner/outer system, captured thrust bearings, top and bottom) is anchored in the river/stream bed. The shaft that turns protrudes above the water. Outer sleeve turns the generator..that is anchored to the un-moving inner river bottom 'anchor' shaft. Wiring goes to house system, etc. Same for the wind beast in your back yard, of similar design.

This is one of the most interesting and promising I've seen in a while.
 

tlf9999

Disabled Account
2005-05-25 2:25 am
none
KBK said:
If you have moving water... you've got power. Tons of it. Literally.

Ocean current.. with one of these.. built at 100 feet across. Yikes!


Right. Think what that is going to do to fish, small animals, the wind, farming, weather, and the rotation of the earth itself.

You don't gain something without losing something else. It is easy to figure out what you can gain. But it is harder to figure out what you will lose on the side.

For years, the greenies have us think that the dirtiest form of energy is nuclear, on which the movement was founded.

Now, some greenies have started to consider nuclear as the cleaniest form of energy. Isn't that ironic?

I have said this many times and I will say this once again: hydro is among the environmentally dirtiest forms of energy.
 

rfbrw

Member
2001-10-26 11:51 pm
.
CBS240 said:
Nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy and very plentiful if it is maintained properly. Unfourtunately if it is not, the toxins released can be very dangerous, expensive to clean up and have long lasting ill effects on the environment.

No matter how well maintained, the power plant still produces unpleasant waste products that have to be dealt with and you can't ship all of it to Sellafield no matter how keen the UK is on being the world's nuclear nightsoilman. There is also the issue of decommissioning old plant.
 

Bizarroterl

Member
2004-09-24 10:42 pm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911762175/002-2468105-1432866?v=glance

Read this book before you come to any conclusion on nuclear power. It's not a matter of what is safe and what isn't. It's a matter of what is safer and in what context.

Interesting fact - Burning coal puts more radiation into the atmosphere that nuclear by far.

It turns out there are risks to all facets of power generation and non generation. Only by being educated on the topic can we make an educated decision on what method is the best solution.
 
"Kids growing up in areas damaged by radiation from the plant have a higher IQ and faster reaction times, say Russian doctors.

They are also growing faster and have stronger immune systems.

Radiation from the Ukrainian Chernobyl plant swept the globe and affected more than seven million people.

Professor Vladimir Mikhalev from Bryansk State University, has tracked the health of youngsters growing up in areas hit by the fallout since the 1986 accident.

He compared their mental agility and health to those in unaffected areas and found they came out top in tests."

It's always been a science fiction truism, and it has likely been proven to be correct. We evolve in fits and starts. hard events, force quick turns/change in evolution. Comfortable days are for the birds.

A quote for the biblically minded: "And he shall come from the East." :D
 

ghudnub

Member
2005-09-14 11:14 pm
I have worked as an operator in Nuclear Power for the last 15 years. The future of the industry has never looked more promising than it does today.

There are inherent dangers, poor designs, poor decisions by operators, but the plants in the US were designed and built with some pretty old technology. They are unecessarily complicated, and just like the Navy nuclear programs, we have learned from past mistakes.

Imagine the next generation nuclear plant. Completely passive safety systems, operator error (TMI) completely removed as a consequence by design. No greenhouse emissions, no global warming contribution.

There will be a time in the future (sooner than later) when spent nuclear fuel will be economically reprocessed. Spent fuel is nowhere near as scary as Hollywood or Fox News would have everyone believe. As usual with the media, if it isn't sensationalized, then it isn't worth reporting.

I wish everyone in the US knew the industry the way I do...we'd have broken ground on new plants years ago.
 

rfbrw

Member
2001-10-26 11:51 pm
.
ghudnub said:


There will be a time in the future (sooner than later) when spent nuclear fuel will be economically reprocessed. Spent fuel is nowhere near as scary as Hollywood or Fox News would have everyone believe. As usual with the media, if it isn't sensationalized, then it isn't worth reporting.



So you would be happy to store the stuff in your backyard?
 
ghudnub said:
I wish everyone in the US knew the industry the way I do...we'd have broken ground on new plants years ago.

I do too. I wouldn't be paying $1.15 CAD/litre of petrol if they did.

And i can't help thinking (maybe wishfully) that experience gained with real world, in-the-field, modern reactors, would give some important clues to making fusion work.

If Hollywood or Fox News had been around when the cavemen were discovering fire we'd probably still be just ripping the raw flesh off the beasts and eating that.

dave
 

ghudnub

Member
2005-09-14 11:14 pm
rfbrw said:



So you would be happy to store the stuff in your backyard?

Be realistic. Spent fuel is not a liquid that leaks into groundwater. It has decayed to a point that heat losses to ambient pose no risk. It's not 100% safe, but nothing is. Yucca Mountain is a great place to store the stuff until technology catches up.

There are people out there who speed past our plant so that they don't "get any radiation". That is ridiculous and shows just how uneducated most folks are with respect to nuclear power.

The people who make the most noise regarding the dangers of nuclear power have no idea what the truths are. Our industry has decided to keep as low a profile as possible instead of embarking on a public education campaign. We've even gone so far as to invite the "concerned scientists" to weigh in on the design and operation of future plants. Their response was that their sponsors would not appreciate that. What does that tell you?! Money is the motivation behind their claims. Given the chance to fix the problems they perceive, or keep their sponsors happy, they pick money.

planet10 said:


If Hollywood or Fox News had been around when the cavemen were discovering fire we'd probably still be just ripping the raw flesh off the beasts and eating that.

dave

That's funny Dave, and not too far from the truth I'm sure!
 
I can't believe that the oil companies out there would be very happy if nuclear energy was made exclusively as an energy source. It would make electricity so cheap that electric cars would receive such a boost in development, it would run them out of business. Same goes for the coal mining industry. Of course as ghudnub pointed out, there is too much lobbying money against it. This problem exists in other industries. Take the paper and packaging industry for example. The pulp that is used destroys lots of trees. Trees grow relatively slowly. Not that I am against tree harvesting for forest maintenance, it has to be done. However, pulp from hemp fibers is a lot cheaper and can be more plentiful than tree pulp because it is an annual plant and grows much faster. (hemp, not marijuana...there is a difference. I suppose it could be used too, but to the government, they are one in the same.:confused: They are not.) It is stronger and from what I understand, holds ink better. This can be used for most cheap paper applications, given a redefining of the processes used. Do you think that the logging companies would approve of this? Not to mention the chemical companies who produce the synthetic materials hemp fibers could replace more cheaply and be much more environmentally friendly. I have even heard of plywood, partical board being made from it, not to mention clothes. Treat it with flame retardent chemicals and you could even use it as home insulation. Shall I go on?

;)
 

tlf9999

Disabled Account
2005-05-25 2:25 am
none
CBS240 said:
I can't believe that the oil companies out there would be very happy if nuclear energy was made exclusively as an energy source. It would make electricity so cheap that electric cars would receive such a boost in development, it would run them out of business.

that is actually a widely held misconception. nuclear unfortunately remains one of the most expensive forms of energy we have now. Part of that is due to environmental regulations that the greenies pushed onto us and the public at large, and partly due to our lack of investment in nuclear infrastructure in the last 2-3 decades. But even if we don't have those add-on costs, nuclear is still expensive vs. coal or gas firing plants. economy of scale isn't in our favor.

However, nuclear is one of the cleanest form of energy and is the only long-term solution we have so far. We will run out of oil reserves sooner or later, we will have incured huge environemntal costs with windmills and hydros. and we will have to deal with the pollution from coal (unless we can solve its gasification economically). On nuclear, we will self-sufficient for a long period of time and we hold substantial technology advantages on nuclear over the rest of the world.

It is simply crazy not to invest in nuclear.
 
CBS240 said:
(hemp, not marijuana...there is a difference

worth repaeting. It is a crime against humanity that hemp is mostly illegal (hemp farms are just starting to come on-line in Canada, but there is a lack of infrastructure to process it)

BTW, during WWII the ban on growing hemp was lifted so the navy could have rope.

It is stronger and from what I understand, holds ink better. This can be used for most cheap paper applications, given a redefining of the processes used.

Hemp makes much better paper than wood-pulp. All those really old books that are kicking around, are olny here because in those days paper was made from discarded linen (ie rag paper) and in those days linen was made from hemp (even today, if the linen in the suit you ar wearing came from easern europe, then it is probably hemp)

Not to mention the chemical companies who produce the synthetic materials hemp fibers could replace more cheaply and be much more environmentally friendly.

There is very strong evidence to support the contention that the real reason hemp was made illegal in the US was so that DuPont could make a return on the newly developed Nylon.

Hemp has a zillion uses, including being used to reclaim marginal soil (ie growing it makes the soil better).

dave
 
planet10 said:



Hemp makes much better paper than wood-pulp. All those really old books that are kicking around, are olny here because in those days paper was made from discarded linen (ie rag paper) and in those days linen was made from hemp (even today, if the linen in the suit you ar wearing came from easern europe, then it is probably hemp)





dave

Isn't our Constitution and Declaration of Independence written on hemp?