Petition call z-machine

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 09/07/06, 23:46

Econology wrote:It's all well and good to make a petition to promote the development of centralized energy, but are you sure that this is the right path (assuming that the Z-Machine is not a farce)? Because this development will inevitably come at the expense of other decentralized "renewable" energy and especially energy savings....indeed; pkoi save an "infinite and non-polluting" energy?
So my question: when is a Pantone + HVP petition?

The question is: is it better to make electricity properly by a-neutron fusion (using the principle of the z-machine) or with current fission power plants producing radioactive waste or thermal power plants producing CO2 ?
Believing that fusion power plants will give free energy is wishful thinking. Admittedly, the fuel is not expensive, but the plants are highly technical and must be paid for. On the other hand, the state will be obliged to tax electricity to compensate for the shortfall due to the decrease in fossil fuels. Energy savings and alternative energies will remain on the agenda, especially since power plants can break down or bad weather damage the distribution network, while the sun is not about to break down. .. As for the pantone, it may become essential as long as we use internal combustion engines in the city, unless the electric cars take over faster than expected.
In any case, I don't see why we should leave the use of A-neutron fusion to the military alone.
More research is needed on z-machines in the hope of getting rid of uranium power plants as soon as possible. As for the intelligent use of this energy, it is a question of education.
0 x
User avatar
pluesy
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 291
Registration: 26/11/04, 22:39
Location: 88 saint die vosges
x 1




by pluesy » 10/07/06, 00:51

christophe wrote:The planet receives more precisely every day 40 times the energy necessary for humanity. Corrected with respect to Earth, this value comes back to around 000 times ....


thank you for your response christophe :D

by less sun on the ground I wanted to say if for example we place a perfect photoelectric sensor (100% yield (I know I'm a big dreamer !!!)) of 1 ha in the Sahara desert I think that '' after 6 months or even at the end of the day the ground will be colder than that which is not covered with a sensor
we can use this energy on an electric motor (which heats little) to pump water for example

in this example the sun which would have stored calories in the ground did not do this, however this energy was used to pump water with an elecrtic motor which emits little heat

antipodes if for the same application we use an internal combustion engine running on oil with a 33.33% efficiency, we will send into the atmosphere twice as much heat as the sun gives on 1 ha with co2 as a bonus ...
more as we will not have put in the shade 1 ha of land compared to the first example we will heat 3 times more the atmosphere !!!

with a machine z in this example we will emit a little heat (because of the electric motor) but as the small stream make the big rivers ... ca could become the catamaran if everyone starts to consume like the United States ( 5% consumes 50% of resources)
therefore energy consumption times ten ca will give 1 per 1000 of land emerged for the energy ratio human contribution / solar contribution
0 x

"There are only two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity ... but for the world, I have no absolute certainty."
[Albert Einstein]
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/07/06, 01:20

pluesy wrote:by less sun on the ground I wanted to say if for example we place a perfect photoelectric sensor (100% yield (I know I'm a big dreamer !!!)) of 1 ha in the Sahara desert I think that 'after 6 months or even at the end of the day the ground will be colder than that which is not covered with a sensor, this energy can be used on an electric motor (which heats little) to pump water by example


natural but false reasoning because any form of energy will transform sooner or later into heat (we just said on another post) so the thermal or electrical energy captured by this solar collector will only move the calories which will ultimately be even in the "Earth" system ...

pluesy wrote:antipodes if for the same application we use an internal combustion engine running on oil with a 33.33% efficiency, we will send into the atmosphere twice as much heat as the sun gives on 1 ha with co2 as a bonus ...


Again no ... whether the energy comes from petroleum or from the sun it will end up in heat in all cases ... the difference is that by burning the perole we add additional energy to the "Earth" system (not to mention greenhouse effect) unlike the exploitation of the sun ... Finally the purists will say that the perole is stored solar energy and they will not be wrong ... except that they crash miserably at l 'time scale...
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 10/07/06, 12:23

The amount of energy emitted by human activity is insignificant compared to the energy provided by the sun. The problem lies in CO2, which reduces the return of heat to space.
Last edited by Cuicui the 10 / 07 / 06, 15: 10, 1 edited once.
0 x
mezigue
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 8
Registration: 24/06/06, 15:08




by mezigue » 10/07/06, 12:23

In my opinion, in a zero pollution framework, the Nuclear / Renewable opposition is only made from the centralization / decentralization point of view of the source, without considering a hypothetical "decentralization" of the merger, nor the tendency to gigantize the wind and solar.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 10/07/06, 15:07

mezigue wrote:In my opinion, in a zero pollution framework, the Nuclear / Renewable opposition is only made from the centralization / decentralization point of view of the source, without considering a hypothetical "decentralization" of the merger, nor the tendency to gigantize the wind and solar.

Abundant and cheap energy will provide us with more leisure time to devote to the search for inexpensive individual generators. There will always be people who are fed up with being dependent on power plants, distribution networks, and subject to taxes and stoppages due to staff strikes or unavoidable breakdowns.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/07/06, 15:32

Cuicui wrote:The amount of energy emitted by human activity is insignificant compared to the energy provided by the sun. The problem lies in CO2, which reduces the return of heat to space.


That's right ... the factor is about 40 times (as said above) ... on the other hand in any system in energy balance a "small" imbalance can have gigantic and incomparable consequences compared to the epsilonesque quantity energy of the disturbance ... So pay attention at all even to this excess energy ... Just like the excess water created by the combustion of fossil fuels ... because even if it may seem at first glance negligible it is not certain that it really is ... eventually ...
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 10/07/06, 16:53

Econology wrote:a "small" imbalance can have gigantic and incomparable consequences compared to the epsilonesque amount of energy of the disturbance ... So pay attention at all even to this excess energy ...

I suppose that the irregularities of solar or even volcanic activity are much more important than the calorific effects of human activity. What worries me much more is the devastation exerted by humans on the biotope.
Strongly clean electricity!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 324 guests