What Do You Think About Nuclear Power?

[Vannak]

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

Well, rather than reading a scifi article about it, you could read the actual paper that's linked there. The io9 article isn't a scientific opinion.

Anyways, these black holes are tunable. Feed them extra mass and they slow down, and give off lower energy light. Also, I haven't done the calculation but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't use something capable of giving off gamma rays because they'd be more likely to emit neutrinos way before we get to gamma rays, and neutrinos aren't going to help out with the energy collection.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Vannak

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

Well, rather than reading a scifi article about it, you could read the actual paper that's linked there. The io9 article isn't a scientific opinion.

Anyways, these black holes are tunable. Feed them extra mass and they slow down, and give off lower energy light. Also, I haven't done the calculation but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't use something capable of giving off gamma rays because they'd be more likely to emit neutrinos way before we get to gamma rays, and neutrinos aren't going to help out with the energy collection.

Neutrinos wouldn't really help either. O_o

We could have something like the wall of a fusion reactor though, if those ever become a reality.


Also with containment- I'd say that's the number one problem.

They'll just consume all the mass around them- suspended by magnets, maybe, depending on the material or it's properties- I hear that they're usually super cold though, so it may not work- or it might work better.


You could maybe do it in space- also, how would you absorb more mass?

I was pretty sure that black holes only got their energy from their current levels of mass, and that adding mass was more or less just gravity working.


I guess it might gain more if you had a stabilized version.

But even so you've got the whole hyper penetrating laser beam of radiation problem. O_o


Plus it would take a huge amount of energy.

If you started with a small one you might be able to make successively bigger ones though, until you had a reasonably sized one.

[Vannak]

Im no engineer, but we could just stick it on the moon. While there's valuable helium there, more material on earth has someone calling it there's.

As far as containment goes, I haven't the slighest idea what kind of engines are going to be best, be it water boiler turbines or just solar panels, or what have you.

The neutrino comment was meant to say that when the energies get high enough, they don't just start pouring out gamma rays, neutrinos pop out first, and at that point you're dealing with a pretty big inefficiency. There's no reason to push the black hole small enough it does that. We don't need that much energy.

But these black holes would be hard to contain. Again, I'm not an engineer, but magnetic suspension seems pretty plausible. Spend some energy ionizing the black hole and you should be good. Fail saves to launch it into space on the moon would be easier than on earth, and absolute catastrophic disaster isn't as huge of a deal. ******** it, maybe stick a few plants on large asteroids and just let the black hole eat them, figure out some way to send the energy back to earth.

On the cold comment, all objects emit radiation based on their temperature due to black body radiation, in addition to whatever kind of light and reflected light they give off. Cool black holes are large ones. The kind we're talking about are smaller than an atom., thus very hot. As you throw mass in they asymptotically approach 100% matter to energy conversion, with the exception of neutrino loss and some other possible particles that would get emitted.

But these things get cooler as they eat mass. Fail safe number one: Feed it a bunch of mass, and it'll cool down.

The best method that I know of to generate these are to use extremely high powered lasers. Light has gravity, get them all focused on the right patch of space and you're good to go. No energy wasted fighting fermi pressure.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Herm...

Throwing it at an asteroid might work.


You could absorb some of the energy with a giant solar panels and maybe disperse the radiation with a mirror or prism of some sort, so to speak.

That would spread out the energy and make it manageable to absorb without necessarily the loss over distance, so you wouldn't have to be super far away and could still absorb the energy.


Still, those would be long wires- unless, the radiation beam was dispersed closer to earth and then we absorbed it- still long wires though.

Manageable probably, so long as we can make sure that the earth never gets in the path of the radiation.


Magnetic suspension on a satellite on the moon might be pluasible- space and magnets.

Massive energy levels, but if you spent a while making bigger and bigger ones until you had a really big one it could work.


Still though, it would be uber dangerous and have a number of other problems.

But a near perfect 100% matter conversion ratio might be worth it- it's like the power of anti-matter with every atom, but theoretically sustainable. O_o


If we ever learn to bend space that may be one way of containing it.

But the black hole will obviously interfere with that.

[JediDillon]

Of Or Pertaining To Axiom

Do you believe it is an important contributor to a green future

or too risky to be invested in?

Well I don't really think that going green is important unless your a hippie, but nuclear energy would be a great investment if we can safely use it, and it would be a great alternative to petroleum.

[Skyburn]

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

Gammas? Multi-layered shielding. Done.

Reik8

And this shows me how humans treat nature nowadays...
Well, I can understand when a country uses nuclear energy when there's no other option left. But countries like France, China and Russia don't need it and build them in masses. And I mean, the waste won't get smaller. The great mountain doesn't have space for endless amounts, neither does the ocean.

This shows me how little people know about nuclear power.

The tungsten balls wouldn't stay on the floor. You'd dope them with poison, first, then once that burned away, it would end up melting down, hence, the tungsten, which would contain the fuel.
So long as you verify via cameras that the immediate vicinity is desolate, you won't damage the environment (water is a wonderful shield for radiation), and the ball will burn itself an estimated 5 miles of the Earth's Crust.

Coal is far more damaging to the environment than Nuclear ever has been. It's not safe. It causes global warming, while new reactor plants will be implementing carbon-scrubbers with the goal of having zero net carbon emissions for all of America.

And there is more than one acceptable mountain, and saying the ocean floor is limited in space is like complaining about putting a marble in a swimming pool because the swimming pool has limited space.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Skyburn

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

Gammas? Multi-layered shielding. Done.

Reik8

And this shows me how humans treat nature nowadays...
Well, I can understand when a country uses nuclear energy when there's no other option left. But countries like France, China and Russia don't need it and build them in masses. And I mean, the waste won't get smaller. The great mountain doesn't have space for endless amounts, neither does the ocean.

This shows me how little people know about nuclear power.

The tungsten balls wouldn't stay on the floor. You'd dope them with poison, first, then once that burned away, it would end up melting down, hence, the tungsten, which would contain the fuel.
So long as you verify via cameras that the immediate vicinity is desolate, you won't damage the environment (water is a wonderful shield for radiation), and the ball will burn itself an estimated 5 miles of the Earth's Crust.

Coal is far more damaging to the environment than Nuclear ever has been. It's not safe. It causes global warming, while new reactor plants will be implementing carbon-scrubbers with the goal of having zero net carbon emissions for all of America.

And there is more than one acceptable mountain, and saying the ocean floor is limited in space is like complaining about putting a marble in a swimming pool because the swimming pool has limited space.

But how would we absorb the energy and turn it into usable stuff?

Also it isn't really "clean", was my point more or less- if that gamma ray beam got out it would be pretty bad.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Skyburn

Suicidesoldier#1

Vannak

We're literally on the technological cusp of being able to produce black hole engines, which can be made as energy efficient as we really want. Containment issues are important, but we can pretty much toss any kind of mass, including the waste from nuclear fission, and get clean energy.


They'll also be bright neutrino emitters, momentum tunable to a certain degree. It'll be amazing we can figure out how neutrinos effect nuclear decay, build more effective detectors, I can even imagine the medical benefits with a high emission source. I'm going to start drooling. But yeah, we're probably going to be totally fine energy wise.

Gamma radiation is hardly what I'd call clean or even usable energy, due to it's high penetration.

Also, I think we are a ways away.

Gammas? Multi-layered shielding. Done.

Reik8

And this shows me how humans treat nature nowadays...
Well, I can understand when a country uses nuclear energy when there's no other option left. But countries like France, China and Russia don't need it and build them in masses. And I mean, the waste won't get smaller. The great mountain doesn't have space for endless amounts, neither does the ocean.

This shows me how little people know about nuclear power.

The tungsten balls wouldn't stay on the floor. You'd dope them with poison, first, then once that burned away, it would end up melting down, hence, the tungsten, which would contain the fuel.
So long as you verify via cameras that the immediate vicinity is desolate, you won't damage the environment (water is a wonderful shield for radiation), and the ball will burn itself an estimated 5 miles of the Earth's Crust.

Coal is far more damaging to the environment than Nuclear ever has been. It's not safe. It causes global warming, while new reactor plants will be implementing carbon-scrubbers with the goal of having zero net carbon emissions for all of America.

And there is more than one acceptable mountain, and saying the ocean floor is limited in space is like complaining about putting a marble in a swimming pool because the swimming pool has limited space.

Coal's impact on global warming is mostly negligible.

Releasing mercury and carbon dioxide which is toxic into the environment for us to breath in or later drink or eat and fish and whatnot is bad, but it's effect on global warming is relativley minor.

[Skyburn]

Suicidesoldier#1

Coal's impact on global warming is mostly negligible.

Releasing mercury and carbon dioxide which is toxic into the environment for us to breath in or later drink or eat and fish and whatnot is bad, but it's effect on global warming is relativley minor.

Don't forget the fact it releases more radiation/contamination than every nuclear reactor ever has.

Suicidesoldier#1

But how would we absorb the energy and turn it into usable stuff?

Also it isn't really "clean", was my point more or less- if that gamma ray beam got out it would be pretty bad.

Similarly to the way we do it now with other forms of radiation. Just as visible light has things it can and can't easily go through, there are things that gamma rays can and can't easily go through - though fewer objects, granted, it's still possible to use them as heat conduction surfaces.

[Vannak]

Suicidesoldier#1

Herm...

Throwing it at an asteroid might work.


You could absorb some of the energy with a giant solar panels and maybe disperse the radiation with a mirror or prism of some sort, so to speak.

That would spread out the energy and make it manageable to absorb without necessarily the loss over distance, so you wouldn't have to be super far away and could still absorb the energy.


Still, those would be long wires- unless, the radiation beam was dispersed closer to earth and then we absorbed it- still long wires though.

Manageable probably, so long as we can make sure that the earth never gets in the path of the radiation.


Magnetic suspension on a satellite on the moon might be pluasible- space and magnets.

Massive energy levels, but if you spent a while making bigger and bigger ones until you had a really big one it could work.


Still though, it would be uber dangerous and have a number of other problems.

But a near perfect 100% matter conversion ratio might be worth it- it's like the power of anti-matter with every atom, but theoretically sustainable. O_o


If we ever learn to bend space that may be one way of containing it.

But the black hole will obviously interfere with that.

I mean it's not really a gigantic beam of energy coming out, it's essentially just a really really hot light bulb. A few particles come out, but we're not talking radioactive isotopes or anything, we're talking about, maybe, maybe if you ignore it for a long time, it might start giving off electrons. That's about it.

And solar panels are really inefficient. I just imagine most of the light energy being absorbed through a surrounding tank of water or something, boiled or just taking energy from the convection currents.

But the really great thing about this is that if you add a kilogram of matter to this black hole, and let it emit energy until it's at the same weight before you added, all the radiation given off would be equivalent to the mass you stuck in. It's all a matter of how long you want to wait to get it back. Big black holes take thousands of years, small ones take minutes to hours. Ignoring losses due to inefficiencies in collecting this energy back out, and as well as emission of unprocurable neutrinos, you really do get a lot higher mass to energy thats easier to collect than anything thought about today including fusion.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Skyburn

Suicidesoldier#1

Coal's impact on global warming is mostly negligible.

Releasing mercury and carbon dioxide which is toxic into the environment for us to breath in or later drink or eat and fish and whatnot is bad, but it's effect on global warming is relativley minor.

Don't forget the fact it releases more radiation/contamination than every nuclear reactor ever has.

Suicidesoldier#1

But how would we absorb the energy and turn it into usable stuff?

Also it isn't really "clean", was my point more or less- if that gamma ray beam got out it would be pretty bad.

Similarly to the way we do it now with other forms of radiation. Just as visible light has things it can and can't easily go through, there are things that gamma rays can and can't easily go through - though fewer objects, granted, it's still possible to use them as heat conduction surfaces.

1. lol yeah

2. Glass will stop infrared for instance, but gamma has a reputation for being pretty nasty.

Sure, 3 inches of lead could work, BUT, I mean, if you stood in front of the gamma radiation beamsz...

[Skyburn]

Suicidesoldier#1

2. Glass will stop infrared for instance, but gamma has a reputation for being pretty nasty.

Sure, 3 inches of lead could work, BUT, I mean, if you stood in front of the gamma radiation beamsz...

There's lighter, better stuff that works.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Skyburn

Suicidesoldier#1

2. Glass will stop infrared for instance, but gamma has a reputation for being pretty nasty.

Sure, 3 inches of lead could work, BUT, I mean, if you stood in front of the gamma radiation beamsz...

There's lighter, better stuff that works.

I don't think it really matters.

My point is that gamma radiation is hardly clean.


Also it would take a huge amount of energy to get a black hole engine, and then absorbing that energy and keeping the blackhole from eating it's container will be difficult.

Transforming it into useful energy will be difficult indeed, without it obliterating your material as well.


Maybe taking away the heat energy as a result of the obliteration of your materials.

Fusion reactors can maybe do that, so it might be possible.


If you tried to use wood as your heat sink to transfer the heat for instance it would just catch on fire- with these types of radiation and energies you may just get your material burning away instead of boiling water for instance.

There may be some nano material though that can conduct heat like electricity, so with wires and be near instant, making them great for transferring the energy until neutron degradation takes it's tole.