Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1


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.
Why bother with that? Just do what we do with heat right now and use it to boil water, water itself being the method of heat transfer. It's more effective and actually assists in shielding on it's own.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1


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.
Why bother with that? Just do what we do with heat right now and use it to boil water, water itself being the method of heat transfer. It's more effective and actually assists in shielding on it's own.


How hot do Uranium reactors get?

I mean, if left unchecked?
Suicidesoldier#1
Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1


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.
Why bother with that? Just do what we do with heat right now and use it to boil water, water itself being the method of heat transfer. It's more effective and actually assists in shielding on it's own.


How hot do Uranium reactors get?

I mean, if left unchecked?
Lots of variables, really. But I can't tell you what I do know about it.
But hot. Quite hot.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1
Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1


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.
Why bother with that? Just do what we do with heat right now and use it to boil water, water itself being the method of heat transfer. It's more effective and actually assists in shielding on it's own.


How hot do Uranium reactors get?

I mean, if left unchecked?
Lots of variables, really. But I can't tell you what I do know about it.
But hot. Quite hot.


But less than a million degrees.

And we're talking about containing a near perfect matter to radiation conversion.


That's focused into one area.

That's going to be way hotter than fusion.


In the same way a block of wood would just spontaneously catch fire instead of transferring energy, so too would steel and whatnot turn into plasma.

Maybe with some nano-materials or diamonds it might be possible to get the kind of thermodynamic transfer necessary to avoid complete obliteration.


Also I think the hottest it will get is 5300 degrees.

So we're talking 10K max.
I honestly don't know maximum temperatures. Just don't bother asking me operating characteristics.
I don't think this part about the entire thing is clear: You can make this thing as hot or cold as you want. You can literally throw garbage into a reactor and it COOLS down. Worrying about millions of degrees is a little like worrying about getting into a car that can go 200mph. If it worries you then don't go there. Easy as that.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Vannak
I don't think this part about the entire thing is clear: You can make this thing as hot or cold as you want. You can literally throw garbage into a reactor and it COOLS down. Worrying about millions of degrees is a little like worrying about getting into a car that can go 200mph. If it worries you then don't go there. Easy as that.


The issue is the efficiency and power generation will be way off.

In theory you want to make a small one so it doesn't take much energy to create.


So you'd have to make a really big one that produced a small amount of energy for it to be stable, which would be less efficient and harder to contain.

In order to get high energy returns, it will take quite a bit of power or enormous size to make these things useful.


Big blackholes have their own problems.
Suicidesoldier#1
Vannak
I don't think this part about the entire thing is clear: You can make this thing as hot or cold as you want. You can literally throw garbage into a reactor and it COOLS down. Worrying about millions of degrees is a little like worrying about getting into a car that can go 200mph. If it worries you then don't go there. Easy as that.


The issue is the efficiency and power generation will be way off.

In theory you want to make a small one so it doesn't take much energy to create.


So you'd have to make a really big one that produced a small amount of energy for it to be stable, which would be less efficient and harder to contain.

In order to get high energy returns, it will take quite a bit of power or enormous size to make these things useful.


Big blackholes have their own problems.
You have it backwards. We can make small ones, feed them mass and make them into big ones. And efficiency isn't the problem, all the matter you dump in does come out as energy, it's just a matter of how long it may take for all that mass to come out again
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Vannak
Suicidesoldier#1
Vannak
I don't think this part about the entire thing is clear: You can make this thing as hot or cold as you want. You can literally throw garbage into a reactor and it COOLS down. Worrying about millions of degrees is a little like worrying about getting into a car that can go 200mph. If it worries you then don't go there. Easy as that.


The issue is the efficiency and power generation will be way off.

In theory you want to make a small one so it doesn't take much energy to create.


So you'd have to make a really big one that produced a small amount of energy for it to be stable, which would be less efficient and harder to contain.

In order to get high energy returns, it will take quite a bit of power or enormous size to make these things useful.


Big blackholes have their own problems.
You have it backwards. We can make small ones, feed them mass and make them into big ones. And efficiency isn't the problem, all the matter you dump in does come out as energy, it's just a matter of how long it may take for all that mass to come out again


The problem is getting it to come out in reasonable amounts so we can have lots of energy.

Either the big ones will have to be super big at that level of energy production or we will need something that can take a lot of heat.
Requiem ex Inferni's avatar

Eloquent Streaker

If the facility is well-built and maintained properly, and the waste is disposed properly (preferably using France's method of recycling the waste), then it's a relatively safe and clean source of large amounts of energy. And nuclear energy, specifically fusion, IS the energy source of the future.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Requiem in Mortis
If the facility is well-built and maintained properly, and the waste is disposed properly (preferably using France's method of recycling the waste), then it's a relatively safe and clean source of large amounts of energy. And nuclear energy, specifically fusion, IS the energy source of the future.


lol

Fusion is based off of water, which will take quite a bit of cycling to get through. You have to desalinate the water, get it in proper containers, and then reduce it down to deuterium and tritium which like, even in sea water it's only at like a 0.0156% in terms of mass, and it's "heavy" water, so there's relativley a lot less per molecule.


Then you have to disassociate that from oxygen once you get the heavy water, which has to be at like 99%, minimum, and generally speaking needs to be 99.9%.

After that you need tritium, which only has a life of like 26 years and is incredibly hard to get and whatnot, from the same source.


Assuming we have a powerful enough tritium and Deuterium fusion mix, then comes a matter of getting that energy. Fusion peaks at efficiency at around 300-800 million degrees. You simply cannot absorb and dissipate that kind of energy, it would obliterate any kind of thermal conductor available, in addition to the radiation. So you'd have to run it super low with very low levels of efficiency for hopes of not destroying your entire reactor. Even the best conductors, such as steel, have a limit, and eventually will melt instead of staying solid and transferring energy- they would probably turn into plasma.

So it will be super inefficient unless we get everything working perfectly and even then, it may destroy the fusion reactor itself.


But!

Sun's are a good source of energy, so a bunch of solar panels in Antarctica looks good.
Suicidesoldier#1


lol

Fusion is based off of water, which will take quite a bit of cycling to get through. You have to desalinate the water, get it in proper containers, and then reduce it down to deuterium and tritium which like, even in sea water it's only at like a 0.0156% in terms of mass, and it's "heavy" water, so there's relativley a lot less per molecule.


Then you have to disassociate that from oxygen once you get the heavy water, which has to be at like 99%, minimum, and generally speaking needs to be 99.9%.

After that you need tritium, which only has a life of like 26 years and is incredibly hard to get and whatnot, from the same source.


Assuming we have a powerful enough tritium and Deuterium fusion mix, then comes a matter of getting that energy. Fusion peaks at efficiency at around 300-800 million degrees. You simply cannot absorb and dissipate that kind of energy, it would obliterate any kind of thermal conductor available, in addition to the radiation. So you'd have to run it super low with very low levels of efficiency for hopes of not destroying your entire reactor. Even the best conductors, such as steel, have a limit, and eventually will melt instead of staying solid and transferring energy- they would probably turn into plasma.

So it will be super inefficient unless we get everything working perfectly and even then, it may destroy the fusion reactor itself.


But!

Sun's are a good source of energy, so a bunch of solar panels in Antarctica looks good.
Fusion still holds great promise of being the Energy of the Future. Every year we work on it, Fusion becomes more efficient. It won't be good for, say, the Navy, for several decades after that, but it's still got great promise in the civilian sector.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1


lol

Fusion is based off of water, which will take quite a bit of cycling to get through. You have to desalinate the water, get it in proper containers, and then reduce it down to deuterium and tritium which like, even in sea water it's only at like a 0.0156% in terms of mass, and it's "heavy" water, so there's relativley a lot less per molecule.


Then you have to disassociate that from oxygen once you get the heavy water, which has to be at like 99%, minimum, and generally speaking needs to be 99.9%.

After that you need tritium, which only has a life of like 26 years and is incredibly hard to get and whatnot, from the same source.


Assuming we have a powerful enough tritium and Deuterium fusion mix, then comes a matter of getting that energy. Fusion peaks at efficiency at around 300-800 million degrees. You simply cannot absorb and dissipate that kind of energy, it would obliterate any kind of thermal conductor available, in addition to the radiation. So you'd have to run it super low with very low levels of efficiency for hopes of not destroying your entire reactor. Even the best conductors, such as steel, have a limit, and eventually will melt instead of staying solid and transferring energy- they would probably turn into plasma.

So it will be super inefficient unless we get everything working perfectly and even then, it may destroy the fusion reactor itself.


But!

Sun's are a good source of energy, so a bunch of solar panels in Antarctica looks good.
Fusion still holds great promise of being the Energy of the Future. Every year we work on it, Fusion becomes more efficient. It won't be good for, say, the Navy, for several decades after that, but it's still got great promise in the civilian sector.


Fusion is always 50 years in the future.

It's not impossible it just needs a break through.


But look at nanotechnology- guy got the nobel prize for mass producing graphene with an uber cheap proccess.

Same with bucky paper.


I'd wager 20 years or less before it's out on the civilian market, at least for cool stuffsz or the military.

I mean it's not impossible we just need a process to contain the heat- given the fact it's neutron radiation it might not be possible sense magnets are not an option. But maybe we can condense some ultra dense neutron wall shielding held together with the effects of protons and whatnot (well, it's a type of magnetism but!) or we could bombard it with neutrinos or something to make it more feasible. Maybe nanotechonology is a good enough heat conductor to act like an electric wire and could heat a bathtub up a thousand miles away with a campfire with comparative little losses. Maybe we just find a better method. I mean hey sure getting it from water may be hard but we already filter some 2500 pounds worth of heavy water everywhere. Tritium isn't so hard to get. Blam! Cheap fusion at least for world energy supply. Still need some other processes but at least you don't have to desalinate or widdle down the heavy water from .0001% percent. blaugh


Still in the future fuel will run out.

We will eventually need our billions of years worth of sun energy. O_o


Solar panels are the inevitable energy source of any progressed nation, at least for domestic use or planet building.

Maybe we get better solar panels, maybe we just use Antarctica and get better batteries.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games