ENERGY

[Anonymous No.14954486]

There is clearly something wrong with our current format of energy generation, whether that is electrical, thermal, or kinetic forms.

What is the solution for this and why is it nuclear power?

[Anonymous No.14954494]

nuclear is the most energy dense but still relies on cooking water for steam to run a turbine
most interesting news i've heard is a fusion "reactor" that generates electricity directly from the magnetic pulses, skipping the water cooking part

[Anonymous No.14954503]

>>14954494
Aren't there gas or molten salt cooled reactors?
Could easily do a combined cycle with other working fluids (like steam) and extract more energy out of the reactor

[Anonymous No.14954504]

>>14954486
>our
not yours, you were not involved in any of that decision making regardless your use of grandiose terminology which includes yourself amongst the ruling classes.

[Anonymous No.14954568]

>>14954504
Most pseudo intellectual post I have seen in a while. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14954579]

>>14954486
>There is clearly something wrong with our current format of energy
What ks the problem

[Anonymous No.14954582]

>>14954486
We should force men under thirty to wear a thing on their penis so when they masturbate it generates electricity that's added back to the grid

[frenanon No.14954586]

>>14954504
>not yours, you were not involved in any of that decision making regardless your use of grandiose terminology which includes yourself amongst the ruling classes.
So are you who I'm supposed to voice my grievances with the current ""system"" to?
Because, man...
It's getting real tiering.

[Anonymous No.14954592]

>>14954494
Keep crying retard, irl an advanced Rankine cycle is as efficient as direct conversion.

[Anonymous No.14954610]

>>14954503
>Aren't there gas or molten salt cooled reactors?
Gas is bad at transferring heat but there are molten salt reactors that heat a secondary system that contains distilled water. Water is much easier to work with when designing and building a turbine. It's cheap and safe and the thermodynamic properties are very well known.
>Could easily do a combined cycle with other working fluids (like steam) and extract more energy out of the reactor
That is exactly what some already do.

[Anonymous No.14955113]

>>14954610
I've heard that pressurised Helium or supercritical CO2 are potential fluids that offer better heat transfer.
Though as you say, most gases aren't good at convecting heat due to their low densities, among other physical properties.

[Anonymous No.14955177]

>>14954504
shut the fuck up you dumb fucking faggot neck yourself trannie

[Anonymous No.14955469]

>>14955113
>I've heard that pressurised Helium or supercritical CO2 are potential fluids that offer better heat transfer.
There's definitely more efficient coolants, but water has the cheap+safe+established properties trifecta.
>Though as you say, most gases aren't good at convecting heat due to their low densities, among other physical properties.
The systems are kept pressurized to many atmospheres so the coolant stays a liquid. Water in the reactor core is usually several hundred degrees C, but it's a liquid because of very high pressure.

[Anonymous No.14955489]

>>14954486
>boil water but make it complex.
Can't we just figure out how the fucking magnet works yet?

>>14954494
>that generates electricity directly from the magnetic pulses
That's how all "electricity" is "generated" yes. You still need the geomanced copper archform though that has absolutely no correlation/causal link to whatever the fuck it is you're wasting at the burn site.

[Anonymous No.14955574]

>>14954486
>What is the solution for this and why is it nuclear power?

you still need hydrocarbon for fuel in vehicles, planes, ships, and for load following in the grid.

[Anonymous No.14955582]

>>14955489
>That's how all "electricity" is "generated" yes
In the "right hand rule" sense of electricity generation yeah, but I don't think that is what he meant.

[Anonymous No.14955592]

>>14954586
i have no idea who you are or what your idea was but the guy from nsf clearly referred you to the part of the nsf that would be appropriate for you to submit to. you make it sound like you've been tarred and feathered, which you probably should be.

[Anonymous No.14955600]

Fission has been too hamstrung.
It will be solar and some natural gas until someone makes a scalable and cheap energy storage method, at which point it will become pretty much just solar.
Eventually fusion will come around and once it matures it will become the primary energy source for all grid-scale things due to it being objectively superior.

[Anonymous No.14955614]

>>14955600
Why not attempt to educate people on modern fission reactors? Or somehow lobby the govt to increase fission funding. Neither of these things are easy but they should at least be theoretically doable. It would be a shame if we used so much natural gas when we could have been splitting atoms.

[Anonymous No.14955690]

>>14955614
They are doable, yes, but not feasibly. Not only are you still working against the forces that resulted in where we are today, but you're also working to undo decades of entrenchment. It would take too long, cost too much, and be too late. Even assuming you were successful, by the time you manage to just get the laws and opinions changed solar and energy storage will have advanced even farther, and fusion will be even closer.

[Anonymous No.14955723]

>>14955600
How's Europe?

[Anonymous No.14955740]

>>14955723
Fine. The main problem was panic-buying gas by idiot governments instead of coordinating things and brokering good deals instead of outbidding each other as fast as possible. Now that the storages are all full the price is low again.
Nuclear is still the best deal to bridge into the future though, since "cheap energy storage" is more like 50 years in the future rather than 5

[Anonymous No.14955746]

Cunt how tf are you supposed to charge a lithium car battery off a coal fire power station when there are literally not enough joules in the entire world-land for that to be possible simply - because you have requested an impossible situation. Switch to nuclear perhaps? Hmm OK then...

[Anonymous No.14955747]

>>14955740
This happened 2 years ago
Happened last year
Happening again

And would happen again.

Face the truth already. France had to raise their consumer price because they had to export their nuclear energy to the fools over and over

[Anonymous No.14955761]

>>14955747
Yeah it definitely isn't ideal. But people here are already preaching Doom for the coming winter and make new gas deals with yet-another-autocracy. We have daycares who prepare kids with blackout drills, wich seems absurd to me who works in energy supply. Our worst expectation is (yet again) stupidity: people buying mobile electrical heaters in masses because they are afraid of their gasbill.

[Anonymous No.14955763]

>>14954503
>Aren't there gas or molten salt cooled reactors?
only on paper, so far.
lead-bismuth eutectic cooled fast reactors were used on Alfa-class submarines.
it has relatively low melting point (~130°C) and boils around 1600°C, so you can transfer the heat extremely efficiently.
plus the coolant acts as radiation shielding and there's no great pressure involved in the reactor, so it cannot explode/rapture from overheating like PWR.

You may ask, what happens if lead leaks or solidifies in pipe? Wouldn't it damage the coolant lines and reactor?
To which I'd point out that Akula-class and every other Soviet/Russian sub since had conventional water cooled reactors.

[frenanon No.14957214]

>>14955690
>They are doable, yes, but not feasibly.
They don't even know if it's theoretically possible, they're still a few $Trillion away from knowing if it's possible.

The main problem is BigOil is in charge of everything related to "Energy". And the grifting ''scientists'' love that, because it means they can just get $Billions to perpetually LARP about "2 more weeks until we have unlimited Nuclear! Don't worry about the fact that energy prices are doubling every year, this is just how science works! 2 more weeks, promise!"

[frenanon No.14957230]

Reminder: we could have clean, unlimited energy generators by now; we could even start building them right now if we wanted.

But no one actually cares.
It's more fun to talk about freezing to death, and arguing over "le nuclear power", instead of actually discussing cheap, practical solutions.

[frenanon No.14957241]

Maybe in a few decades the "Environmentalists" will decide to promote CUNNE.

If I had the resources I'd build the generators myself, but that's hard to do when you'll officially be homeless in a few days.

[Anonymous No.14957258]

>>14954486
>What is the solution for this
Get ready for this idea. It'll blow your mind! It might even make you piss yourself in amazement! It'll shake to the core no doubt! Its... Ready now!...

Make sure you're ready..!

We...

Focus on reducing how much energy we use, instead of increasing energy production.

[Anonymous No.14957265]

>>14957241
This already exists in Sweden and, while it is working there, the world says no.
The priority isn't to make trash useful but to prevent the trash from being made from the very start

Creating powerplants that use trash for fuel just incentives further production of plastic wares

[Anonymous No.14957408]

>>14957258
>Focus on reducing how much energy we use, instead of increasing energy production.
We are already in the land of diminishing returns when it comes to energy savings. We need nuclear, it's not that complicated.

[Anonymous No.14957531]

>>14954486
>ENERGY
Harness lightning. Energy enough for a trillion people.

[Anonymous No.14957537]

>dig a hole into the earth’s crust
>pour water in it
>water boils
>steam evaporates and turns an electric power turbine
>steam cools and condensed back into liquid
>cycle repeats

Explain how this is problematic, it’s literally free closed system energy

[Anonymous No.14957560]

>>14957537
That's geothermal energy, you fucking potato
It is known for causing earthquakes