Renewable Energy Source?

[timewerx]

Super cooling does not create plasma, and sucks a lot of energy, more than what comes out.

The power of the sun you are referring to is Fusion, at very high temperatures.

There are no good containers for fusion...has been the problem so far.

It takes high heat and some kind of container.
That's why stars are in space.....its a suitable container.
On earth fusion containers tend to melt.

Right you are!

If magnetic containment worked, another problem has to be addressed which is the very intense infra-red radiation from plasma sources (radiant heat). And sometimes, high energy radiation like X-rays and Gamma rays would cause material heating. That can't be contained with magnetic fields.

Using highly reflective surface + high pressure water cooling might work.

But again, this is no cheap solution. This is simply a cheaper form of nuclear energy but you're still dealing with the same underlying (very expensive) infrastructure to contain nuclear processes for energy.

Even nuclear energy isn't "clean". They cause massive "heat pollution" in the atmosphere and sometimes, water.

All the many reasons why I'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy, fission or fusion as the next step in clean and renewable energy sources.

There's far better, cheaper, cleaner, simpler, and more practical energy concepts out there.

 

[SkyWriting]

Right you are!

If magnetic containment worked, another problem has to be addressed which is the very intense infra-red radiation from plasma sources (radiant heat). And sometimes, high energy radiation like X-rays and Gamma rays would cause material heating. That can't be contained with magnetic fields.

Using highly reflective surface + high pressure water cooling might work.

But again, this is no cheap solution. This is simply a cheaper form of nuclear energy but you're still dealing with the same underlying (very expensive) infrastructure to contain nuclear processes for energy.

Even nuclear energy isn't "clean". They cause massive "heat pollution" in the atmosphere and sometimes, water.

All the many reasons why I'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy, fission or fusion as the next step in clean and renewable energy sources.

There's far better, cheaper, cleaner, simpler, and more practical energy concepts out there.

Fission would be nice, but it's hard to hold onto the sunlike temperatures.
Solar panels are easier to manage.

 

[Coleton Bryce Ritmanich]

I agree....

Ironically, the trouble areas (in terms of high birth rates) tend to be poor countries and many are Muslim countries. Same thing applies to regions (not just countries) in the West with large population of residents from these countries.

People would be quick to accuse the program of being "Eugenics Nazis!"

You're still on this? The prevention of life is worse than abortion, at least if they are born they have a life to at least offer a better and more humane solution than you have.

 

[Tone]

Right you are!

If magnetic containment worked, another problem has to be addressed which is the very intense infra-red radiation from plasma sources (radiant heat). And sometimes, high energy radiation like X-rays and Gamma rays would cause material heating. That can't be contained with magnetic fields.

Using highly reflective surface + high pressure water cooling might work.

But again, this is no cheap solution. This is simply a cheaper form of nuclear energy but you're still dealing with the same underlying (very expensive) infrastructure to contain nuclear processes for energy.

Even nuclear energy isn't "clean". They cause massive "heat pollution" in the atmosphere and sometimes, water.

All the many reasons why I'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy, fission or fusion as the next step in clean and renewable energy sources.

There's far better, cheaper, cleaner, simpler, and more practical energy concepts out there.

Hence, the end of the money system as we know it.

 

[Tone]

Hence, the end of the money system as we know it.

New matter...new system...new way of seeing things..."further up and further in."

 

[eclipsenow]

You're a long way behind the times. Solar energy is now cheaper than coal and getting cheaper every day.

Around 20% of Australian homes have solar panels and it's increasing at the rate of 6 panels a minute. Homes with rooftop solar are estimated to be saving $540 a year compared to non solar electricity.
‘Six panels a minute’: more than two million Australian homes now have solar

Solar can be used almost everywhere although low sunlight and snow cover are obvious problems. No one alternative source is likely to solve all of the world's energy problems.
OB

Solar could be FREE and it would still bankrupt the country due to storage costs.


Coal produces "800 elephants" worth of waste to power a 70 year human lifespan, so that's bad. But it gets worse. Even 'clean' power like solar PV uses 15 times more building material and 5000 times more land than nuclear. California's Solar Roof Law Will Raise Housing And Energy Prices But Do Little To Reduce Emissions It also quite worryingly produces 300 times the waste per unit of energy than nuclear! Are we headed for a solar waste crisis? By 2050 Australia could have 1.5 MILLION tons of solar e-waste to try and recycle, and we currently don't include that cost in the price of solar installations. There's a looming waste crisis from Australia's solar energy boom Indeed, renewables expert Matthew Stocks (rightly) demanded I show the cost to decommission nuclear power plants and store the waste. But when asked, he admitted he hadn't done the same for solar! Why does solar 'cost modelling' not include the *huge* task of cleaning up and recycling 300 times the waste? At its current rate, Australia is on track for 50% renewable electricity in 2025

"Clean" solar is not so clean. But the real worry is EROEI - Energy Returned over Energy Invested - which measures the energy profit of a power plant after all the energy it cost to build it in the first place. Renewables have an OK EROEI on their own. But what about a 100% renewable grid? What about the energy to build all those pumped-hydro dams as 'batteries' for when the sun goes down and wind goes quiet? The figures on this paper might be a little old, but show that renewables + storage may not even be a high enough energy source to run our world. The Catch-22 of Energy Storage Dr James Hansen — the climatologist that diagnosed our climate problem — says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid

He recommends breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste getting 90 times the energy out of it. The final product is only radioactive for 500 years and then is safe. It's only 1 golf ball per person lifetime of 70 years. Disposing of it is trivial, as this 4 minute Argonne Labs video shows.

There are Molten Salt Reactors that *cannot* melt down EVER because they're already a liquid, and want to 'freeze up' into a giant salt crystal rather than 'melt down'. They don't use high pressure water, and so don't have that same explosive potential. They require power to WORK rather than power to keep cool, and if the power fails the hot liquid salt drains out of the reactor into safe storage tanks where it cannot fission. When was the last time gravity failed? Basically, these things automatically shut down if there's a problem. Homer Simpson couldn't break them!