ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 are you sure there's no more radiation left there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yes, I am 100% sure there is no radioactive fallout in Nevada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 plus the fact you said nuclear waste can be used for the environment. It's supposed to take around 3 million years before it'll decay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Meh (I like that word)I am skepticle on how accurate half-lives areAnd I said there is a process that can make the waste back into fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Does that process take much energy to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 it depends on what you are changing into fuel, how much you are trying to change into fuel, and also the equipment used to change the waste into fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 that's true, but the point is there's no such thing as free energy. Even the natural oil requires a conversion process to be turned into refined fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 true, but that sort of takes us back to the fusion part of the debate that I really didn't like so I wont go on any further about the fusion part and nor will I comment on it in the future anymore. I am trying to find a way to get more energy out of a solar panel and to try to use less energy to convert it into energy. so far it isnt going so well. I am almost about to hit a dead end if I continue any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 that's what plenty of people are trying today with solar panels. So far the result remains the same, it takes much of the captured energy to convert it into the form of energy they want it to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 so far I have only found a way to get 3.692401% more energy out of a solar panel. I have been working on some old broken ones I found and now they work like they were just from the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 that's considered very good by today's standards. The standard ones have to use up more than half the energy captured (I'll have to check again later on) for the conversion. The remaining energy simply isn't enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I have tried as many was as I could to get the most energy out of a solar panel, but I still have to try 127 different methods to make sure which one gives the most energy with out wasting that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Please. Less than 10 years ago we were still at the break even point, where you put some amt of energy in, you get the same back out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 true, but so far they have only been able to more energy out of nuclear power than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 it's certainly the most effective one, but resistance against nuclear power will continue due to nuclear weapons development (as well as the Cheynobol incident) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 the worse disaster due to nuclear waste, I'm not surprised you brought it up. amazingly after its been contained for a while the radio activity inside has died down considerably, but the seal isnt permanent nor is it perfect because they have already had leaks before. I'm not sure if there are any leaks now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 yeah well the public still needs some convincing, even if a nuclear meltdown actually DOES happen, it is not going to be like a nuclear explosion. The nuclear material in the reactors aren't enriched enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 at Cheynobol yes, but near where I live is a nuclear power plant that has highly enriched nuclear material in the reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 you need to enrich them even further in a nuclear weapon though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 true, the atomic bomb needed lots nuclear energy. so do war heads, but war heads just dont need as much as an atomic bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 that's true, but that's still regarding the AMOUNT of nuclear material. Whether it's enriched or not is a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 That's also what I meant, just worded it wrong. But you are correct at the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 the disaster at Cherynbol was devastating, but you also have to factor in the year it happened in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 correct. back then they really didnt know how to contain it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 You guys I still stick to my compressed Nitrogen theory. It could really help the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.