Nuclear Energy

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mhanimemastr
    FFR Player
    • May 2007
    • 3

    #1

    Nuclear Energy

    Throughout my life, I have always been fascinated with nuclear energy, splitting of atoms, energy, etc. Recently, I had a report to do for summer school, and I got into researching. It would seem that the current method of Nuclear Fission isn't as energy-efficient as it could be, as with all heat-to-energy reactors. I believe there is a way to turn the thermal energy directly into electricity, versus the way they work right now which is:
    Thermal Energy from the fission reactor boils water (usually Deuterium, or "heavy water") into steam to power a turbine.
    The turbine spins, powering a generator to provide the electricity that we use daily.

    However, this seems so highly inefficient because much of the (potential?) energy is lost by converting the thermal energy into steam, then electricity, whereas there is possibly a way to turn the thermal energy directly into electricity.

    Your thoughts and comments are welcome, but please remember to follow the rules.
    Last edited by mhanimemastr; 07-2-2007, 06:59 PM.
  • Hollus
    FFR Player
    • Apr 2007
    • 66

    #2
    Re: Nuclear Energy

    And the magical way to transform heat directly into energy (presumably electricity) is...?

    Comment

    • GuidoHunter
      is against custom titles
      • Oct 2003
      • 7371

      #3
      Re: Nuclear Energy

      First of all, be VERY careful of your terminology here. Heat is just moving energy, so "turning heat into energy" doesn't make a lick of sense. It's okay to say "thermal energy" or "electrical energy", since "heat" and "energy that we use daily" are completely misleading.

      Secondly, Nuclear reactors are the most efficient mass-energy producers we have.

      Thirdly, yeah, we'd love to have mini nuclear reactors in our homes and get to bypass power plants altogether, but as of right now, that's totally unfeasible.

      Fourthly, if any of us could invent a way to directly transform nuclear energy into electrical energy, that person would soon be the richest man in the world. The reason we use thermal energy as the middleman is because it's the product of a nuclear fission reaction.

      EDIT (ninja'd):
      Originally posted by Hollus
      And the magical way to transform heat directly into energy (presumably electricity) is...?
      Uh, you use the heat to boil water, and the resulting steam turns a turbine which pulls a magnet in and out of a wire coil, thus inducing current.

      --Guido


      Originally posted by Grandiagod
      Originally posted by Grandiagod
      She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
      Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

      Comment

      • Hollus
        FFR Player
        • Apr 2007
        • 66

        #4
        Re: Nuclear Energy

        Originally posted by GuidoHunter
        First of all, be VERY careful of your terminology here. Heat is just moving energy, so "turning heat into energy" doesn't make a lick of sense. It's okay to say "thermal energy" or "electrical energy", since "heat" and "energy that we use daily" are completely misleading.

        Secondly, Nuclear reactors are the most efficient mass-energy producers we have.

        Thirdly, yeah, we'd love to have mini nuclear reactors in our homes and get to bypass power plants altogether, but as of right now, that's totally unfeasible.

        Fourthly, if any of us could invent a way to directly transform nuclear energy into electrical energy, that person would soon be the richest man in the world. The reason we use thermal energy as the middleman is because it's the product of a nuclear fission reaction.

        EDIT (ninja'd):


        Uh, you use the heat to boil water, and the resulting steam turns a turbine which pulls a magnet in and out of a wire coil, thus inducing current.

        --Guido

        http://andy.mikee385.com
        I know that. The OP was talking about bypassing the whole steam and turbine area and directly producing usable energy from heat.

        Comment

        • GuidoHunter
          is against custom titles
          • Oct 2003
          • 7371

          #5
          Re: Nuclear Energy

          Hollus: note my first point. There was no way I could have known what you were saying since you misused the word "heat".

          --Guido


          Originally posted by Grandiagod
          Originally posted by Grandiagod
          She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
          Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

          Comment

          • mhanimemastr
            FFR Player
            • May 2007
            • 3

            #6
            Re: Nuclear Energy

            Sorry about my terminology, let's remember though that I'm a sophomore in high school, not a nuclear physicist.

            Comment

            • GuidoHunter
              is against custom titles
              • Oct 2003
              • 7371

              #7
              Re: Nuclear Energy

              Very well. Just be sure to know what the words you use mean in the future. The internet has many resources for you to find such things out.

              Now, do you understand what the problem is? You made a wildly ridiculous statement without any substantive support. Either support your claim or we can only conclude that, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, you're full of ****.

              --Guido


              Originally posted by Grandiagod
              Originally posted by Grandiagod
              She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
              Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

              Comment

              • mhanimemastr
                FFR Player
                • May 2007
                • 3

                #8
                Re: Nuclear Energy

                yeah i'm aware it probably isn't a very feasible idea at this point, but possibly in the future they will find ways to turn thermal energy directly into electricity, however impossible it seems at the current time. I suppose FFR forums isn't exactly the best place to put suggestions for Nuclear Scientists, I doubt that they play FFR in their spare time.

                Comment

                • GuidoHunter
                  is against custom titles
                  • Oct 2003
                  • 7371

                  #9
                  Re: Nuclear Energy

                  That's the thing, though: you don't have a suggestion.

                  --Guido


                  Originally posted by Grandiagod
                  Originally posted by Grandiagod
                  She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
                  Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

                  Comment

                  • devonin
                    Very Grave Indeed
                    Event Staff
                    FFR Simfile Author
                    • Apr 2004
                    • 10120

                    #10
                    Re: Nuclear Energy

                    ITT we make completely unreasonable suggestions.

                    I think they should make a Grand Unified Theory

                    Comment

                    • Bahamut-X
                      FFR Player
                      FFR Simfile Author
                      • Nov 2004
                      • 3399

                      #11
                      Re: Nuclear Energy

                      Nuclear FUSION is where it's at.

                      Too bad we'd create catastrophic explosions and **** if we attempted to manually induce it with the current technology we have. If we could find a way to safely fuse atoms together however, all energy problems would be resolved since (I'm pretty sure) it's completely renewable and waste free.

                      Comment

                      • soulofcerberus
                        FFR Player
                        • Aug 2006
                        • 367

                        #12
                        Re: Nuclear Energy

                        Don't worry that said FUSION has to be cold... like an ice cube

                        Like giant radioactive ice cubes solving the worlds energy problems forever

                        Comment

                        • ljw5021
                          FFR Player
                          • Jun 2007
                          • 40

                          #13
                          Re: Nuclear Energy

                          Well I'm not so sure about all that, but I can't wait to at least glance at the Nuclear Engineering facilities at Penn State. I'm Aerospace so I don't get to use them, but I heard they're friggin' awesome.

                          Comment

                          • Boatz
                            FFR Player
                            • Jun 2007
                            • 179

                            #14
                            Re: Nuclear Energy

                            Can none of us remember Chernoble? That is nuclear fission screwing up.

                            Basically, the cons of nuclear energy far outweigh the goods. Nuclear plants cost loads to set up and loads to decomission when their done with. They produce harmful waste, which, try as we might, can't really be disposed of. And plus? Meltdowns are killer.

                            The only upside is the fuel cost is low.

                            Now wind power, that's where the future is. You can't run out of wind, they're very cheap, and despite what other people say, I think they're beautiful.



                            or

                            And you should use this:


                            Tokens: 18
                            Skill Tokens: 10

                            Comment

                            • ShAiOnEi
                              FFR Player
                              • May 2007
                              • 1110

                              #15
                              Re: Nuclear Energy

                              Why don't we just harness the energy of the moving earth. I mean how difficult could that really be?
                              I love my son Auron

                              Epic thread killer

                              Comment

                              Working...