Nuclear Energy

[soulofcerberus]

Re: Nuclear Energy

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

Very very difficult, theres no feasible way to harness that energy right now, and probably won't be for a long time.

[Boatz]

Re: Nuclear Energy

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

That does sound really stupid...although theoretically, it's just like harnessing the power of a turbine...

But not for a while. They'll have to find a place to strap a BIG pendulum on the Earth, or something like that.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ShAiOnEi]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Right I guess it's just my imagination when I see a sunrise and different seasons but that wouldn't fit in with the revolution around the sun I guess the earth doesn't move it just magically seems like it rotates and the sun revolves around us?

[Relambrien]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

You bolded the wrong part, ShAiOnEi.

You can't use something on the Earth to harness the power of Earth's motion, because relative to that object, the Earth isn't moving at all. Because the Earth and the object are traveling at the same speed, the net difference is zero, thus there is zero energy to harness that way. Do you really feel like you're being pulled at 1000 mph every second of the day? No, because relative to you, the Earth doesn't move.

Motion requires a point of reference. My computer screen does not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around it. Likewise, I do not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around me. In relation to the sun, however, everything on the Earth, and the Earth itself, is moving.

[ShAiOnEi]

Re: Nuclear Energy

You bolded the wrong part, ShAiOnEi.

You can't use something on the Earth to harness the power of Earth's motion, because relative to that object, the Earth isn't moving at all. Because the Earth and the object are traveling at the same speed, the net difference is zero, thus there is zero energy to harness that way. Do you really feel like you're being pulled at 1000 mph every second of the day? No, because relative to you, the Earth doesn't move.

Motion requires a point of reference. My computer screen does not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around it. Likewise, I do not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around me. In relation to the sun, however, everything on the Earth, and the Earth itself, is moving.

Yes of course but the earth is moving and you can harness the energy of movement. I can't believe you just explained to me how everything doesn't move since on earth nothing seems to be moving you must really like to go way out there on every one of your posts.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Nuclear Energy

You have to be OUTSIDE that reference frame to even SEE the movement! So, yes, we could harness the earth's kinetic energy if we built a contraption in space that was LARGER THAN THE EARTH ITSELF.

Look, if you want to, Shai, build some sort of wheel that will be turned by the Earth's movement. Put it on the ground (though, it could be suspended anywhere in the Earth's atmosphere). Will the earth move the wheel? I'll let you answer that question after your little experiment.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ShAiOnEi]

Re: Nuclear Energy

You have to be OUTSIDE that reference frame to even SEE the movement! So, yes, we could harness the earth's kinetic energy if we built a contraption in space that was LARGER THAN THE EARTH ITSELF.

Look, if you want to, Shai, build some sort of wheel that will be turned by the Earth's movement. Put it on the ground (though, it could be suspended anywhere in the Earth's atmosphere). Will the earth move the wheel? I'll let you answer that question after your little experiment.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Ok I'll let you know when the experiment is done just give me a few days.

P.S. ROFL

It wasn't the idea of the massive structure.I was trying to point out that the earth does move and if this were possible you could actually harness LOL "moving earth energy".

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Okay, good job. You've pointed out a practically impossible way to harness a lot of energy. You've made a valuable contribution to this thread. Thanks.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Relambrien]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Yes of course but the earth is moving and you can harness the energy of movement. I can't believe you just explained to me how everything doesn't move since on earth nothing seems to be moving you must really like to go way out there on every one of your posts.

Actually that's sixth grade science, basic principles of motion. The first thing you ever learn about motion is that motion is completely relative. There is no absolute definition as to what is moving and what is not; motion is determined based on an object which is considered stationary (the reference point).

For all we know, Albuquerque, New Mexico could be the only completely immobile place in the universe (based on a reference point outside our universe), while everything else is moving.

Motion is relative. Get used to it.

[ljw5021]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Theory of relativity.

Read it, understand it, gloat.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Theory of relativity.

Read it, understand it, gloat.

Actually, that has nothing to do with this argument.

Newton's frames of reference, more like.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Re: Nuclear Energy

Hey, he saw the word 'relative' and responded to it. Picking single words is sort of becoming his schtick.

[Reach]

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.

Current nuclear powerplants can't meltdown. The accident at chernobyl was caused by human stupidity, running the plant improperly and without the strict regulations that now cover all powerplants.

Can none of us remember the people that died in coal mining accidents? And only 2-3 people died in the chernobyl accident itself. A meltdown like that will never happen again because of lockdown mechanisms built into the powerplants.

Also, Nuclear powers only gas emission is water. Pretty far from harmful. Nuclear waste, usually in small pebble form, can be stored very safely, and contrary to popular belief decays to safe levels relatively quickly (less than 100 years). It can also be reused in the reactor many times. Nuclear powerplant waste sites are extremely clean and safe.

So let's see. Environmentally they're the cleanest power source (hidden costs associated with wind and solar), and they generate by far the most power. The only real negative is cost of putting them up, which makes them a bad move politically, but environmentally they're the top choice really.

As for wind power, it doesn't generate enough power. On top of that, they're incredibly hard to place because 1. noise 2. they kill so many birds in many areas it's not even funny and 3. there are many hidden costs and emissions associated with wind power (production and then shipping of the parts).

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Nuclear Energy

The amount of hot water nuclear reactors put off is also difficult to deal with.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com