Is anyone against unlimited energy supplies for the world...

[Freewill]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

 

[bripat9643]

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

It isn't nuclear...it isn't any specific energy type...perhaps some source we haven't considered yet...the main point...it is all the energy we want and more...would there be any objection to having as much energy as we needed to grow our societies and allow more people to exist and to live in a 1st world or better life style...any down side to that...?

Of course there would be objections from the nations rich in oil and gas, from those who own the mineral rights, the companies that drill wells, operate pipelines, supertankers, petroleum wholesalers,and retailers, developers and marketers of alternative energy sources, manufacturers sellers of pollution control equipment. These businesses and countries would have much to loose and would surely use their considerable financial resource to see that no such energy source every saw the light of day.

This reminds of an old movie called "The Man in the White Suit" with Alex Guinness who invented a cloth that was indestructible and would last forever..

How could they possibly stop it?

 

[Ernie S.]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

She's thinking that we should have thousands of rolling reactors derailing all over the world.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

It isn't nuclear...it isn't any specific energy type...perhaps some source we haven't considered yet...the main point...it is all the energy we want and more...would there be any objection to having as much energy as we needed to grow our societies and allow more people to exist and to live in a 1st world or better life style...any down side to that...?

Hello,

Knowing some of the shit you've posted in the past, I'm left trying to guess where you are hoping this thread goes. Who do you think would object to a safe, green, readily available and low cost form of energy?

Why would you ask this question if you don't have someone in mind?

This is known as a troll thread. Who is your target?

 

[mamooth]

Liquid fuels can be manufactured. It just takes a big energy input. We don't do it very much now because it's not energy-efficient, but with a theoretical future of unlimited energy, that wouldn't be a problem, so there would be unlimited liquid fuels to propel vehicles.

And on the topic of living creatures repairing limited amounts of radiation damage ...

DNA repair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

Liquid fuels can be manufactured. It just takes a big energy input. We don't do it very much now because it's not energy-efficient, but with a theoretical future of unlimited energy, that wouldn't be a problem, so there would be unlimited liquid fuels to propel vehicles.

It wouldn't necessarily even be liquid fuels. If a workable fusion system is developed, there'd be tons of unusable light hydrogen available for use as fuel. The result of combustion, water!

 

[Kosh]

Liquid fuels can be manufactured. It just takes a big energy input. We don't do it very much now because it's not energy-efficient, but with a theoretical future of unlimited energy, that wouldn't be a problem, so there would be unlimited liquid fuels to propel vehicles.

And on the topic of living creatures repairing limited amounts of radiation damage ...

DNA repair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liquid fuel goes into your gas tank every time you fill up your SUV.

unlimited energy does not exist..

Even the sun will eventually burn itself out.

 

[bripat9643]

Liquid fuels can be manufactured. It just takes a big energy input. We don't do it very much now because it's not energy-efficient, but with a theoretical future of unlimited energy, that wouldn't be a problem, so there would be unlimited liquid fuels to propel vehicles.

It wouldn't necessarily even be liquid fuels. If a workable fusion system is developed, there'd be tons of unusable light hydrogen available for use as fuel. The result of combustion, water!

Why would fusion produce tons of "light hydrogen?" The amount of Hydrogen consumed in a fusion power plant would be minuscule.

 

[konradv]

Liquid fuels can be manufactured. It just takes a big energy input. We don't do it very much now because it's not energy-efficient, but with a theoretical future of unlimited energy, that wouldn't be a problem, so there would be unlimited liquid fuels to propel vehicles.

It wouldn't necessarily even be liquid fuels. If a workable fusion system is developed, there'd be tons of unusable light hydrogen available for use as fuel. The result of combustion, water!

Why would fusion produce tons of "light hydrogen?" The amount of Hydrogen consumed in a fusion power plant would be minuscule.

Fusion doesn't produce the light hydrogen, but hydrolyzing water to get the trace amounts of tritium present, for example, would liberate lots of light hydrogen for other uses.

 

[elektra]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

No, you are simply a liar, why who knows, I never said what you state.
Funny, you see you are wrong yet keep repeating the same mantra.

You must be upset cause I had to point out to you that the diesel engines ran electric motors.

You fail, your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is simply, stupidity. They run on Electricity which Nuclear Power can make.

Obviously you felt the fool, as you prove yourself to be.

 

[elektra]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

She's thinking that we should have thousands of rolling reactors derailing all over the world.

You obviously are very confused, you do realize my avatar is from a, "record label", not some "God", of Greek legend. See how easy it is to be wrong about something.

Nuclear power, is the future, China thinks so, and is now leading the world with our technology.

 

[Freewill]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

No, you are simply a liar, why who knows, I never said what you state.
Funny, you see you are wrong yet keep repeating the same mantra.

You must be upset cause I had to point out to you that the diesel engines ran electric motors.

You fail, your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is simply, stupidity. They run on Electricity which Nuclear Power can make.

Obviously you felt the fool, as you prove yourself to be.

You said this: "Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity."

You are wrong on so many levels and you double down on your "mistakes." First of all freight trains do not run on electricity as the power source, which is the discussion. Secondly nuclear power produces energy not electricity, it must be converted.

 

[elektra]

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

No, you are simply a liar, why who knows, I never said what you state.
Funny, you see you are wrong yet keep repeating the same mantra.

You must be upset cause I had to point out to you that the diesel engines ran electric motors.

You fail, your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is simply, stupidity. They run on Electricity which Nuclear Power can make.

Obviously you felt the fool, as you prove yourself to be.

You said this: "Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity."

You are wrong on so many levels and you double down on your "mistakes." First of all freight trains do not run on electricity as the power source, which is the discussion. Secondly nuclear power produces energy not electricity, it must be converted.

All freight trains use Electric Motors, they literally turn the wheels.

Freight is also moved by ships, as I stated.

Nuclear power makes steam if you wish to be technical, the boronated water is pumped through the reactor by the primary coolant pumps, which pumps the water through the hot leg of the steam generator, after the primary water passes through the hot leg of the steam generator it exits the cold leg and returns to the reactor where it travels through the piping hot fuel rods. The Secondary side of the Steam Generator is where the steam is produced, in the super-heater region, the steam continues upward within the Steam Generator through moisture separators. The Dry Steam than travels to the turbine building, outside of the containment building, where steam powers the turbine that turns the generator that makes electricity

Nuclear power plants are nothing more than giant steam generators. If you want to be technical, and the last time I checked trains used to run on steam.

"Nuclear Power produces energy not electricity"? Wow, Electricity is not Energy?

Nuclear Power Plants produce steam, steam has been used to move trains. So many ways Nuclear Power can be used but it is not.

Cheap Power makes life easy, makes for a robust industry, we could do so much with Nuclear Power but we have to fight morons who's understanding is on display, here in this thread.

Liberal/Democrat Green/Renewable energy supporters really lack imagination. But its not about imagination, its about the USA being a weak petty nation that Liberals can fix and make better, by limiting how long we take a shower to how long we can afford to keep our lights on.

 

[Freewill]

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

No, you are simply a liar, why who knows, I never said what you state.
Funny, you see you are wrong yet keep repeating the same mantra.

You must be upset cause I had to point out to you that the diesel engines ran electric motors.

You fail, your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is simply, stupidity. They run on Electricity which Nuclear Power can make.

Obviously you felt the fool, as you prove yourself to be.

You said this: "Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity."

You are wrong on so many levels and you double down on your "mistakes." First of all freight trains do not run on electricity as the power source, which is the discussion. Secondly nuclear power produces energy not electricity, it must be converted.

All freight trains use Electric Motors, they literally turn the wheels.

Freight is also moved by ships, as I stated.

Nuclear power makes steam if you wish to be technical, the boronated water is pumped through the reactor by the primary coolant pumps, which pumps the water through the hot leg of the steam generator, after the primary water passes through the hot leg of the steam generator it exits the cold leg and returns to the reactor where it travels through the piping hot fuel rods. The Secondary side of the Steam Generator is where the steam is produced, in the super-heater region, the steam continues upward within the Steam Generator through moisture separators. The Dry Steam than travels to the turbine building, outside of the containment building, where steam powers the turbine that turns the generator that makes electricity

Nuclear power plants are nothing more than giant steam generators. If you want to be technical, and the last time I checked trains used to run on steam.

"Nuclear Power produces energy not electricity"? Wow, Electricity is not Energy?

Nuclear Power Plants produce steam, steam has been used to move trains. So many ways Nuclear Power can be used but it is not.

Cheap Power makes life easy, makes for a robust industry, we could do so much with Nuclear Power but we have to fight morons who's understanding is on display, here in this thread.

Liberal/Democrat Green/Renewable energy supporters really lack imagination. But its not about imagination, its about the USA being a weak petty nation that Liberals can fix and make better, by limiting how long we take a shower to how long we can afford to keep our lights on.

Ok, you know a little bit about a pressurized water reactor, Westinghouse to be sure.

Fail.

Me thinks some people in this thread need to spend more time in the energy subforum, or just take a basic physics class at their local community college.

There is no free lunch. You can't get something for nothing. There is always a cost, and waste. The basic Laws of Thermodynamics dictate this, and cannot be trumped. Ever. Period. End sentence. Full stop.

Nuclear and green energy will not move freight, will not kill bugs, will not fertilize crops, will not provide plastics, rubber, enamel and 10,000 other things that fossil fuels are used for. Nevermind that nuclear plants require and enormous amount of hydrocarbon energy to build and maintain, and nevermind that they each require a decade to safely decommission or power down in the event of a crisis. THey are a blight on the land, as we've already learned twice in last 30 years.

Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity.

We power ships with nuclear power in the navy, so your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is pure hogwash.

Last time I looked freight trains ran on a diesel engine driving electric motors. There is no third rail on the US railroad. You are thinking subways.

No, you are simply a liar, why who knows, I never said what you state.
Funny, you see you are wrong yet keep repeating the same mantra.

You must be upset cause I had to point out to you that the diesel engines ran electric motors.

You fail, your idea that nuclear power can not move freight is simply, stupidity. They run on Electricity which Nuclear Power can make.

Obviously you felt the fool, as you prove yourself to be.

You said this: "Freight trains operate on electricity, last time I checked nuclear power produces electricity."

You are wrong on so many levels and you double down on your "mistakes." First of all freight trains do not run on electricity as the power source, which is the discussion. Secondly nuclear power produces energy not electricity, it must be converted.

All freight trains use Electric Motors, they literally turn the wheels.

Freight is also moved by ships, as I stated.

Nuclear power makes steam if you wish to be technical, the boronated water is pumped through the reactor by the primary coolant pumps, which pumps the water through the hot leg of the steam generator, after the primary water passes through the hot leg of the steam generator it exits the cold leg and returns to the reactor where it travels through the piping hot fuel rods. The Secondary side of the Steam Generator is where the steam is produced, in the super-heater region, the steam continues upward within the Steam Generator through moisture separators. The Dry Steam than travels to the turbine building, outside of the containment building, where steam powers the turbine that turns the generator that makes electricity

Nuclear power plants are nothing more than giant steam generators. If you want to be technical, and the last time I checked trains used to run on steam.

"Nuclear Power produces energy not electricity"? Wow, Electricity is not Energy?

Nuclear Power Plants produce steam, steam has been used to move trains. So many ways Nuclear Power can be used but it is not.

Cheap Power makes life easy, makes for a robust industry, we could do so much with Nuclear Power but we have to fight morons who's understanding is on display, here in this thread.

Liberal/Democrat Green/Renewable energy supporters really lack imagination. But its not about imagination, its about the USA being a weak petty nation that Liberals can fix and make better, by limiting how long we take a shower to how long we can afford to keep our lights on.

So now you triple down on making "mistakes."

You are now trying to cover for your idiotic statement that freight trains run on electricity that nuclear power stations could supply. Freight trains run on DIESEL which generate electricity they have NOTHING to do with external supplies. Give it up already.

Secondly, you understanding of nuclear power generation I put on the secretarial level. First of all the coolant pumps are in the cold leg of a pressurized water reactor. Secondly there is no super heated steam coming from the steam generator of a pressurized water reactor. Super heat comes after the HP turbine. Thirdly not all reactors are PWR. Some are BWR and use no boron. Naval reactors are pressurized water reactors that also do not use boron.

With that said, nuclear power does not have to generate steam to generate electricity. SNAP reactors were designed to operate without steam.

I am all for cheap reliable energy. No problem there but pie in the sky believing that someone is going to make electricity for free is foolish. We are in the age of being gouged for residential electricity because the industrial load has been reduced by government policy. Used to be that the big electric furnace paid the way for residential, not no more.