registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,204 
Likes: 6,011
|
Post by registerme on Feb 9, 2022 12:59:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 14:58:56 GMT
40 years work to get a tiny bit of energy for 5 seconds, yipee
BTW no one has explained to me yet what we are going to do with all this "low cost!" energy. Surely it is just more global warming as to use it for anything we will have to run a thermal engine off it and so we just won a hotter planet , well done guys.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,615
Likes: 4,190
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 9, 2022 15:07:36 GMT
Enough to boil 60 kettles, and twice the output of similar tests 25 years ago.
Hardly a major breakthrough!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 9, 2022 15:26:30 GMT
BTW no one has explained to me yet what we are going to do with all this "low cost!" energy. Surely it is just more global warming as to use it for anything we will have to run a thermal engine off it and so we just won a hotter planet , well done guys.
Umm, it'll replace fossil fuels in electricity generation... Nuclear fusion alongside the current fission. UK electricity generation is still ~40% gas. No, fusion isn't "energy positive"... yet. But it's very likely to be in the next few years. No, this isn't a big step forward in and of itself. But it's a big step towards that big step forward. From that Beeb article - "But the significance is that it validates design choices that have been made for an even bigger fusion reactor now being constructed in France." (ITER) www.vox.com/22801265/fusion-energy-electricity-power-climate-change-research-iterwww.iter.org/
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 16:13:00 GMT
yes I understand that, I worked with the Jet Engineers for a bit 40 years ago, but this will not be working for another 20 years (2042) by which time we need to be net zero anyway.
My point is that like ffuels, this sort of energy is coming from within the planet and so just makes the place hotter, it would be better to use solar and wind which come from outside the planet
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 9, 2022 16:34:56 GMT
My point is that like ffuels, this sort of energy is coming from within the planet and so just makes the place hotter, it would be better to use solar and wind which come from outside the planet
It turns hydrogen into helium. The most abundant element in the universe into the second most abundant.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 9, 2022 16:47:50 GMT
The solar panels on a single UK house produce more power on a sunny day in April.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 16:54:02 GMT
It turns hydrogen into helium. The most abundant element in the universe into the second most abundant. Thank you, but (hopefully if it ever gets to work) it will also generate a lot of heat that has to go somewhere and we don't really want any more heat, getting into balance with the rest of solar system would be better, just churning out heat...
Fossil Fuels have two problems, they release the energy stored for millenium in just a few years and they increase the CO2, CH4, NOx molecules in the upper atmosphere so stopping heat escaping from the planet. This "solution" is good because it doesn't generate the gases but it still generates the heat.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,204
Likes: 6,011
|
Post by registerme on Feb 9, 2022 17:01:22 GMT
Christ, some of you guys would have poo poo'ed the Wright Brothers on Dec 17  . |
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Feb 9, 2022 18:10:38 GMT
It turns hydrogen into helium. The most abundant element in the universe into the second most abundant. Thank you, but (hopefully if it ever gets to work) it will also generate a lot of heat that has to go somewhere and we don't really want any more heat, getting into balance with the rest of solar system would be better, just churning out heat...
Fossil Fuels have two problems, they release the energy stored for millenium in just a few years and they increase the CO2, CH4, NOx molecules in the upper atmosphere so stopping heat escaping from the planet. This "solution" is good because it doesn't generate the gases but it still generates the heat. Could the plants be based in cold inhabited places where the heat given off could be captured to heat nearby premises? Of course most of the heat will still be retained within the planet, but so does the heat produced by heating systems powered by wind & sun. To avoid that you could: - move huge numbers of people out of sometimes cold regions - let them freeze - reduce the population to a sustainable level (this is the default which will be adopted by Nature in any case)
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 10, 2022 11:32:22 GMT
Surely global warming is a good thing !
if the average temperature in the UK in the winter rises by 1 degree then I will use less gas to heat my house, in the summer surely more people will stay in the UK for holidays. Also we will be able to grow more grapes / exotic crops
result of those less emissions less air miles
I'd say it's all a win
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 10, 2022 12:08:11 GMT
Surely global warming is a good thing ! if the average temperature in the UK in the winter rises by 1 degree then I will use less gas to heat my house, in the summer surely more people will stay in the UK for holidays. Also we will be able to grow more grapes / exotic crops result of those less emissions less air miles I'd say it's all a win As crazy as it sounds, there are people of the Lance Foreman variety that genuiniely believe and promote this line of thought.
|
|
mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 500
Member is Online
|
Post by mogish on Feb 28, 2022 8:55:00 GMT
maybe we need to resurrect this thread......
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 28, 2022 17:15:16 GMT
Why don't we go with the RR proposed small, modular, cheap, quick nuclear reactors? These were/are surely good news if we are going to be short of energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2022 17:28:11 GMT
Why don't we go with the RR proposed small, modular, cheap, quick nuclear reactors? These were/are surely good news if we are going to be short of energy. Well, 1 do you understand what they mean by small and quick? 2 do you understand where the fuel comes from? (Ends in ..stan if that helps 3 do you understand where the spent fuel will go ( generally end in ..ussia) and 4 are you prepared to have these small units next to your house? Answers on a post card....
|
|
.
