well, then maybe we should USE the densest matter as our energy capturer.ashurbanipal said:The problem with Gamma radiation is that it has such a high frequency that it penetrates all but the densest matter without losing any of that energy. Solar pannels work because part of the light hitting them gives up enough energy to free electrons from the material in the pannel itself.
no no no. You're not listening to me. We would domesticate the very thing that poses the thread of a nuclear holocaust, thus NO MORE THREAT!Simon W. Moon said:And, if it did work, wouldn't the downside of a nuclear holocaust kind of outweigh the benefits of harvesting energy from background radiation?
well, then maybe we should USE the densest matter as our energy capturer.
?tecoyah said:Two Words...."Spent Fuel"
Maybe we could use the same material that solar plants use, only we squeeze the material to currently unthinkable levels of tightness. Think of it like geotexturing, only for an energy source.OdgenTugbyGlub said:I don't know what material we could use for this, as lead (the element most commonly used to shield from gamma radiation) doesnt produce e- when exposed to gamma radiation (pretty sure it doesnt is what i learned in nuclear chem is right). I don't think its a likely solution, but i guess anything is possible.
Once again, I'm not 100% sure how this works, but I think its not the density of the material itself, but the density of the elements used to comprise it. Lead is a "heavy" enough element to cause the gamma rad. to lose energy, but I'm not sure the photophlactic (spl??) cells could do this, even compressed to great density. Even then, I'm not sure if gamma rad. would have the same affect as the relativly low-energy photon barrarge on the panel.Maybe we could use the same material that solar plants use, only we squeeze the material to currently unthinkable levels of tightness. Think of it like geotexturing, only for an energy source.
first of all, get a better sig (I just read it)OdgenTugbyGlub said:Once again, I'm not 100% sure how this works, but I think its not the density of the material itself, but the density of the elements used to comprise it. Lead is a "heavy" enough element to cause the gamma rad. to lose energy, but I'm not sure the photophlactic (spl??) cells could do this, even compressed to great density. Even then, I'm not sure if gamma rad. would have the same affect as the relativly low-energy photon barrarge on the panel.
I take offense to that sir, its a good a judge of a man as any other rule.... :lol:first of all, get a better sig (I just read it)
dstebbins said:My son is very good at science. Today, he came home and started lecturing about radioactive decay and all that gobbledegook. Some of it I is a recap from my college physics class (it's amazing, isn't it, what used to be college level is now taught in 9th grade).
Anyway, one thing he tells me (that I remember now that I'm reminded) is that radioactive elements emit gamma radiation, which is just a very highly energized form of light. This made me think of solar power plants. They capture the energy that light contains and distributes it among the subscribers to their service.
That made me think of something interesting: Instead of worrying about the gamma radiation triggering a nuclear holocaust, could we capture it using the same methods that solar plants use to capture light? If we can create a solar absorber good enough to capture 99% of the gamma rays, couldn't we make nuclear plants perfectly safe?
I figured I'd ask for you guys' insight before I sent this idea to the Department of Energy.
I'm sorry it took so long to post this, but I just thought of somethingOdgenTugbyGlub said:Once again, I'm not 100% sure how this works, but I think its not the density of the material itself, but the density of the elements used to comprise it. Lead is a "heavy" enough element to cause the gamma rad. to lose energy, but I'm not sure the photophlactic (spl??) cells could do this, even compressed to great density. Even then, I'm not sure if gamma rad. would have the same affect as the relativly low-energy photon barrarge on the panel.
dstebbins said:I'm sorry it took so long to post this, but I just thought of something
Perhaps, since photolactic cells only capture 1% of the energy, maybe we could use 100x the thickness. If a meter captures light, we'll use a hundred meters, or perhaps a kilometer, to capture the gamma rays. Would THAT work?
that doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Maybe if you were to give me the exact page that the info was on, I wouldn't have to painstakingly look through the entire article.Engimo said:http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm
Read this, it will probably clear up most of the questions that you have about the idea.
dstebbins said:that doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Maybe if you were to give me the exact page that the info was on, I wouldn't have to painstakingly look through the entire article.
dstebbins said:My son is very good at science. Today, he came home and started lecturing about radioactive decay and all that gobbledegook. Some of it I is a recap from my college physics class (it's amazing, isn't it, what used to be college level is now taught in 9th grade).
Anyway, one thing he tells me (that I remember now that I'm reminded) is that radioactive elements emit gamma radiation, which is just a very highly energized form of light. This made me think of solar power plants. They capture the energy that light contains and distributes it among the subscribers to their service.
That made me think of something interesting: Instead of worrying about the gamma radiation triggering a nuclear holocaust, could we capture it using the same methods that solar plants use to capture light? If we can create a solar absorber good enough to capture 99% of the gamma rays, couldn't we make nuclear plants perfectly safe?
I figured I'd ask for you guys' insight before I sent this idea to the Department of Energy.
okay, that settles it. This wouldn't work. If everyone had just said this at the beginning, we could have saved ourselves a lot of bickering.Scarecrow Akhbar said:No.
First off, nuclear energy is the safest form of electrical power generation there is, and it's totally benign to the environment.
Gamma radiation from the decay of fission products alone doesn't produce enough heat to make it worth collecting. After reactor shut down, when fission is reduced to less than criticality, energy has to be fed back into the coolant water to maintain shutdown temperatures within prescribed levels, usually within less than a day of shutdown. That depends on how long and how hard the reactor was running before shutdown.
Normal background radioactivity is far to weak to be useful. Sunlight is a useful power source inside the orbit of Mars because of it's intensity. It's very much like being able to use a waterfall to power a mill but not with a urinating puppy.
Missions to the outer solar system require onboard heat sources like plutonium to drive electrical systems, and the Russians have flown at least one true fission reactor that I'm aware of.
For starters, not everyone has the knowledge required to answer the question, or have the knowledge to understand the question or the answer. Of course, that doesn't stop a lot of people who know nothing about physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. from putting in their 2 cents worth of opinion.:lol:dstebbins said:okay, that settles it. This wouldn't work. If everyone had just said this at the beginning, we could have saved ourselves a lot of bickering.
Again, a response from someone who knows very little about physics. You can't believe everything you read in Popular Science, or Popular Mechanics. Fusion energy may be in our future, our far distant future, but don't buy any stock in related industries for your grandchildren, as they won't see it either.steen said:Nuclear energy is no safer than other fuel sources that wrestle with waste products.
But the big focus should be put into fusion energy. Abundant, clean, never run out. Then all the other stuff goes obsolete (and my heart won't bleed for Exxon or Haliburton when that happens)
As I said.UtahBill said:BTW, batteries do pollute. You have to consider any material used from mining/processing/refining to construction and then use and finally, disposal. Only during use do batteries look good when it comes to pollution. Every other step is dirty.
The same goes for solar cells.
steen said:Nuclear energy is no safer than other fuel sources that wrestle with waste products.
But the big focus should be put into fusion energy. Abundant, clean, never run out. Then all the other stuff goes obsolete (and my heart won't bleed for Exxon or Haliburton when that happens)
I guess I should have been more clear. Yes, the wastes from the "other" energies DO kill people. The risk of nuclear power fuel might be less per year, but stretches further into the future. The total risk over time is relatively comparable.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Of course it is. Nuclear waste is contained inside the reactor until it's time to take it out. Then it's extracted under very controlled conditions and it's totally possible to "dispose" of the stuff in a very controlled manner, especially since in it's processed form it's only a few hundred pounds of waste per year.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with nuclear power, it is MUCH safer that sending troops to Iraq to die for Haliburton's profit. I am supportive of nuclear power. I am merely pointing out that each industry has their own problem.(Steen: Both Utah Bill and I have practical working experience with fission generated power.)
steen said:I guess I should have been more clear. Yes, the wastes from the "other" energies DO kill people. The risk of nuclear power fuel might be less per year, but stretches further into the future. The total risk over time is relatively comparable.
Hmm, I must admit not having heard of that one before. I have only heard of Yuka (sp?) Mountain, which never seemed that good an idea to me.Scarecrow Akhbar said:You have no basis for this claim.
If things were done properly, nuclear waste pose no threat whatsoever. I know the environmentalists would scream, but the best place to dispose of nuclear wastes are in canisters embedded in the abyssal plains of the deep blue sea. No place has a more stable environment, unchanging on the order of millions of year, no place is less accessible to man.
Done right, nuclear power doesn't have a down side.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?