no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / The Lounge - Smokers welcome / Energy in Europe... Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2022-09-07 21:12:08 (ID: 100169094) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
It depends on what you mean by "viable"
Can it be a big portion of national energy? You've answered it yourself (France). But I guess your concern is - is it reasonably safe? I think the answer is similar to asking if flying is safe. On average, fewer people die travelling by plane than, say, travelling by car. What can scare someone is that when there is a serious problem during a flight, several people die at once and there is virtually nothing they can do about it. I think precautions when dealing with nuclear plant are many times bigger than with other energy plants. Just like planes are looked at more carefully before take off than a car of the average Mr Smith going to work. Leaks, when they happen, are never random. Not even close to the results of some matches in RZA (hey! I'm winking! it was only a joke ). Seriously though, unfortunately human errors do happen. And they can have deadly consequences.
Personally, I don't think there is coming back from nuclear energy. Still, I'd much prefer if alternative sources, way safer, and as of today, still underdeveloped, got attention first. Solar energy is what I'd be especially happy if it hasn't been overlooked by the governing bodies in my own country like it was so far (yes, I know Poland isn't considered Western Europe, but we're getting there  ). Last edited on 2022-09-07 21:14:02 by jpnwrt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
c4snipes
|
posted: 2022-09-08 04:34:57 (ID: 100169096) Report Abuse |
|
Solar Energy is much less efficient energy-wise than Nuclear Power
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 10:29:02 (ID: 100169099) Edits found: 3 Report Abuse | |
|
c4snipes wrote:
Solar Energy is much less efficient energy-wise than Nuclear Power Even if it was less efficient, I was concentrating on "safe". Because that's how I understood your question. Regarding "efficiency" itself, my feeling for the word is kind of ambiguous. In science efficiency is a separate issue from the total we can obtain. I.e, if you obtain 10 grams from 100 grams and if you obtain 10 kg from 100 kg, the efficiency is identical. But I presume - you mean how much energy we can get. In which case you're absolutely right. Even though solar energy is in fact the energy from nuclear reactions, the amount we receive on Earth per year is much less than what we can obtain here, at home (so to speak, of course, at home  ; incidentally, I spent a few years at the same university, where a few years before one scientist had claimed to succeed with nuclear reaction in his bathtube  ).
But with that assumption, I think the example you gave yourself, France, I think is the best answer to your question? EDIT: Btw, I have no idea if the number you gave about France is right. But I see no reason not to believe it is correct. EDIT2: Hmm.. Actually... I admit I was speculating about the comparison between energy from the Sun and what we can obtain by performing forced nuclear reactions on Earth. But I am quite sure the amount of that solar energy that we are capable of using (!in excess of what Earth has to use naturally!), is less than what we could theoretically obtain from nuclear reactors. Not sure for how long we'd have enough material, if we wanted to match the Sun, though. Last edited on 2022-09-08 10:39:41 by jpnwrt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 10:50:39 (ID: 100169100) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
Sorry for yet another "also...". Fascinating topic, for me
Also, lets not forget, that any form of transfering energy from inner atomic, eventually leads to some part of it being converted to heat (if the fundamental laws of physics are right, and even though there is no proof of the laws of thermodynamics, they are universally accepted by everyone except the inventors of perpetuum mobile engines :irony icon here: ). I.e, it increases the warming of our planet. On the other hand, using solar energy is, in a way, forcing it to do some useful work (in physical terms) before it will warm the planet (but it will, anyway, work or no work). I'm not saying it's comparable to other sources of global warming. I have no clue. I am only pointing to something I believe for a fact, hoping someone else will evaluate if it's important or not. Or even will correct me. Last edited on 2022-09-08 10:51:45 by jpnwrt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 19:25:08 (ID: 100169114) Report Abuse | |
|
Is there any consensus on how much energy (percentage-wise) we can eventually get from solar?
Steve SD Blitz |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 20:04:36 (ID: 100169116) Report Abuse | |
|
I have no idea. I hope someone else knows that.
I'll tell you one thing from my personal experience. Experience with solar panels (not - photovoltaic). Poland is hardly a country known for high temperatures or exceedingly sunny weather. Especially in winter. I have solar panels on the roof. Quite often, even in winter, even if the sun is covered by clouds, I have to cover half of the panel surface to avoid overheating of water in the tank. Though of course that solution doesn't provide electrical energy. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 20:56:11 (ID: 100169117) Report Abuse | |
|
storage is the issue right know
Germany's Power Grid gets 10% solar input. And Germany is not (yet) a country known for its heat. And that does not include the amount of electrical power which is used for own consumption. It is far more cost effective to use the energy produced by your own than to push it in the grid |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-08 23:52:05 (ID: 100169120) Report Abuse | |
|
HH_KMN wrote:
(...) And Germany is not (yet) a country known for its heat.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-09 04:56:53 (ID: 100169124) Report Abuse | |
|
France has a very high percentage on energy from nuclear power plants, but as all countries no solution on how to handle the waste.
Funny fact this summer many france nuclear power plants were not running because of water shortage and the overall high temperature. One reason the european electricity production was lower than usual and the price did sky rocket. If you want to know something on nuclear power there is a documentation on Thorium and more on Netflix explaining a lot. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-09 12:57:39 (ID: 100169132) Report Abuse | |
|
If I recall correctly, France had to shut down nuclear power plants not only because of water shortage, but because the cooling water source got too hot, and with the warming up during the cooling process, the water that goes back into nature would become too warm, fish dies, rivers lose their bio balance and so on.
Germany found the conclusion to leave nuclear energy by the end of 2022, this happend with Fukushima in mind. And there is still no majority for nuclear energy, even with gas / energy shortage in sight - at least by the statistikcs I know, and I found to be trustworthy. The "most nuclear" nation in Europe is France, and as fair as I understood even french people are not happy with their energy politics, but this is only "I heard of it". Maybe we have a french manager who can shed some light on this. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Main / The Lounge - Smokers welcome / Energy in Europe... | |
