Green energy ???

[ABMax24]

What efficient system is used to charge the lithium ion and what is that real carbon footprint?? lol
Have never seen a REAL energy transfer system that is efficient when you dig out the REAL truth.

If I had to guess probably the same electrical system that powers every other electrical appliance around the world, of the same efficiency that no one seems to have a problem with when they turn the oven on to cook the turkey on thanksgiving day or turn the AC on in the heat of the summer. So what's your point?

And what's the REAL truth, care to explain that?

 

[Stg2Suby]

Well this is timely, Alberta partnering with a few other provinces to develop SMR's

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...dular-reactors-government-of-canada-1.5677983

 

[Brian Kublik]

A Good read, a bit long but educational. go to Mines, Minerals, and Green Energy.

 

[ZRrrr]

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

Problem I see...there is no other power company, oil company or mining company that wants to see any low cost, high output, readily accessible energy system. They have tons of money, high priced lawyers and numerous governments in their pockets. It's an uphill battle....ask Elon! As much as I am very intrigued by this energy source above, and what it can also do for nuclear waste, there are many who will try and make it go bye, bye I am sure.

 

[Caper11]

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

Problem I see...there is no other power company, oil company or mining company that wants to see any low cost, high output, readily accessible energy system. They have tons of money, high priced lawyers and numerous governments in their pockets. It's an uphill battle....ask Elon! As much as I am very intrigued by this energy source above, and what it can also do for nuclear waste, there are many who will try and make it go bye, bye I am sure.

That energy source sounds like a bunch of BS anyway.

 

[ABMax24]

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

Problem I see...there is no other power company, oil company or mining company that wants to see any low cost, high output, readily accessible energy system. They have tons of money, high priced lawyers and numerous governments in their pockets. It's an uphill battle....ask Elon! As much as I am very intrigued by this energy source above, and what it can also do for nuclear waste, there are many who will try and make it go bye, bye I am sure.

Yeah unfortunately the energy density just isn't there. Might work good for something like a pacemaker battery but that's about it. It's energy density isn't there to compete with lithium ion, never mind attempt to replace it.

The whole radioactive thing will kill it before it even gets started.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Another pie in the sky green energy system that is doomed to failure based on the reality of physics. Let’s just hope none of our tax dollars get flushed down this renewable toilet.

 

[Pedaling pete]

Yeah unfortunately the energy density just isn't there. Might work good for something like a pacemaker battery but that's about it. It's energy density isn't there to compete with lithium ion, never mind attempt to replace it.
.

Says in the article that it is more energy dense than lithium Ion.

Another pie in the sky green energy system that is doomed to failure based on the reality of physics.
.

Why do you say that?

 

[Cdnfireman]

Says in the article that it is more energy dense than lithium Ion.




Why do you say that?

Any energy conversion device has to follow the laws of physics. Energy output plus conversion/generation losses have to equal energy input. Any miracle energy source has to follow that rule. If it can’t be demonstrated that it does this, it won’t work. The reason fossil fuels are so prevalent is because their energy density per unit volume is enormous, and we have become used to their convenience. Unless and until a “green” energy source is developed that duplicates the abilities of fossil fuels, it will never gain mainstream acceptance.

 

[ABMax24]

Says in the article that it is more energy dense than lithium Ion.

It does say that, what it doesn't point out is that's over its 28,000 year life. It outputs a consistently small amount of energy for an extremely long time, a carbon-14 battery the size of a Tesla car battery would put out roughly 400 watts, not even enough to run the heated seats. But it would put out 400 watts for thousands of years, making it more energy dense, but not having the high specific output required to be useful in most modern technology. But it's really not a battery anyway, it's more like a miniature nuclear reactor or fuel cell.

Now if you could make a hybrid Carbon-14/lithium ion battery in which the lithium ion battery powered the car and the carbon-14 reactor cell constantly charged the Li-ion battery you could have a car that would charge itself. That would be as close to a perpetual motion machine as you could get.

 

[Pedaling pete]

Any energy conversion device has to follow the laws of physics. Energy output plus conversion/generation losses have to equal energy input. Any miracle energy source has to follow that rule. If it can’t be demonstrated that it does this, it won’t work. The reason fossil fuels are so prevalent is because their energy density per unit volume is enormous, and we have become used to their convenience. Unless and until a “green” energy source is developed that duplicates the abilities of fossil fuels, it will never gain mainstream acceptance.

Im not an expert, but take burning wood for an example gives you 20mj/kg of wood. burning gasoline 46mj/kg.

With nuclear fission uranium 235 has an energy density of 39000000mj/kg.

I honestly only read the article, so not saying its newest best thing. But do you think its possible there is more energy sources out there beyond a 9th graders understanding of physics?

 

[Pedaling pete]

It does say that, what it doesn't point out is that's over its 28,000 year life. It outputs a consistently small amount of energy for an extremely long time, a carbon-14 battery the size of a Tesla car battery would put out roughly 400 watts, not even enough to run the heated seats. But it would put out 400 watts for thousands of years, making it more energy dense, but not having the high specific output required to be useful in most modern technology. But it's really not a battery anyway, it's more like a miniature nuclear reactor or fuel cell.

Now if you could make a hybrid Carbon-14/lithium ion battery in which the lithium ion battery powered the car and the carbon-14 reactor cell constantly charged the Li-ion battery you could have a car that would charge itself. That would be as close to a perpetual motion machine as you could get.

Ok thanks missed that part. Edit: Scanned again It was at the bottom in the update. The Article it self is misleading.

 

[ABMax24]

Ok thanks missed that part.

Yeah it wasn't written in the article, I thought the same when I first read it, creative journalism in that article, and as usual if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. I found more un-biased details on it elsewhere.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Im not an expert, but take burning wood for an example gives you 20mj/kg of wood. burning gasoline 46mj/kg.

With nuclear fission uranium 235 has an energy density of 39000000mj/kg.

I honestly only read the article, so not saying its newest best thing. But do you think its possible there is more energy sources out there beyond a 9th graders understanding of physics?

Regardless of the energy density Or type of the materials, the basic rules of physics apply. Over the years there’s been a multitude of these miracle energy sources. And without exception, if they didn’t meet the fundamental laws of physics as we currently understand them, they Failed miserably. If someone in the future discovers new areas of physics that change our current understanding and results in miraculous new sources of energy, perfect.
But until then, our current understanding, and rules, of physics apply. Be they ninth grade or PhD, they’re the same.

 

[BILTIT]

I have to agree with you 100% but i do feel there is another level of physics ready to mature. I dont know if its called quantam physics still or its beyond that but there is some very cool stuff happening thier.

 

[Pedaling pete]

Regardless of the energy density Or type of the materials, the basic rules of physics apply. Over the years there’s been a multitude of these miracle energy sources. And without exception, if they didn’t meet the fundamental laws of physics as we currently understand them, they Failed miserably. If someone in the future discovers new areas of physics that change our current understanding and results in miraculous new sources of energy, perfect.
But until then, our current understanding, and rules, of physics apply. Be they ninth grade or PhD, they’re the same.

I figure there is lots more to figure out when it comes to Nuclear energy. Turns out this ones a dud though lol

 

[ABMax24]

The problem really isn't with physics or our understanding of it. It's our applications of our understanding of physics that is the problem.

Take nuclear fusion for example, we've known for decades that elements can be fused together to make new heavier elements and release enormous amounts of energy. In 1952 the US detonated the first hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Yet here we are in 2020 almost 70 years later still researching ways to fuse hydrogen in a controlled and efficient manner for use in electricity generation.

 

[Pedaling pete]

The problem really isn't with physics or our understanding of it. It's our applications of our understanding of physics that is the problem.

Take nuclear fusion for example, we've known for decades that elements can be fused together to make new heavier elements and release enormous amounts of energy. In 1952 the US detonated the first hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Yet here we are in 2020 almost 70 years later still researching ways to fuse hydrogen in a controlled and efficient manner for use in electricity generation.

70 years isnt that long. We are Nuclear newbs at best.

 

[ABMax24]

70 years isnt that long. We are Nuclear newbs at best.

Agreed. But look how far we have come with everything else, computers, engines, airplanes, etc. Nuclear fusion tech is just so much more complicated, it's pretty hard to build a vessel to contain a reaction at millions of degrees and hundreds of atmospheres of pressure when every material we have available melts at temperatures below 5000 degrees.

 

[Pedaling pete]

Agreed. But look how far we have come with everything else, computers, engines, airplanes, etc. Nuclear fusion tech is just so much more complicated, it's pretty hard to build a vessel to contain a reaction at millions of degrees and hundreds of atmospheres of pressure when every material we have available melts at temperatures below 5000 degrees.

quantum computers will help us bring things to the next level I think.