The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 12, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bristolian Guest

    So much for nuclear non-froliferation. Soon every portable electrical
    appliance will have a nuclear battery in it :)
     
    Bristolian, Oct 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bristolian Guest

    Oops, that should have been non-proliferation, of course :)
     
    Bristolian, Oct 12, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Keith Nuttle Guest

    A larger batter than you mentioned could power a vehicle.

    There are so many ways nuclear energy can be used, but because it is
    nuclear some people do not see it as a green source of energy.

    If these people who spouted the global warming religion actually believe
    what they say, they would be behind every effort to develop nuclear power.

    Have you heard of the nuclear reactor the size of a SUV?
    http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2882418\

    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

    I wonder when they will stop chasing windmills and do something about
    the energy production.

    It
     
    Keith Nuttle, Oct 12, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    When I saw the subject of your post I thought maybe you were talking
    about a commercial application of this:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=better-battery-lithium-ion-cell-gets-supercharged

    Anyway, as others have stated, there is a bit of a stigma to "nuclear"
    energy sources, deserved or not, which might hinder adoption.

    I wonder if anyone's working on casimir-effect based batteries? :)
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research
     
    John A., Oct 13, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    So what? Why not shut down nuclear medicine too, so cancer death
    rates skyrocket.
     
    Rich, Oct 13, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I'm hoping thorium reactors replace the crank solutions to energy
    issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands
    of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are
    pathetic energy producers.
     
    Rich, Oct 13, 2009
    #7
  8. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's
    energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear
    plants in the USA is much more admirable.........

    And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in
    Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a
    tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined
    in the USA.

    Pathetic, indeed.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 13, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    It will certainly hinder adoption after some halfwit throws one into the
    general garbage and the sealed radioactive source is breached or worse
    still recycled and smelted into new metal for manufacture. Rich the
    troll is exactly to sort of enviro-vandal that would do that too.

    Even today with radioactive sources fairly rare there have been some
    *very* nasty accidents with radiotherapy kit recycling. Steelwork that
    set the radiation alarms off on its way *into* LLNL for instance.

    Radioisotope batteries make sense for space exploration but they are
    never sensibly going to be a consumer item. The public is far too stupid
    to be allowed to handle open source nuclear material unless it can be
    locked up in a physical form where it can do no harm. Even then you
    would have terrorists seeking WMD like of Aum Shinroku or Al Qaeda
    trying to unlock it for nefarious purposes.

    The energy density of most of these things is extermely high, but if it
    is going to supply macroscopic amounts of current then the radioactivity
    must also be high and waste heat can be a problem.
    The energy density is certainly not there.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Oct 13, 2009
    #9


  10. As much as I can't believe I'm going to say this...ahem,


    ...we might wish to take a lesson from the French.


    (sincerest apologies.)


    They generate much of their energy from nuclear. They recycle and
    reuse the depleted fuel, and unrecoverable waste is cast in glass
    bricks. Glass bricks neither corrode, nor leak. And can be stacked
    underground for centuries without incident.

    As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
    nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
    century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

    Instead of letting Brown and Root rape and pillage for billions,
    let the Navy build reactors for the power grid, sell them to the
    transmission companies. Help fund Naval development, and produce
    clean, cheap energy in abundance.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 13, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    D. Peter Maus wrote:

    Well, sort of. Except it applies mostly to uranium fuel, and not to the
    other radioactive byproducts of nuclear power, such as old power plants.
    And there are "discoveries" of undeclared nuclear waste dumps. And a
    national newspaper yesterday revealed that there is a big field in
    Russia where part of the French waste is kept.
    Not sure they would declare a nuclear incident anyway. And these power
    units are much smaller, and much more expensive, than civilian ones.
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 13, 2009
    #11
  12. With,...unlike Brown and Root built plants, one of which, here in
    Illinois, failed in containment before it was fully powered
    up...ZERO incidents.

    Smaller, more efficient, with zero incidents. Still less
    expensive power generation that civilian built plants.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 13, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    Keith Nuttle Guest


    In the last 40 years, if we had spent the money that went to avoiding
    nuclear energy, into reclaiming nuclear waste we would not have an
    energy problem today and have an nearly inexhaustible amount of energy.

    No; we chased windmills and solar energy which never will be a source of
    continuous reliable energy. Tides which would be in need of repair
    after every storm and probably have to have parts replaced yearly
    because of the corrosive environment.

    In the mean time they want to eliminate carbon based fuels by trying to
    get a cap and trade bill passed that would require the elimination of
    Carbon Dioxide which is part of the chemical reaction of the burning of
    anything carbon. 12 pounds of carbon produce 44 pounds of Carbon Dioxide
    it is basic chemistry.

    Properly contained nuclear waste could be stored in my back yard.
     
    Keith Nuttle, Oct 13, 2009
    #13
  14. If we had started research and investing in renewable energies 40 years
    ago and had spent all that money that went into trying to make nuclear
    energy save on renewable energy development instead, then we would not
    have an energy problem today and would have an unlimited, inexhaustable
    amount of energy.
    The department of energy will be happy to hear that. They are still
    desparately looking for what to do with the waste from Hanford and
    dozens and dozens of other places.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 13, 2009
    #14

  15. That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.

    Then maybe we should take that lesson.



    Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
    bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching
    full deployment, and the other is military working within safety
    margins, with a culture of safety operation.

    Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear
    energy has gone so wrong.


    By all means, a non-starter.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 13, 2009
    #15
  16. But then, you're a pompous bigoted ass. So pardon me for not
    being offended. :)

    And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due
    to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of
    accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda.

    If the Navy can do it well, and civilian has a bad rep, then
    there is a lesson to take. Profit and investment recovery aside.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 13, 2009
    #16
  17. Then I suppose it was the nuke-naysayers who blew up Tschernobyl, caused
    Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Kyschtym, and the dozens of other
    incidents where radioactivity escaped into the environment, sometimes
    prompting large-scale evacuations and very often long-term
    contaminations.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Oct 13, 2009
    #17
  18. I may be flying with an VFR license, but I can get an SVFR
    clearance where you can't.



    I"m going to have to see that.

    Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all
    declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear
    facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but
    Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are
    interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear
    implementation are real.

    Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last
    operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide.
    63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket.

    Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting
    transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified
    proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear.
    Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of
    the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear
    generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in
    sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not
    purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between
    10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of
    energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions.

    That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a
    matter of policy.



    Ya THINK?




    Again, if the Navy can do it, and we can't, we need to take that
    lesson.

    Overcoming the obstacles, the policies, and the bad reputation
    becomes a matter of ancillary process once it's shown how the
    situations creating concern can be practically and replicably avoided.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 14, 2009
    #18




  19. All of which are true, but besides the point of the discussion at
    hand.



    You know it. I know it. Nuclear proponents know it. Engineers
    know it. Even the producers of the NPR documentaries advocating the
    abandonment of nuclear energy know it. What's more, 3 Mile Island
    actually HAD a core melt down. 8 feet of the core...gone. And yet,
    the process was stopped because procedures and systems in place
    worked. There was a nuclear accident. But not a nuclear disaster.
    The systems worked. As they were intended to.

    Nonetheless, between the inanity of "The China Syndrome" which is
    STILL quoted in testimony before Congress in nuclear issues, and the
    frenetic press about 3 Mile Island--over which I left a radio
    station, btw--there is still more hysteria in the public mind about
    nuclear, than there is fact.

    And that creates obstacles which persist today in reestablishing
    nuclear as a viable alternative to current generation methods. As I
    said at the beginning, if the French can do it, we may want to their
    methocs.

    If the Navy can do it, with, by your own admission, an excellent
    safety record, then there is a lesson for civilian power generators.

    Take the lesson. Instead of presiding over the kingdom of 'It
    Can't Be Done..'
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 14, 2009
    #19
  20. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    If you think that the Navy doesn't buy from the lowest bidder you've never
    bid a Navy contract.

    Working "at or near peak" doesn't make any real difference in the safety of
    a reactor you know. It just sits there and generates heat.
    The only way that civilian nuclear power has "gone so wrong" is by letting
    the ecoloons delay plant starts to the point that it's not cost effective to
    build them anymore.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 14, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.