>dyson harrop satellites to capture the free power of the solar wind. >together with nuclear power and hydrogen

>dyson harrop satellites to capture the free power of the solar wind
>together with nuclear power and hydrogen
>nice greenery everywhere
solarpunks, where we at?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You probably don't even need satellites to capture the energy of the solar wind. Earth's magnetic field transforms it down into heat and light through the poles. You'd just need to tap into the circuit there somehow.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >together with nuclear power and hydrogen
    i am sick of homosexuals pretending that hydrogen is an energy source

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      who said power source?
      it's meant as a ways to store energy

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hydrogen is terrible for storage. turning the hydrogen into methane is way better and lets you reuse a bunch of existing natural gas infrastructure.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >burning methane to produce CO2
          umm sweaty...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >literally net zero co2
            communists will kvetch about this

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              we need to remove and lower co2 levels, not let it stay where it is

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no. there is no need for that.
                even if that were the case, methane synthesis would still do the bulk of the work displacing ALL co2 emissions.
                then you can have your little vanity project burying synthetic oil or whatever.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just start iron salting the oceans.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If we lower CO2 levels anywhere below where they are now it will lead to a massive die-off in plants worldwide. ~200 ppm is the threshold where life will start struggling.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >where we
    Here:

    [...]

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seething at the resistance to nuclear power, mostly.

    I mean, I get it, the possibility of something like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Fukushima happening again has to scare the shit out of people... but those risks can be managed. It's like being terrified of an airplane crash without worrying about the risk of a car crash, or being worried about poisoned Halloween candy while not being worried about developing diabetes from eating so much damn candy. The status quo isn't exactly safe, it's just that long-term problems aren't as scary as big catastrophes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      3mi was a meme, bro
      >something bad happened
      >they stopped it before it affected anybody
      >GAAAH BAD BAD BAN IT ALL NOW
      >nobody makes new nuke plants
      >gotta use coal instead
      >lots more deaths than the zero deaths caused by 3mi
      >but they're all in west virginia so, lol fuck 'em

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just literally build them all in siberia where no one lives. Russia basically has the infrastructure to supply the subsequent energy to Europe ans Asia anyway. Then nuke Africa and South America

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are there countries who burry spent fuel, making it impossible to retrieve?
    with new reactors being able to burn spent fuel it would be insane with having basically destroyed a fuel option

    i thought most spent fuel was just placed in normal storage?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i thought most spent fuel was just placed in normal storage?
      What is "normal"?
      Spent fuel is hot and is initially stored in pools of water, requiring 24/7 cooling. Afterwards you can put it in underground storage for millennias.
      Spenbt fuel can also be recycled. Fresh fuel has 3% U235, spent fuel has 2% U 235, so it cana be recycled many, many times. The recycling leaves extremely hot radioactive waste such as Sr, that needs about 300 years to become mostly decayed into harmless isotopes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >300 years of radioactive waste
        that's a cheap price to pay for recycling
        can just be stored and put back in the ground when it's as radioactive as the original ore you pulled up

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >i thought most spent fuel was just placed in normal storage?
          What is "normal"?
          Spent fuel is hot and is initially stored in pools of water, requiring 24/7 cooling. Afterwards you can put it in underground storage for millennias.
          Spenbt fuel can also be recycled. Fresh fuel has 3% U235, spent fuel has 2% U 235, so it cana be recycled many, many times. The recycling leaves extremely hot radioactive waste such as Sr, that needs about 300 years to become mostly decayed into harmless isotopes.

          Shoot it into space

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Too expensive

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >that's a cheap price to pay for recycling
          People are very uncomfortable about the transport of radioactive material, it would be a primary terrorist target. There is a LOT of money in such processing, and it used to be one of the major soucres of foreign currencies to the UK; and it still might be.

          I am not sure why they don't use hot Sr for power generation, now they use energy to keep it cool.

          [...]
          Shoot it into space

          Too high risk.

Your email address will not be published.