Liquid air, or hot air?
- Thread starter neptune
- Start date
I doubt that a beer keg would be able to store liquid air at vapour pressure, it would explode. This guy must have insulated the keg and allowed some of the liquid to, "boil off" thus reducing both the temperature of the liquid and the pressure.
I'm not sure that your description of what would happen if the storage vessel were to be punctured is entirely accurate. The air would escape and rapidly remove heat from whatever it came into contact with as it changed state from liquid to gas. To the observer, this would probably appear as a rapidly forming localised fog, caused by water in the environment condensing. Of course, you wouldn't want the liquid air to come into contact with your skin because it would remove heat from that and cause severe damage.
Regardless of any safety aspects, this liquid air idea is not a solution to any energy problem. It appeals to the minds of the both the X-Factor viewing British public and the mis-fits who have recently set up camp at Hinkley Point because they think it is a zero emission fuel. The reality is that it is nothing more than a novelty news item intended to fill a gap in a scheduled TV slot.
We have a simple choice to make. If we want to carry on with our 21st century lifestyle, ballooning birth rates, uncontrolled imigration, cheap material goods from China, all of which consume energy in ever increasing quantities, then we need nuclear power plants. There isn't an alternative. Perhaps if you disagree, you would like to find some non energy consuming way of responding.
These unfortunate anti-nuclear protestors may have a mental illness and that's all very sad, it's not their fault. But should we really be putting them on telly to be laughed at? Should we allow them to campaign for a course of action which will bring missery to millions? I think not. Best that we put them somewhere out of the way so that they can't harm people. They are an enemy, a threat to you and your family.
Last edited:
I agree. I remember a stuck valve and an indicator light which indicated the opposite of what the operator thought. The mirror-image dials sounds like an urban myth.
@Tillson. So you think that because I do not share your views, I should be somewhere out of the way where I can not harm anyone ? What happened to freedom of speech? The planet belongs to everyone, and that includes me.
The report (or one of them at least) was pretty scathing on operator training. It would appear that, far from being nuclear engineers or even having a degree in nuke physics of any sort, many of the operators were just button pushers and bum scratchers. They were trained in the "monkey see, monkey do" method of operating complex plant without any real understanding of what was going on out of sight.
The first thing I thought of after seeing HS in the nuke plant was TMI.Which confirms that the Homer Simpson method of melt down control was based upon real life
Sometimes people need to be told what's best and have the solution imposed upon them. It isn't an ideal situation or one that I like, but future energy security isn't a subject in which we should involve technologicaly vacuum headed individuals. They can busy themselves with social engineering projects.
There is a latent ignorance of basic engineering and physics knowledge amongst the population of this country and they (the population) are not equipped to make decisions on future sources of energy. A few windmills are not going to supply sufficient power for them to watch teenage girls bearing their arses on X-Factor. (Who incidently if not, "discovered" by Simon Cowell are likely to be discovered by a horrified dog walker.) People need nuclear power stations for this and whichever government is in office will have to impose them.
ps I'm not having a go at you personally neptune.
Completely with you on this Tillson. The majority of the people are frightened of nuclear power generation for the same reason that earlier primitive peoples feared thunder and lightning. They simply don't understand it, in part or in full.
And no decision should ever be made by those who don't understand.
And no decision should ever be made by those who don't understand.
As and when we have a government with the guts to admit to the problem and get the ball rolling is another matter ... may be after a few years of black outs and an election looming.
The Scottish stand on the matter is..
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond maintains that there is 'no chance' of new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland. The Scottish Government's stance has been backed by the Scottish Parliament that voted 63-58 to support the Scottish Government's policy of opposing new nuclear power stations.
63 -58.. wow that's a great majority then, only needs 3 peeps to wake up and smell the coffee or lack of coffee cos theres no power for the coffee maker
Hmmmmmmmmm.. Scottish independence funded by exporting electrickery
Last edited:
That Scottish decision is somewhat irrelevant anyway. Scotland could supply a lot more from hydro etc, but that isn't pursued because it's not where the electricity is needed. We don't have the infrastructure in the national grid to cope with much more from that distance and the power losses involved are too great anyway. Across the whole of the UK the grid loss is 7% of generated energy which is an average, but from much of Scotland to where the power is needed the losses can be very much greater.
The Midlands and South are where the new stations are needed, especially with nuclear since the fuel transport cost is so low, unlike coal fired stations which are best near to mines due to the millions of tons of coal needed per station every year. It's always baffled me that power stations weren't often situated at mine heads.
The Midlands and South are where the new stations are needed, especially with nuclear since the fuel transport cost is so low, unlike coal fired stations which are best near to mines due to the millions of tons of coal needed per station every year. It's always baffled me that power stations weren't often situated at mine heads.
Errrrrrr.. not wishing to appear selfish or uncaring, but since I emigrated from London its where I need it
Just out of idle curiosity, am I the only one on the forum who is not OK with with "having solutions imposed on me" by people who "know what is best for me". And , tell me, would that include the "Final Solution"?
Places to put people away where they can do no harm? Wasn`t that tried by a fat little Austrian guy with a small black moustache?
I`ll tell you what. Spare us the nukes, and if I want to look at girls bare arses, I am capable of arranging my own show, without help from Simon Cowell
Places to put people away where they can do no harm? Wasn`t that tried by a fat little Austrian guy with a small black moustache?
I`ll tell you what. Spare us the nukes, and if I want to look at girls bare arses, I am capable of arranging my own show, without help from Simon Cowell
Sorry Neptune, it isn't going to happen as you'd like it. Nuclear power stations will be used increasingly. Some like you see all nuclear wastes as a problem, but many like me see them as an opportunity which will be increasingly used as sources of mined uranium 238 get more scarce. Most of the waste material dates from the bomb production race of the cold war and that's the most valuable of all, we certainly shouldn't be burying it. There will be future generations pleased that we produced so much of it.
Maybe the weight of a power station would cause geological shifts and strains and thus end up being dumped into a black hole maybe?
Probably because they need another commodity in bigger volumes than coal
Water
which is why most are right next door to a river.
Oh and some were right next door to pits as well with direct feed when the pits were there.
Example Rugeley which was right next door to Lea Hall Colliery
Last edited:
That's a tremendous sentence, it covers everything that's important. Seriously, I love it. You're the man neptune.
As I said earlier we are never going to agree about nukes. The best that we can hope for, is that we respect each others opinions, and respect each other as people whatever our views. Is it not true that Germany and Japan has adopted a no more nukes policy? I believe that in the future we shall see the emergence of technologies that will make nukes seem as about as advanced as Fred Flintstone`s car. For the world to have a decent future, it would perhaps be best if we were to let go of the idea that progress means more and more consumption. Whether I like it or not, nukes will have a part to play in the immediate future. But I believe that alternative energy generation is still in its infancy. The real problem facing mankind is ever increasing population. As far as I know, the only country to attempt to solve this problem is China. And this brings with it the conflicting interests of the good of the country, and the rights of the individual. So here, we are back to "Solutions imposed from above".
So what is the real answer? I am honest enough to say that I don`t know.
So what is the real answer? I am honest enough to say that I don`t know.
Last edited:
No you're not the only one. I think people who impose their views/way of life on others are despicable.
As for the topic, I do have strong feelings on it and some of the replies as well. I find your use of the word "nukes" to be confusing, as to me it describes nuclear weapons, not power generation.
I have little understanding (though not none at all) about nuclear. I wasn't even 6 months old when the Chernobyl disaster happened. But you know you've made a good invention when it is used to kill people. This is why ebikes aren't as popular as they could be, because there isn't a way of using them to kill masses of people yet, aside from running them over.
How long was it from the time the first plane took off, to the time the planes were used to shoot people down or drop bombs on populations? How long was it for the first nuclear/atomic bomb to be produced, then for them to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?Radiation from nuclear power stations shouldn't be a concern, especially if you live in any of the areas featured in this video: A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto - YouTube
Nuclear power may be cleaner than a coal power station. I wouldn't describe it as clean, safe, or cheap.
Yes, in terms of emissions it is probably cleaner as long as radioactive particles aren't released into the air, or contaminate water.
Safe? Hold a lump of coal for a few hours, and try the same with radioactive material. An accident at a nuclear power plant will have consequences not only to those in the vicinity, but far away too, and for decades or even centuries. Chernobyl proved that. No matter how safe the new stations are, nothing can ever account for the stupidity of people running it, or the reliability of the hardware/software involved in running it.
Cheap? It is well known that it is very cheap to construct a nuclear power station. Even cheaper to run it. And costs pennies to decommission. The latter is a very quick process that takes days! Nah I'm joking it costs billions altogether, and takes decades to clean up!
I regard Germany as a very advanced nation with intelligent people, and I wonder why they're phasing out their nuclear power stations?
Nobody ever mentions cancer rates, indigenous people who's health have been destroyed by the process of mining uranium, or destroyed by having nuclear weapons tested on their land. Nobody knows what to do with the leftover waste. The human race is so selfish that the future generations are expected to deal with the problem. Even if they come up with a solution, there's an even bigger problem. There's too much people.
If I was given a choice right now to have nuclear power, or none at all, I'd seriously take the latter. No more music, TV, ebikes, computer, or anything. I lived for over a month abroad with no running water or electricity and I was happy. I was quite sad to come back in fact!
The best thing for the future of the planet and all living things will be for the human race to be wiped out. In the last 100-200 years no other living species has caused so much destruction and pollution to Earth. Not just with radioactive materials, but toxic waste too. And further proof for the stupidity of humans, they know the risks yet they still build entire communities on top of toxic waste. But all that doesn't matter, there's too many people in the world. Who knows, maybe that fantastic nuclear science will one day deal with the problem!
I'm out of here.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
