MMM
Results 1 to 25 of 1124

Thread: Japan quakes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,040
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    Why do you mention power density? For batteries it matters, for reactors I don't see what you mean.
    megawatts vs land space used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
    I'd argue that a high power density is a bad thing. If anything happens to a single high density source then suddenly you have a huge power deficit. Distributed power generation allows the risk to be spread across a larger number of power generation sites.
    Well yeah I agree, but there are many cases where you need higher density. Small countries that don't have a lot of space to begin with, for example. Japan is a great example of such a place.
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  2. #2
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    Well yeah I agree, but there are many cases where you need higher density. Small countries that don't have a lot of space to begin with, for example. Japan is a great example of such a place.
    Point well taken. But Offshore wind, ocean thermal gradient, tidal, and wave power don't take up any land at all. Geothermal, solar, and biodigesters don't take up any more land per facility than nuclear/coal/etc. They have a lower power density, but wouldn't have to be especially numerous if part of a diversified energy strategy.

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
    Point well taken. But Offshore wind, ocean thermal gradient, tidal, and wave power don't take up any land at all. Geothermal, solar, and biodigesters don't take up any more land per facility than nuclear/coal/etc. They have a lower power density, but wouldn't have to be especially numerous if part of a diversified energy strategy.
    I really don't think that even if they used all that to the max they would even be close to the power output of that one plant alone with 6 reactors.

    Back in the day when I worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab, 1970- late 1980's they had the Shiva/Nova systems running I thought this would be the answer. Turns out that it wasn't, to many problems getting the beams all hitting the target with the exact same amount of power, plus other problems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_laser

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser)

    Now they have the National Ignition Facility which has a shakey start to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

    They also tried the Spheromak MFE Magnets that capped a long tube where plasma inside the tube would supply the heat. These were huge base ball like magnets that capped each end of the tube.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheromak

    And a new way of doing this, Spheromak Tokamak

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak

    So far none of these have been the golden goose of creating more energy that it takes to run them.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •