Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11788
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Super Nova » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:18 pm

Super Nova wrote:
Do you have any idea of the energy created by nuclear fission/fusion? Give you a hint, thicko, e = mc^2
People who quote e=mc^2 without really understanding it is an equation that relates mass to energy only are the true thickos.
So everyone is on the same page. Here is a really good description of E=MC^2

Link http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/fi ... /emc2.html

Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula
Despite its familiarity, many people don't really understand what it means. We hope this explanation will help!

One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter.
For example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of

0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg
This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg.
Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):


= 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000
= 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!


If you consider all the energy in the full kilogram of water, which also contains oxygen atoms, the total energy equivalent is close to 10 million gallons of gasoline!
Can all this energy really be released? Has it ever been?

The only way for ALL this energy to be released is for the kilogram of water to be totally annhilated. This process involves the complete destruction of matter, and occurs only when that matter meets an equal amount of antimatter ... a substance composed of mass with a negative charge. Antimatter does exist; it is observable as single subatomic particles in radioactive decay, and has been created in the laboratory. But it is rather short-lived (!), since it annihilates itself and an equal quantity of ordinary matter as soon as it encounters anything. For this reason, it has not yet been made in measurable quantities, so our kilogram of water can't be turned into energy by mixing it with 'antiwater'. At least, not yet.

Another phenomenon peculiar to small elementary particles like protons is that they combine. A single proton forms the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Two protons are found in the nucleus of a helium atom. This is how the elements are formed ... all the way up to the heaviest naturally occuring substance, uranium, which has 92 protons in its nucleus.
It is possible to make two free protons (Hydrogen nuclei) come together to make the beginnings of a helium nucleus. This requires that the protons be hurled at each other at a very high speed. This process occurs in the sun, but can also be replicated on earth with lasers, magnets, or in the center of an atomic bomb. The process is called nuclear fusion.
What makes it interesting is that when the two protons are forced to combine, they don't need as much of their energy (or mass). Two protons stuck together have less mass than two single separate protons!
When the protons are forced together, this extra mass is released ... as energy! Typically this amounts to about 0.7% of the total mass, converted to an amount of energy predictable using the formula .

Elements heavier than iron are unstable. Some of them are very unstable! This means that their nuclei, composed of many positively charged protons, which want to repel from each other, are liable to fall apart at any moment! We call atoms like this radioactive.
Uranium, for example, is radioactive. Every second, many of the atoms in a chunk of uranium are falling apart. When this happens, the pieces, which are now new elements (with fewer protons) are LESS massive in total than the original uranium atoms. The extra mass disappears as energy ... again according to the formula ! This process is called nuclear fission.

Both these nuclear reactions release a small portion of the mass involved as energy. Large amounts of energy! You are probably more familiar with their uses. Nuclear fusion is what powers a modern nuclear warhead. Nuclear fission (less powerful) is what happens in an atomic bomb (like the ones used against Japan in WWII), or in a nuclear power plant.

Albert Einstein was able to see where an understanding of this formula would lead. Although peaceful by nature and politics, he helped write a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to fund research into the development of an atomic bomb ... before the Nazis or Japan developed their own first. The result was the Manhatten Project, which did in fact produce the first tangible evidence of ... the atomic bom
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

Viking King.

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Viking King. » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:22 pm

IQS.RLOW wrote:
I for one DO NOT have scientific qualifications
Image
won't be announcing mine but have a couple,
I think the drool has short circuited your keyboard and affected your brain
Until you can show you have some intelligence with a fair comment on the actual subject, shut the fuck up.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by IQS.RLOW » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:24 pm

I'm too busy laughing at your embarrassment
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
Neferti
Posts: 18113
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Neferti » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:25 pm

Jovial Monk wrote:
I worked for myself for 26 years.
:D Isn't that what all losers say? :mrgreen:

mellie
Posts: 10859
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by mellie » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:33 pm

Neferti~ wrote:
Jovial Monk wrote:
I worked for myself for 26 years.
:D Isn't that what all losers say? :mrgreen:

Self employed Centrelinkologist, a booming profession under a slack-ass Labor government.
;)
~A climate change denier is what an idiot calls a realist~https://g.co/kgs/6F5wtU

Viking King.

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Viking King. » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:44 pm

There is one thing I have noticed in all the forums I have been,
those of the Lib party thinking, when in opposition, always scratch and bitch,
then when they have the power sit back and say, "We don't associate with low lifes"
Never satisfied one way or the other.

Outlaw Yogi

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Outlaw Yogi » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:02 pm

So ...
Jovial Monk wrote: I have a B.Sc. and did study what I claim.
.. and ..
Jovial Monk wrote: I worked for myself for 26 years.
.., yet ..
Jovial Monk wrote:I can’t afford a supercomputer, you got some spare change towards that? D’uh! .
.. thus, you are a liar, a pitiful loser, or both.

Now on what basis do you validate your supposed credibility? ... on any topic?

mellie
Posts: 10859
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by mellie » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:06 pm

Viking King. wrote:There is one thing I have noticed in all the forums I have been,
those of the Lib party thinking, when in opposition, always scratch and bitch,
then when they have the power sit back and say, "We don't associate with low lifes"
Never satisfied one way or the other.

And labor and the left never scratched and bitched for 12 years?

PMSL.... :D

Everyone bitches under a regime they didn't vote for when they conduct themselves unethically, and in my case, more so given I voted for Kevin Rudd and regretted doing so within months of having done so...weeks in fact...when the pangs of embarrassment and drones of "I told you so Mel" began dribbling down the grapevine denoting to my own ignorance and naive stupidity, so I'm probably even more pissed off than someone who still supports them.

It's official, I'll never vote Labor again so long as I bloody well live... lesson learned, the hard way.

Yourself?

:roll:

Or like many, are you inherently arrogant and naive and cant sniff past your own self importance and judgement enough to admit, we made a mistake, presuming you even voted at all.

What's worse, Howard predicted this wayward far-left scenario should Labor win the election in 2007.

So.... cut me a little slack, I'm still struggling to swallow my pride.

At least Howard was sincere and genuine, can the same be said for both the real, and not so real Gillard who stood up and toppled the nut-case we voted for and stabbed in the middle of his tenure?

My god, who-ever would have thought Golden Boy Rudd wouldn't even last a term?

What a dud. :roll:

He was never meant to be, was merely the Howard you have when you're not really having a Howard, he even falsely played the conservative part whilst syphoning off Liberals surplus to communist nations under the guise of socialist globalist reform and foreign aid.

But don't take my word for it, just wait for the aftermath when you realise, we cant even recover from our own natural disasters without imposing a tax, (as we veil massive donations from Obama and the royal family)....in the name of a UN globalist commy expired old-world order.

Socialism, small 'c' communism is the new black.

:roll: Wake up, we have been screwed over and now are being dictated to by the UN, our new global government rendering independent prosperity a challenge, not a given, as they would like our minerals too.

We shan't get too big for out boots you see, were forever intended to be a UN suppository and dumping ground ... the eternal dependent and underling, not the thriving robust world super-power we could be if we played our cards right and demanded autonomy.

Right now, we do as they say, not as they do.

Meanwhile, elitists , corporations and charitable orgs CEO's ( Rudd claimed he would cap their wages pre- his 2007 election win)...pockets jingle all the way to the reserve bank at the middle and lower class's expense.

So much for globalism, eh?

And or the fair and even distribution of wealth.

It's a crock of shit, we should have known better, but were so bored with Howard, most of us just wanted a change.

:roll:
Last edited by mellie on Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~A climate change denier is what an idiot calls a realist~https://g.co/kgs/6F5wtU

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by IQS.RLOW » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:10 pm

No one that has a B.Sc harks back to their Physics 1 and 2 days as a pivotal moment in their study of nuclear science. Monk would have struggled with understanding what a camel was let alone the concepts involved in velocity and acceleration.

I'd say his claim of a B.Sc is as full of shit as he is.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
Neferti
Posts: 18113
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Is there a role for nuclear energy?

Post by Neferti » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:13 pm

Outlaw Yogi wrote:So ...
Jovial Monk wrote: I have a B.Sc. and did study what I claim.
.. and ..
Jovial Monk wrote: I worked for myself for 26 years.
.., yet ..
Jovial Monk wrote:I can’t afford a supercomputer, you got some spare change towards that? D’uh! .
.. thus, you are a liar, a pitiful loser, or both.

Now on what basis do you validate your supposed credibility? ... on any topic?

He's really just a silly Old Fart who drinks too much of his Home Brew and can't remember what day it is. Fortunately, he was too late to try to get a nomination as an Admin here so will no doubt slink back to his Dutch Oven Blog and continue waffling on about recipes, gardening and dog trials. We are saved his constant spamming, again. :mrgreen:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests