I love that someone out there moderated you insightful for equating Merkel with the Stasi, a claim not only so fucking ignorant as to be insulting to the average person, but so fucking tone deaf to make someone who actually lived under the Stasi want to choke you. I'm not sure who's more disgusting, you or the twat waffle that moderated you positively.
That's actually called restating the argument. It's done to help confused people understand arguments that are too complicated for people to keep track of.
If you build a starship big enough to hold the river or sea that will cool its AP1000 reactor, then I will build the reactor, you fucking nutter.
Initial assertion by some AC.
Why do you need a river to cool something in space?
Strange question #1 from some AC.
Because space isn't cold, it's fucking empty, you delusional fucknutter?
Semi-correct assertion by some AC.
No, it's also cold. Very, very cold. (Also very very hot in some places, but that's another topic)
Space has a background temperature. You will not cool to below it.
Correction from yours, truly.
You cannot cool the system as a whole to below the reservoir entropy. Period. All stop.
Restatement in an attempt to remove nuance from explanation so as to make argument more understandable to one jimtheowl.
I don't need luck with myself. But I do hope that some day you're able to use your limited faculties more effectively, because attempt to hinge upon small fractions of text and use them out of context to make a pointless point really is a waste of the energy I likely subsidize your use of.
And why is it so hard for stupid fucks like yourself to understand that there always has, and likely always will be a ruling class.
Even in the most communist of communist states, there were people with more power than the rest.
There is no governmental organization of man that has ever existed that did not have a disparity of power.
Next stupid question.
The bigger problem, is the wealthy are also not going to be willing to surrender their source of wealth, which is your wealth.
We've had private security forces in the US without much government oversight. They gave the Gestapo a run for their money.
I have the impression that you just didn't think things through or spent any time verifying your statement(s)
I have the feeling you're good at pulling bites out of articles without really understanding the article itself. Or perhaps you weren't really following the conversation with your complete faculties?
perhaps because of what seemed reasonable and logical to you at the time.
An odd way of saying you believe to have cracked that pesky Carnot efficiency problem.
No shame in that, but if you are going to use others to test your assertions, it suggest that it is generally appreciated if you acknowledged your mistakes early.
The mistake here was in your ability to follow the conversation, and understand the topics you were posting examples of. Let's recap.
The conversation was about the ability to cool a reactor in space. The fact that you could use that reactor to cool *something else* was never in question. That's just basic thermodynamics.
I assert that your power source cannot be cooled beyond passive temp, because, well, second law of thermodynamics and all that.
You cannot cool the system as a whole to below the reservoir entropy. Period. All stop.
If you think you've actually added something relevant to this conversation by asserting that we can use even more power to cool some part of the reactor to below ambient... Then congratulations, I think?
What's important here, I think, is that you learn to read before speaking, and to double check your thought processes before posting.
Better luck next time, though.
Sigh. No, it really doesn't apply. Sorry.
With a heat pump, you can use a power source to move heat, in this case very little heat really, and that power source can be passively cooled. You *cannot* use a heat pump to cool a device generating the power you're using to pump the heat. I'm sure you can understand why.
As for example 1, it *really* doesn't apply. I'm also sure if you had read the article, you'd understand why.
I believe otherwise. CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature over 2.7 K. Back in 2003 MIT was able to lower the temperature of sodium gaz below 1 nanokelvin.
This doesn't apply- we were discussing radiating heat in space. What you can accomplish with a heat pump doesn't apply.
A radiator in space will not cool down to below CMB background.
There is a fundamental limit to the efficiency of a heat engine,
Yes, and it is defined by the temperature gradient.
To actually make a heat engine that converts all energy to mechanical work is literally impossible
Of course it is. Who said otherwise?
The argument was that *unless* your cold side is absolute zero, there's more work that you can pull out of that heat. The waste heat of any practically limited heat engine can be reused, if that heat can be moved to another heat engine with a colder reservoir. Combined cycle power plants operate based on this. All heat engines in use are limited by practicality, not theory.
I'm not sure what you're going on about, or how you got so very confused.
There is a fundamental limit to the efficiency of a heat engine and it depends on the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the cold and hot sides of the engine.
Yes, this is also known as a heat gradient.
Nuclear reactors produce heat which drives a heat engine.
That's only half of it. If the radiator fails to shed that heat, the reactor does nothing.
Doesn't matter how this is done- the heat simply has to be transferred elsewhere.
It is impossible to convert all the energy to mechanical work.
While this is *technically* accurate- I suspect not in the way you mean it. In the case of a water turbine heat engine, you can continue to run it for as long as you can concentrate heat enough to cause a phase change in the fluid passing the turbine.
The real limits in the work we can extract from heat here on the planet are practical limits.
For example, if the waste heat had dropped below what was enough to phase-change water, you could always use a fluid with a lower boiling point, as long as you had a cold enough reservoir available for it to condense again (transfer the heat).
Parent cited Carnot's theorem without really understanding it, because if he did, he'd be aware that you can extract work from heat all the way to absolute zero, assuming you have a reservoir of absolute zero fluid.
Parent's claim was that an engine placed in the hottest part of the universe could do no work.
Sure, that's right, but a steam turbine in a nuclear reactor without a way of moving the heat to a cooler area can't do any work either.
If you know a way around this, the Nobel Prize committee would like to hear it.
No, they wouldn't. They'd roll their eyes and say, "Congrats. You discovered Carnot's theorem, and figured out that waste heat is a practical limit, not an absolute one."
You're certainly right that building a huge ass dam isn't as green as building turbines, but when someone argues that it's not green, I think they do it a disservice by not amortizing that CO2 cost over the life of the dam. That is to say, generally people arguing that have a sales pitch against dams and are trying to make them look worse than they are.
And when you compare the concrete costs MW to MW vs. turbines, is it truly so bad?
I don't disagree that politics is the primary problem with waste disposal. But regardless, those politics have to be factored into the cost.
I'm not sure what China's waste disposal costs are, but they must also be factored in.
I do suspect that politics aside, that problem can be reasonable mitigated for a reasonable price.
I think you've never been to China, let alonw done business there, because you'd know that public works, in this case, reactors, dams, et al, have precisely zero regulations. The Government decides they want to build one, they settle on a reasonable amount of people it will kill to do it, and then they make it so.
Concrete production is one of the most CO2 intensive activities that humans undertake. Dams take a massive amount of concrete to build.
I hate this argument.
It's not wrong, so who can argue it, right?
But *everything* takes concrete. Windmills. Nuclear plants. Coal plants.
When comparing a dam, which takes a massive amount of concrete, and also kills a bunch of vegetation as a steep initial CO2 cost- against a coal plant, which also takes a massive amount of concrete, and also kills a bunch (though less) of vegetation as a steep initial CO2 cost... and then continues pumping out the amount of CO2 it took to build the dam every 12 days... is fucking ridiculous.
In any valid comparison, a dam is 00ff00. It's green as fuck.
You keep posting this, over and over and over again.
Why must it be done at once? Transitions can be slow, ya?
As you bring up more renewables, you bring up battery storage for them.
Thank god nature did no such thing.
I'm quite sure the sun's mass in any fissile material would instantly collapse into some kind of barely-if-at-all luminous ultra-dense not-life-friendly ball of spinning death.
Why go to all the power of inventing huge batteries that don't store enough power when nature has provided an extremely efficient one in the form of radioactive material?
Off the top of my head? Because the byproducts of releasing the energy from that battery is insanely fucking toxic and radioactive?
Not railing against nukes or anything- I'm a pro-nuke person, myself... But acting like nuclear waste isn't a big fucking problem doesn't advance the cause anymore than a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "lalalalala" gets him out of doing his homework.
We would need about 9 of the AP1000s to run just Shanghai; if we used solar and wind instead, and needed to buffer the capacity for 12 hours, we would need about 4 YEARS of 100% of the output of the gigafactory.
So?
What's the price difference between 4 years of gigafactory output + equivalent solar and wind, and 12 AP1000s + fuel/waste disposal? (Ignoring that this is China, and waste disposal probably means the Yangtze)
No, it's also cold. Very, very cold. (Also very very hot in some places, but that's another topic)
Space has a background temperature. You will not cool to below it.
Other than that, your general point is correct. Space is better thought of as an insulator for energy levels at this scale, since reasonable black-body radiation flux levels are tiny in comparison to the heat generated.
Slashdot Mirror
I love that someone out there moderated you insightful for equating Merkel with the Stasi, a claim not only so fucking ignorant as to be insulting to the average person, but so fucking tone deaf to make someone who actually lived under the Stasi want to choke you. I'm not sure who's more disgusting, you or the twat waffle that moderated you positively.
See, you changed it again.
That's actually called restating the argument. It's done to help confused people understand arguments that are too complicated for people to keep track of.
If you build a starship big enough to hold the river or sea that will cool its AP1000 reactor, then I will build the reactor, you fucking nutter.
Initial assertion by some AC.
Why do you need a river to cool something in space?
Strange question #1 from some AC.
Because space isn't cold, it's fucking empty, you delusional fucknutter?
Semi-correct assertion by some AC.
No, it's also cold. Very, very cold. (Also very very hot in some places, but that's another topic) Space has a background temperature. You will not cool to below it.
Correction from yours, truly.
You cannot cool the system as a whole to below the reservoir entropy. Period. All stop.
Restatement in an attempt to remove nuance from explanation so as to make argument more understandable to one jimtheowl.
I don't need luck with myself. But I do hope that some day you're able to use your limited faculties more effectively, because attempt to hinge upon small fractions of text and use them out of context to make a pointless point really is a waste of the energy I likely subsidize your use of.
And why is it so hard for stupid fucks like yourself to understand that there always has, and likely always will be a ruling class.
Even in the most communist of communist states, there were people with more power than the rest.
There is no governmental organization of man that has ever existed that did not have a disparity of power. Next stupid question.
Spotted the closet racist. Come on buddy, we're all friends here, use the words you really wanted to use.
pursing the interests of their wealthy employers.
The bigger problem, is the wealthy are also not going to be willing to surrender their source of wealth, which is your wealth.
We've had private security forces in the US without much government oversight. They gave the Gestapo a run for their money.
behaviour in capitalist states.
LOL. Fucking troll.
behaviour in states.
FTFY.
I have the impression that you just didn't think things through or spent any time verifying your statement(s)
I have the feeling you're good at pulling bites out of articles without really understanding the article itself. Or perhaps you weren't really following the conversation with your complete faculties?
perhaps because of what seemed reasonable and logical to you at the time.
An odd way of saying you believe to have cracked that pesky Carnot efficiency problem.
No shame in that, but if you are going to use others to test your assertions, it suggest that it is generally appreciated if you acknowledged your mistakes early.
The mistake here was in your ability to follow the conversation, and understand the topics you were posting examples of. Let's recap.
The conversation was about the ability to cool a reactor in space. The fact that you could use that reactor to cool *something else* was never in question. That's just basic thermodynamics.
I assert that your power source cannot be cooled beyond passive temp, because, well, second law of thermodynamics and all that.
You cannot cool the system as a whole to below the reservoir entropy. Period. All stop.
If you think you've actually added something relevant to this conversation by asserting that we can use even more power to cool some part of the reactor to below ambient... Then congratulations, I think?
What's important here, I think, is that you learn to read before speaking, and to double check your thought processes before posting.
Better luck next time, though.
Sigh. No, it really doesn't apply. Sorry.
With a heat pump, you can use a power source to move heat, in this case very little heat really, and that power source can be passively cooled. You *cannot* use a heat pump to cool a device generating the power you're using to pump the heat. I'm sure you can understand why.
As for example 1, it *really* doesn't apply. I'm also sure if you had read the article, you'd understand why.
I believe otherwise. CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature over 2.7 K. Back in 2003 MIT was able to lower the temperature of sodium gaz below 1 nanokelvin.
This doesn't apply- we were discussing radiating heat in space. What you can accomplish with a heat pump doesn't apply.
A radiator in space will not cool down to below CMB background.
I think you failed basic reading comprehension. A trademark of our times, sadly.
There is a fundamental limit to the efficiency of a heat engine,
Yes, and it is defined by the temperature gradient.
To actually make a heat engine that converts all energy to mechanical work is literally impossible
Of course it is. Who said otherwise?
The argument was that *unless* your cold side is absolute zero, there's more work that you can pull out of that heat. The waste heat of any practically limited heat engine can be reused, if that heat can be moved to another heat engine with a colder reservoir. Combined cycle power plants operate based on this. All heat engines in use are limited by practicality, not theory.
I'm not sure what you're going on about, or how you got so very confused.
There is a fundamental limit to the efficiency of a heat engine and it depends on the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the cold and hot sides of the engine.
Yes, this is also known as a heat gradient.
Nuclear reactors produce heat which drives a heat engine.
That's only half of it. If the radiator fails to shed that heat, the reactor does nothing.
Doesn't matter how this is done- the heat simply has to be transferred elsewhere.
It is impossible to convert all the energy to mechanical work.
While this is *technically* accurate- I suspect not in the way you mean it. In the case of a water turbine heat engine, you can continue to run it for as long as you can concentrate heat enough to cause a phase change in the fluid passing the turbine.
The real limits in the work we can extract from heat here on the planet are practical limits.
For example, if the waste heat had dropped below what was enough to phase-change water, you could always use a fluid with a lower boiling point, as long as you had a cold enough reservoir available for it to condense again (transfer the heat).
Parent cited Carnot's theorem without really understanding it, because if he did, he'd be aware that you can extract work from heat all the way to absolute zero, assuming you have a reservoir of absolute zero fluid.
Parent's claim was that an engine placed in the hottest part of the universe could do no work.
Sure, that's right, but a steam turbine in a nuclear reactor without a way of moving the heat to a cooler area can't do any work either.
If you know a way around this, the Nobel Prize committee would like to hear it.
No, they wouldn't. They'd roll their eyes and say, "Congrats. You discovered Carnot's theorem, and figured out that waste heat is a practical limit, not an absolute one."
You're certainly right that building a huge ass dam isn't as green as building turbines, but when someone argues that it's not green, I think they do it a disservice by not amortizing that CO2 cost over the life of the dam. That is to say, generally people arguing that have a sales pitch against dams and are trying to make them look worse than they are.
And when you compare the concrete costs MW to MW vs. turbines, is it truly so bad?
Perhaps times have changed. I know the three gorges didn't work like that.
I don't disagree that politics is the primary problem with waste disposal. But regardless, those politics have to be factored into the cost.
I'm not sure what China's waste disposal costs are, but they must also be factored in.
I do suspect that politics aside, that problem can be reasonable mitigated for a reasonable price.
I think you've never been to China, let alonw done business there, because you'd know that public works, in this case, reactors, dams, et al, have precisely zero regulations. The Government decides they want to build one, they settle on a reasonable amount of people it will kill to do it, and then they make it so.
Concrete production is one of the most CO2 intensive activities that humans undertake. Dams take a massive amount of concrete to build.
I hate this argument.
It's not wrong, so who can argue it, right?
But *everything* takes concrete. Windmills. Nuclear plants. Coal plants.
When comparing a dam, which takes a massive amount of concrete, and also kills a bunch of vegetation as a steep initial CO2 cost- against a coal plant, which also takes a massive amount of concrete, and also kills a bunch (though less) of vegetation as a steep initial CO2 cost... and then continues pumping out the amount of CO2 it took to build the dam every 12 days... is fucking ridiculous.
In any valid comparison, a dam is 00ff00. It's green as fuck.
You keep posting this, over and over and over again.
Why must it be done at once? Transitions can be slow, ya?
As you bring up more renewables, you bring up battery storage for them.
Thank god nature did no such thing.
I'm quite sure the sun's mass in any fissile material would instantly collapse into some kind of barely-if-at-all luminous ultra-dense not-life-friendly ball of spinning death.
Why go to all the power of inventing huge batteries that don't store enough power when nature has provided an extremely efficient one in the form of radioactive material?
Off the top of my head? Because the byproducts of releasing the energy from that battery is insanely fucking toxic and radioactive?
Not railing against nukes or anything- I'm a pro-nuke person, myself... But acting like nuclear waste isn't a big fucking problem doesn't advance the cause anymore than a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "lalalalala" gets him out of doing his homework.
We would need about 9 of the AP1000s to run just Shanghai; if we used solar and wind instead, and needed to buffer the capacity for 12 hours, we would need about 4 YEARS of 100% of the output of the gigafactory.
So?
What's the price difference between 4 years of gigafactory output + equivalent solar and wind, and 12 AP1000s + fuel/waste disposal? (Ignoring that this is China, and waste disposal probably means the Yangtze)
Sucks to have to breathe the air, drink the water, or eat the food in China, I guess.
Kind of goes without saying, lol
I'm amazed someone came so vociferously to the defense of the Chinese in this particular arena
Un-dammed rivers can also be a frequently recurring environmental disaster.
Now if only we could turn ourselves off when the insolation is too low to power a computer using microwatts of power. Whoops, guess we just die.
No, it's also cold. Very, very cold. (Also very very hot in some places, but that's another topic)
Space has a background temperature. You will not cool to below it.
Other than that, your general point is correct. Space is better thought of as an insulator for energy levels at this scale, since reasonable black-body radiation flux levels are tiny in comparison to the heat generated.