Sujet : Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?
De : 186283 (at) *nospam* ud0s4.net (186282@ud0s4.net)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 09. Dec 2024, 07:13:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : wokiesux
Message-ID : <5IWcnS0V6OUEF8v6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 12/8/24 1:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/12/2024 16:18, Rich wrote:
186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
Modern flywheels - super-sized - COULD store rather a lot of
energy. However you'd need to bury them a little Just In Case.
>
The physics of flywheels begin to bite you in the a** when you start
trying to "supersize" them for storage of significant amounts of
energy. You need exotic super strong materials (read as: "super
costly" and/or "does not exist yet") to prevent them from pulling
themselves apart rather explosively.
Exactly. Sentences like "COULD store rather a lot of energy." are simple hand-wavey nonsense,.
Nah ... not entirely.
The modern take isn't a big ring of steel - but closer
to the 'wire brush' you see on cheapo grinding machines.
However the 'wire' is well organized carbon/graphite/nanotube
fibers spinning in a vacuum. It's incredibly strong - and if
one or two fibers break it's not such a huge deal. The whole
thing spins on mag bearings and there are magnets/coils not far
from the axle that serve as booster/generators.
In short, DO-able ... and NOT insanely expensive. CAN hold
rather a LOT of energy too.
The UK to be fully 'renewable' for example would need to store the sort of energy found in half a dozen medium sized strategic nuclear bombs.
Um ... probably more.
However you do that, its damned risky - hydrogen - spinning flywheels - hydro dams, batteries.
In fact the safest energy store capable of doing it is a set of uranium/plutonium fuel rods. And then you don't need any renewable shit at all.
Simples!
Nuke reactors CAN indeed be very good. The TRICK is in
making them accident/terrorist-proof. "Pebble bed" is
pretty "-proof" - and according to some news China is
building a number of such plants. Thermodynamically
the 'hot' reactors seem more favorable and the US/EU
is tilting that way (a mistake imho).
There's STILL the issue of dealing with the nuke waste.
Takes ten forevers for it to decay. The French actually
encapsulate and store it AT the plant site. For others
like the USA, a bunker in the center of large military
bases might be better - you can keep an eye on it and
have thousands of soldiers as guards.
As for the ever-promised 'fusion' ... at this point
I'm gonna say "FORGET IT". The only places to even
get a speck over energy input are gigantic laser
facilities. It's not PRACTICAL in the least with
anything remotely like our current sci-tech.
My FEAR is that somebody will figure out some
Stupid Quantum Trick to flip matter into antimatter,
and convert like a kilogram during the test :-)