1

Topic: About green power

We see decent lowering in Queensland where an electrogeneration basis old kind coal (86.8 %), and here South Australia (the leader to "green generation") and Victoria (the neighbor of South Australia on whom principal shock on compensating of its "saw" falls) inform on the multiple growth of wholesale prices in January - from $84 to $168 and from $62 to $139 accordingly (in a megavat-hour). And all it against  which duration in separate regions of these states exceeds two days, i.e. very high prices are accompanied also by disgusting quality of an arriving power flow. https://aftershock.news/? q=node/611931

2

Re: About green power

It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and an operating time of fuel, which for industrial usage appears enough only in 2100-2150, so any there are no two ways about it, except how to develop green power what to reduce speed of consumption of these resources and what to overstay these 30-50 years of a potential energy crisis that for us waits...

3

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and a fuel operating time Whence this delirium ? Likely from a box... Coal and gas more than it is consumed now years on 100 suffices precisely. Thermopoison does not have any operating time of fuel - LOL! There the impracticable problem to make the small sun, alas it while and in the future can is economically impossible - the sun in small volume destroys constructions that around, generated energy does not cover an expense for reactor creation. To do the size of the minisun it is more - the reactor price increases to inconceivable values as dependence not linear, and problems do not leave anywhere. Uranium 238, 232 it is a lot of Thorium (and the waste but not processed nuclear fuel generally  - it also it is necessary to use). The nuclear power went in a wrong direction, type of self-supported responses (dangerous - up to explosions if there will be miscalculations) instead of from the outside causing these responses with the positive output. The accelerator of neutrons of high energies is necessary that of all to light a fire from sharing materials. https://youtu.be/tOsgiIr5niM? t=667

4

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and an operating time of fuel which for industrial usage appears enough only in 2100-2150 so any there are no two ways about it, this problem solve by means of reactors on fast neutrons - at whom they are.

5

Re: About green power

Hello, _ilya _, you wrote: __> Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS>> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and a fuel operating time __> Whence this delirium ? From the reconnoitered stores and a method ... __> thermopoison does not have any operating time of fuel - LOL! Tritium whence were going to take? If deuterium the sea tritium grams are extracted... You would study process... A distinctive singularity of thermopoison that responses deuterium + deuterium give a small energetic exhaust (not applicable in industrial scale consists), but these responses to an output give tritium... And for the big energetic exhaust tritium (D+T, He3+T) is necessary. Here it also needs to be turned out at the first stage what to receive an energetic profit. . __> Uranium 238, 232 it is a lot of Thorium (and the waste but not processed nuclear fuel generally  - it also it is necessary to use). The nuclear power went in a wrong direction, type of self-supported responses (dangerous - up to explosions if there will be miscalculations) instead of from the outside causing these responses with the positive output. About yes. It is a lot of... In 2040 world reconnoitered stores framing end...

6

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> About yes. It is a lot of... In 2040 world reconnoitered stores framing end... 238 uranium suffices on thousand years generally, even shells do of it. It if only 235 to take, it is a little stores.

7

Re: About green power

Hello, Ops, you wrote: BS>> About yes. It is a lot of... In 2040 world reconnoitered stores framing end... Ops> 238 uranium suffices on thousand years generally, even shells do of it. It if only 235 to take, it is a little stores. And it is even more thorium, than uranium-238 (and 233). And with thermopoison not all so is bad. In general the task of creation of the thermonuclear reactor is solved years 10 or 20 back, but as well as any in essence new technology is required  engineering decisions. And it is expensive, price  which cannot agree plainly who how many for in any way him pays, for example, the order of 15-20 billion dollars. That all it to debug to a state "brought and thrust where it is necessary" it is necessary not to stint can construct such 5-10 . As a result, I estimate cost of a finishing to mind of thermonuclear station of the order of 150 billion dollars. Basically at mankind such money is, here it only spends them for other things.

8

Re: About green power

BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and an operating time of fuel, which for industrial usage appears enough only in 2100-2150, so any there are no two ways about it, except how to develop green power what to reduce speed of consumption of these resources and what to overstay these 30-50 years of a potential energy crisis that for us waits... The Sun too an exhaustible resource. A matter of time. The resulted numbers invalid.

9

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70 One only derivatives of carbon suffices on one thousand years somewhere, at present consumption. BS> and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and an operating time of fuel Thermopoison is not necessary and hardly flies up. BS> which for industrial usage appears enough only in 2100-2150, so any there are no two ways about it, except how to develop green power what to reduce speed of consumption of these resources and what to overstay these 30-50 years of a potential energy crisis that for us waits... The Green power it is faster a myth, it  on how many a decent consumption level.

10

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> Tritium whence were going to take? If deuterium the sea tritium grams are extracted... You would study process... A distinctive singularity of thermopoison that responses deuterium + deuterium give a small energetic exhaust (not applicable in industrial scale consists), but these responses to an output give tritium... And for the big energetic exhaust tritium (D+T, He3+T) is necessary. Here it also needs to be turned out at the first stage what to receive an energetic profit... The Educational program: tritium standardly is worked out 60 years from lithium-6 by means of its irradiation by neurons. How on yours hydrogen bombs work? At problem thermopoison in other - it the expensive and ineffective even in the theory, in comparison with uranium power. __>> uranium 238, 232 it is a lot of Thorium (and the waste but not processed nuclear fuel generally  - it also it is necessary to use). The nuclear power went in a wrong direction, type of self-supported responses (dangerous - up to explosions if there will be miscalculations) instead of from the outside causing these responses with the positive output. Welkom in 21 centuries where for a long time already it is implemented. BS> about yes. It is a lot of... In 2040 world reconnoitered stores framing end... When I was at school - promised that ends in 2000.

11

Re: About green power

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> And with thermopoison not all so is bad. In general the task of creation of the thermonuclear reactor is solved years 10 or 20 back, but as well as any in essence new technology is required  engineering decisions. And it is expensive, price  which cannot agree plainly who how many for in any way him pays, for example, the order of 15-20 billion dollars. That all it to debug to a state "brought and thrust where it is necessary" it is necessary not to stint can construct such 5-10 . As a result, I estimate cost of a finishing to mind of thermonuclear station of the order of 150 billion dollars. Basically at mankind such money is, here it only spends them for other things. These are less than 10 %  the Chinese budget. Let's compare to a family - any family  to endure exception of 10 % from the annual budget. As and with the states. So means, nobody is interested seriously in thermopoison.

12

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, and thermopoison even in the course of stabilizing and an operating time of fuel, which for industrial usage appears enough only in 2100-2150, so any there are no two ways about it, except how to develop green power what to reduce speed of consumption of these resources and what to overstay these 30-50 years of a potential energy crisis that for us waits... Stores of coal like should suffice for some centuries.

13

Re: About green power

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> It is pleasant to you or not, but coal, gas, uranium is all exhaustible resources to years to 2050-70, Here it directly specially for green  is removed.