Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:47:50 AM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

you only replies twice and you are already calling names. Are you mad?

Nah. If I was mad, I'd have used caps. I'm just replying to the smug pricks who want to debate and try to act like twats, so they're getting a little bit back and about time as well.

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 05:49:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:47:50 AM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

you only replies twice and you are already calling names. Are you mad?

Nah. If I was mad, I'd have used caps. I'm just replying to the smug pricks who want to debate and try to act like twats, so they're getting a little bit back and about time as well.

This is the fourth reply and you can't help yourself calling names. What can't you have a proper debate?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:58:30 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 05:49:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:47:50 AM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

you only replies twice and you are already calling names. Are you mad?

Nah. If I was mad, I'd have used caps. I'm just replying to the smug pricks who want to debate and try to act like twats, so they're getting a little bit back and about time as well.

This is the fourth reply and you can't help yourself calling names. What can't you have a proper debate?

I can easily have a debate. You people can only do it for a short while, then you all go into stupid mode and start playing your little games, so you're getting the same treatment.
Act like an arsehole and I'll treat you like one. Act like you want to debate and I'll do likewise. Your choice, piss head. 

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:06:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:58:30 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 05:49:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:47:50 AM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

you only replies twice and you are already calling names. Are you mad?

Nah. If I was mad, I'd have used caps. I'm just replying to the smug pricks who want to debate and try to act like twats, so they're getting a little bit back and about time as well.

This is the fourth reply and you can't help yourself calling names. What can't you have a proper debate?

I can easily have a debate. You people can only do it for a short while, then you all go into stupid mode and start playing your little games, so you're getting the same treatment.
Act like an arsehole and I'll treat you like one. Act like you want to debate and I'll do likewise. Your choice, piss head. 

Yes, little games, such as providing evidence to back up our position, and making logical arguments to support our views...

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:06:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:58:30 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 05:49:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 05:47:50 AM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

you only replies twice and you are already calling names. Are you mad?

Nah. If I was mad, I'd have used caps. I'm just replying to the smug pricks who want to debate and try to act like twats, so they're getting a little bit back and about time as well.

This is the fourth reply and you can't help yourself calling names. What can't you have a proper debate?

I can easily have a debate. You people can only do it for a short while, then you all go into stupid mode and start playing your little games, so you're getting the same treatment.
Act like an arsehole and I'll treat you like one. Act like you want to debate and I'll do likewise. Your choice, piss head. 

Another words you can't give us answers to the debate so you divert to nasty tantrums. How about nuclear submarines. How are they powered under water for months? Or do submarines exist?

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 03:15:55 AM

so when they recombine the hydrogen to generate electricity they get more electricity out than the electricity used for the electrolysis

Not by conventional methods, no. Maybe take a look at what they can do to extract hydrogen.
The way we know of extracting it, isn't the only way to do it that is expensive. Take a look about and see what they can actually do.
Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running. Obviously you will go into full on expert denial mode, I'm sure of that.

Since when do hydrogen cars run on water?   

I said they require water as fuel, not they fill their fuel tanks with water you smug little bastard.

Wowzers, I post one comment, one sentence, eight words on this thread and get called that? Impressive - a very Happy easter to you too. 

I suggest you sort your literacy out - water is not the fuel, it is the source of hydrogen. 

Secondly, you stated that hydrogen cars were "moving power stations", implying that they were completely self sufficient once the raw materials (water) were provided.  Which would suggest that it is the car extracting hydrogen from water.

Thirdly, the largest source of hydrogen is fossil fuel.  As others have surmised, it takes more electricity to produce hydrogen from water than the electricity produced.

Another words you can't give us answers to the debate so you divert to nasty tantrums. How about nuclear submarines. How are they powered under water for months? Or do submarines exist?

No such thing as a nuclear submarine. They don't stay underwater for months. You listen to too many fairy stories.

Wowzers, I post one comment, one sentence, eight words on this thread and get called that? Impressive - a very Happy easter to you too. 

Then don't come here pretending you have an open mind and quickly step into debunk mode about everything this site has to offer.

I suggest you sort your literacy out - water is not the fuel, it is the source of hydrogen. 

What do you think a source is? Sort yourself out you mug.

Secondly, you stated that hydrogen cars were "moving power stations", implying that they were completely self sufficient once the raw materials (water) were provided.  Which would suggest that it is the car extracting hydrogen from water.

No. I said it is like a moving power station, which it is. It's fuelled by hydrogen and moving, miss smug.

Thirdly, the largest source of hydrogen is fossil fuel.  As others have surmised, it takes more electricity to produce hydrogen from water than the electricity produced.

Only in the sense of extracting hydrogen as a gas. I'm not simply just taking about the extraction, I'm talking about direct electricity. Look it up and come back to me, miss clever clogs.

You are yet to tell us how they get net gain in energy production using hydrogen from water as a source?

Scepti, do you really believe that you can take some electricity, pass it through water, create hydrogen, burn the hydrogen to create electricity, then use some of that electricity for everyday use and the rest of it to create more hydrogen from water?  And this process will be able to supply enough electricity to keep itself going?

So say it takes 1kW of electricity to get hydrogen out of water.  If you burn this hydrogen in a generator, it will produce more than 1kW of electricity?  Really?

No. I said it is like a moving power station, which it is. It's fuelled by hydrogen and moving, miss smug.

No, you didn't.

Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running.

Only in the sense of extracting hydrogen as a gas. I'm not simply just taking about the extraction, I'm talking about direct electricity. Look it up and come back to me, miss clever clogs.

I take it you mean hydrogen fuel cells?  Yes, it takes more electricity to split the hydrogen out than the fuel cell can than generate.  If this isn't what you mean, I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm open minded.  When something makes sense.  But it shouldn't matter either way and shouldn't prompt name calling, just because I don't agree with your ideas.  This is a debate forum after all.

You are yet to tell us how they get net gain in energy production using hydrogen from water as a source?

Stop acting like a dummy.

Scepti, do you really believe that you can take some electricity, pass it through water, create hydrogen, burn the hydrogen to create electricity, then use some of that electricity for everyday use and the rest of it to create more hydrogen from water?  And this process will be able to supply enough electricity to keep itself going?

So say it takes 1kW of electricity to get hydrogen out of water.  If you burn this hydrogen in a generator, it will produce more than 1kW of electricity?  Really?

You are saying this, not me. Don't start saying things then attributing them to me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 06:33:59 AM

No. I said it is like a moving power station, which it is. It's fuelled by hydrogen and moving, miss smug.

No, you didn't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 03:21:59 AM

Just think about your hydrogen cars, etc. They are a moving power station, requiring water as fuel. It's no different to how a full size power station could be running.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 06:33:59 AM

Only in the sense of extracting hydrogen as a gas. I'm not simply just taking about the extraction, I'm talking about direct electricity. Look it up and come back to me, miss clever clogs.

I take it you mean hydrogen fuel cells?  Yes, it takes more electricity to split the hydrogen out than the fuel cell can than generate.  If this isn't what you mean, I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm open minded.  When something makes sense.  But it shouldn't matter either way and shouldn't prompt name calling, just because I don't agree with your ideas.  This is a debate forum after all.

The trouble with you goons is, you like to make up what you think and then spend your time trying to make out that I said it. Piss off you fool. You're about as open minded as starman and the rest...zilch.

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 06:36:21 AM

You are yet to tell us how they get net gain in energy production using hydrogen from water as a source?

Stop acting like a dummy.

Not sure what that has to do with my question. So here we are still waiting for an anserw ......

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 07:07:43 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 20, 2014, 06:36:21 AM

You are yet to tell us how they get net gain in energy production using hydrogen from water as a source?

Stop acting like a dummy.

Not sure what that has to do with my question. So here we are still waiting for an anserw ......

If you can't figure it out, then tough. I'm not going to spend my time babysitting you idiots.

So in reality you have no answer?

So in reality you have no answer?

Of course I have answers. I can't be arsed giving them to a bunch of braindead dickheads like you lot.

Well to all is it seems awfully like you have backed yourself into a corner you now can't get out of. It's okey to admit you don't know. Or the god forbid you were wrong. We would all respect you a lot lot for it rather than all this shouting and swearing we are geti at the moment.

Well to all is it seems awfully like you have backed yourself into a corner you now can't get out of. It's okey to admit you don't know. Or the god forbid you were wrong. We would all respect you a lot lot for it rather than all this shouting and swearing we are geti at the moment.

I'm not after respect from a bunch of pricks like you lot. You're all braindead sheep and know nothing, except what you google. It's as plain as day.
You all like to spend most of your time being smug arseholes and baiting. I'm biting on your bait for today and telling you arseholes what you are and I should be banned for it, because I'm breaking the rules. 

Jroa should act on this.
I, sceptimatic deserve a ban of no less than one month for my bad behaviour and personal attacks on a bunch of arseholes. I accept whatever ban is given out, without arguing it at any point in the future. I thoroughly deserve this ban. Over to you.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 06:47:08 AM

Scepti, do you really believe that you can take some electricity, pass it through water, create hydrogen, burn the hydrogen to create electricity, then use some of that electricity for everyday use and the rest of it to create more hydrogen from water?  And this process will be able to supply enough electricity to keep itself going?

So say it takes 1kW of electricity to get hydrogen out of water.  If you burn this hydrogen in a generator, it will produce more than 1kW of electricity?  Really?

You are saying this, not me. Don't start saying things then attributing them to me.

I am asking questions because your position so far has been summed up with

1)Nuclear power is fake
2)They really produce hydrogen from water to create electricity
3)The process they use is electrolysis.

I am just trying to figure out how you can think that.

Electrolysis is passing electricity through water to split the hydrogen from the oxygen.  If they are using electricity as an input, and getting electricity as an output, you have to understand why everyone is having questions about how it works.

So far, all questions have been met with typical Scepti responses of "Have a think on it" and "If you can't figure it out, I am not going to explain it"

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 07:08:49 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 06:47:08 AM

Scepti, do you really believe that you can take some electricity, pass it through water, create hydrogen, burn the hydrogen to create electricity, then use some of that electricity for everyday use and the rest of it to create more hydrogen from water?  And this process will be able to supply enough electricity to keep itself going?

So say it takes 1kW of electricity to get hydrogen out of water.  If you burn this hydrogen in a generator, it will produce more than 1kW of electricity?  Really?

You are saying this, not me. Don't start saying things then attributing them to me.

I am asking questions because your position so far has been summed up with

1)Nuclear power is fake
2)They really produce hydrogen from water to create electricity
3)The process they use is electrolysis.

I am just trying to figure out how you can think that.

Electrolysis is passing electricity through water to split the hydrogen from the oxygen.  If they are using electricity as an input, and getting electricity as an output, you have to understand why everyone is having questions about how it works.

So far, all questions have been met with typical Scepti responses of "Have a think on it" and "If you can't figure it out, I am not going to explain it"

Because you don't have the common sense to see it how I'm saying it. All you people do, is just go off on one and decide I'm saying that nuclear power stations work by electrolysis. I've never said that. I  was asked how hydrogen was made. I said electrolysis.

There will be a whole host of things that make it run. Sea water has the necessary elements to make a power station work, because it contains potassium as well.
I'm not going to explain it all. Look it up and see if you can maybe get your head around some of the stuff.
I'm not going to write a full essay on it and you lot shouldn't be so smug as to think you all know what you're talking about.

OK, so where does the electricity come from to make the hydrogen?

Please explain it step by step from the source of this electricity to the production of the electricity that the nuclear power plants put out onto the grid.  Also explain why the initial electricity is not used to supply the grid, but instead put through a process to generate electricity.
I am not asking you to write an essay.  Just explain what you mean, explain how you come to your conclusion, just for once, explain something instead of just saying "Have a think on it"

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:19:59 AM

Another words you can't give us answers to the debate so you divert to nasty tantrums. How about nuclear submarines. How are they powered under water for months? Or do submarines exist?

No such thing as a nuclear submarine. They don't stay underwater for months. You listen to too many fairy stories.

Come on and get with the program. Your own country has a fleet of submarine and they are all nuclear. Take a look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service

OK, so where does the electricity come from to make the hydrogen?

Please explain it step by step from the source of this electricity to the production of the electricity that the nuclear power plants put out onto the grid.  Also explain why the initial electricity is not used to supply the grid, but instead put through a process to generate electricity.
I am not asking you to write an essay.  Just explain what you mean, explain how you come to your conclusion, just for once, explain something instead of just saying "Have a think on it"

Instead of me explaining stuff, let's see if you can read between the lines. I 100% doubt this is possible by you and otehrs and frankly, I don't give a toss...but here goes.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-power-hydrogen-fuel-economy.html#nRlv

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 06:28:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:19:59 AM

Another words you can't give us answers to the debate so you divert to nasty tantrums. How about nuclear submarines. How are they powered under water for months? Or do submarines exist?

No such thing as a nuclear submarine. They don't stay underwater for months. You listen to too many fairy stories.

Come on and get with the program. Your own country has a fleet of submarine and they are all nuclear. Take a look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service

Many countries have submarines. It doesn't mean they are nuclear.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 07:37:54 AM

OK, so where does the electricity come from to make the hydrogen?

Please explain it step by step from the source of this electricity to the production of the electricity that the nuclear power plants put out onto the grid.  Also explain why the initial electricity is not used to supply the grid, but instead put through a process to generate electricity.
I am not asking you to write an essay.  Just explain what you mean, explain how you come to your conclusion, just for once, explain something instead of just saying "Have a think on it"

Instead of me explaining stuff, let's see if you can read between the lines. I 100% doubt this is possible by you and otehrs and frankly, I don't give a toss...but here goes.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-power-hydrogen-fuel-economy.html#nRlv

If you believe the article then there are such thing as nuclear power plants. What they are saying is that when at low periods the nuclear power plant can produce hydrogen. It does not mean the POWER plant is FUELED by hydrogen.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 08:00:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 07:37:54 AM

OK, so where does the electricity come from to make the hydrogen?

Please explain it step by step from the source of this electricity to the production of the electricity that the nuclear power plants put out onto the grid.  Also explain why the initial electricity is not used to supply the grid, but instead put through a process to generate electricity.
I am not asking you to write an essay.  Just explain what you mean, explain how you come to your conclusion, just for once, explain something instead of just saying "Have a think on it"

Instead of me explaining stuff, let's see if you can read between the lines. I 100% doubt this is possible by you and otehrs and frankly, I don't give a toss...but here goes.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-power-hydrogen-fuel-economy.html#nRlv

If you believe the article then there are such thing as nuclear power plants. What they are saying is that when at low periods the nuclear power plant can produce hydrogen. It does not mean the POWER plant is FUELED by hydrogen.

C'mon Starman, you aren't reading whats not written!!!

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 07:53:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 06:28:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:19:59 AM

Another words you can't give us answers to the debate so you divert to nasty tantrums. How about nuclear submarines. How are they powered under water for months? Or do submarines exist?

No such thing as a nuclear submarine. They don't stay underwater for months. You listen to too many fairy stories.

Come on and get with the program. Your own country has a fleet of submarine and they are all nuclear. Take a look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service

Many countries have submarines. It doesn't mean they are nuclear.

Here is the list of countries that use nuclear submarines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2014, 08:00:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 07:37:54 AM

OK, so where does the electricity come from to make the hydrogen?

Please explain it step by step from the source of this electricity to the production of the electricity that the nuclear power plants put out onto the grid.  Also explain why the initial electricity is not used to supply the grid, but instead put through a process to generate electricity.
I am not asking you to write an essay.  Just explain what you mean, explain how you come to your conclusion, just for once, explain something instead of just saying "Have a think on it"

Instead of me explaining stuff, let's see if you can read between the lines. I 100% doubt this is possible by you and otehrs and frankly, I don't give a toss...but here goes.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-power-hydrogen-fuel-economy.html#nRlv

If you believe the article then there are such thing as nuclear power plants. What they are saying is that when at low periods the nuclear power plant can produce hydrogen. It does not mean the POWER plant is FUELED by hydrogen.

When I said read between the lines, you were the farthest person from my mind when I said that. I knew you didn't have the mental capacity to do that.