Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations

I suppose he would say they run on hydrogen aswell lolz

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 08:08:46 AM

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!!!

Just as I thought. 

I suppose he would say they run on hydrogen aswell lolz

This is why you people will always be grazing.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 08:10:36 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 08:08:46 AM

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!!!

Just as I thought. 

Here is what is written:
Khamis said that nuclear power plants are ideal for hydrogen production because they already produce the heat for changing water into steam and the electricity for breaking the steam down into hydrogen and oxygen. Experts envision the current generation of nuclear power plants using a low-temperature electrolysis which can take advantage of low electricity prices during the plant's off-peak hours to produce hydrogen. Future plants, designed specifically for hydrogen production, would use a more efficient high-temperature electrolysis process or be coupled to thermochemical processes, which are currently under research and development.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 20, 2014, 08:10:36 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 08:08:46 AM

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!!!

Just as I thought. 

Are you going to actually explain something?  Or just post stuff and tell people "If you can't figure it out, you don't have common sense"

As far as I can see, the article you posted SUPPORTS the fact that nuclear energy is real.

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

Interesting article.  So forgetting temporarily what is to be read between the lines, just to clarify, the immense amounts of heat generated by nuclear power stations could be used in the production of hydrogen through electrolysis to water.  It would be used to heat the water to steam, thereupon the electric current is passed through, electrolysis being more effective on steam.   And this could be done at the plants off peak hours, to take advantage of cheaper electricity.

I am not sure what you are reading between the lines?  If the nuclear plant wasn't operating as a nuclear plant, you wouldn't get the heat to turn the water to steam?  At least not as a by product, it would make the process a lot more expensive if it wasn't from waste heat?

Scepti is have a bad day with his theories and denials. He does not know we are bring him subjects WE know he will reject. That is because conspiracy theorist always think that are smarted than everybody else. He did say he was a genius. Right!!

Scepti is have a bad day with his theories and denials. He does not know we are bring him subjects WE know he will reject. That is because conspiracy theorist always think that are smarted than everybody else. He did say he was a genius. Right!!

I believe he referred to himself as a simplistic genius in another thread

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 08:36:06 AM

Scepti is have a bad day with his theories and denials. He does not know we are bring him subjects WE know he will reject. That is because conspiracy theorist always think that are smarted than everybody else. He did say he was a genius. Right!!

I believe he referred to himself as a simplistic genius in another thread

Children are simplistic.

Here's one theory for you, from another forum. 

Some belief that nuclear power plants are in reality massive "kettles". Where excess energy from the national grid is used to boil off massive amounts of water, and then the "plant" acts as a giant hydrogen cell, thereby circulating electricity and dumping less back into the grid than was received from it (being that it takes more energy to generate a lesser output).

Thereby controlling the supply of electricity, rather than excess electricity supply driving down cost. Supply and demand, etc etc.  is that what you are getting at?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 19, 2014, 10:56:27 AM

Of course it takes energy, except it is an energy that can be produced using water as an efficient fuel. Have a think about the hydrogen cars and that should give you a clue about how much energy you can produce from using water by extracting the hydrogen gas from it, with a by product of water from it.
That's your nuclear power stations in my opinion.

lol, why do you think water electrolysis is not a good way to make power? Because you input more electricity in the system than you get from the pressure of the gases... It's also a very slow process, unless you add in even more power. It's a lose-lose situation.

Not if you use a flywheel.  The ancient Egyptians did, Ed Leedskalnin did....it's called free energy.  It exists no matter what the suppressors say.

Of course it takes energy, except it is an energy that can be produced using water as an efficient fuel. Have a think about the hydrogen cars and that should give you a clue about how much energy you can produce from using water by extracting the hydrogen gas from it, with a by product of water from it.
That's your nuclear power stations in my opinion.

Where the hell are you getting your chemistry from, if you think you can take the hydrogen out of water, and end up with water as a by product?

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 19, 2014, 03:35:03 PM

So you can't explain to us how they work?

If I knew the full system of how it all works then I would conclusively prove them not to be what we are told. The very fact that I simply believe them to be something other than what we are told is not evidence that they are what I say.
On that note, I can't explain in full how I think it all works. All I will say is, it's like a hydrogen fuel cell battery with a process to make electricity and cool off by allowing steam to hit turbines as anotehr cooling process of making electricity, then condensing it or using steam colling stacks, etc, plus hydrogen stacks for excess build up.

Your uranium bundles are anything but. They are fuel cells that make electricity. Those fuel pools are not spent fuel pools of uranium bundles.
That's my thoughts.

You're an idiot...
By denying nuclear power (or nukes for that matter) you're effectively denying nuclear physics, and by doing so you're effectively denying ~90% of all quantum mechanics...

Congratulations, you managed to deny one of the most modern WORKING theories in reality...

Pathetic!

What, exactly, was the point of this thread?

I think everyone knew what scepti's shtick would be from the first post.

If nothing else, at the very least this thread has further reinforced just how little scientific know-how sceptimatic possesses.

It's been a long, long time since I've seen such widespread ignorance of mathematics, physics, chemistry and science in general—probably in the fifties in high school.

One could possibly presume from sceptimatic's scientific ignorance of the earth sciences that he's simply a major troll having a good laugh at our attempts to explain even the basics to him, or that he's suffering some sort of delusional disability.  I simply can't believe that anybody living in the 21st century could be living their life as prescribed by Middle Ages science, or with the mindset of a 12-year-old kid.

And if he is serious about all this stuff, then he's yet to define the units of measurement for his theoretical "denpressure" and let us know whether it's a scalar or a vector quantity.  I've asked him several times, and each time he's avoided answering.

So I can only agree JimmyTheCrab—this post has been severely devalued with sceptimatic's endless bullshit input.
 

So I can only agree JimmyTheCrab—this post has been severely devalued with sceptimatic's endless bullshit input.

What?  This thread is about sceptimatic and his opinion on how nuclear power stations work.  Read the title of the thread.  inquisitive made the thread specifically to hear "sceptimatics endless bullshit".  If anything, you are the one derailing every time you post your little commentaries like the one you just did.  It added nothing to the topic and was basically just a drawn out version of, "Scepti is dumb and posts dumb things."  Maybe you should reflect on yourself and figure out who is the one acting like a 12 year old. 

Quote from: Donk3y on April 19, 2014, 02:11:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 19, 2014, 10:56:27 AM

Of course it takes energy, except it is an energy that can be produced using water as an efficient fuel. Have a think about the hydrogen cars and that should give you a clue about how much energy you can produce from using water by extracting the hydrogen gas from it, with a by product of water from it.
That's your nuclear power stations in my opinion.

lol, why do you think water electrolysis is not a good way to make power? Because you input more electricity in the system than you get from the pressure of the gases... It's also a very slow process, unless you add in even more power. It's a lose-lose situation.

Not if you use a flywheel.  The ancient Egyptians did, Ed Leedskalnin did....it's called free energy.  It exists no matter what the suppressors say.

Stupid post of the year.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 19, 2014, 10:56:27 AM

Of course it takes energy, except it is an energy that can be produced using water as an efficient fuel. Have a think about the hydrogen cars and that should give you a clue about how much energy you can produce from using water by extracting the hydrogen gas from it, with a by product of water from it.
That's your nuclear power stations in my opinion.

Where the hell are you getting your chemistry from, if you think you can take the hydrogen out of water, and end up with water as a by product?

"Hydrogen cars", or just hydrogen engines work on the basis of burning hydrogen, which yields a lot of heat (energy) and water.
But the OP meant that, let's say, you've got 100 units of energy worth of water, you add in more energy (let's say 10 units), you get 40 units of hydrogen (because no reaction, chemical or physical, will EVER have a 100% randament), and from those 40 units of hydrogen, through burning, he believes that he'll get more than the 110 units of energy he put in the system in the first place xD

Basic thermodynamics, Scepti and Spaceship both fail at it 

This thread is about sceptimatic and his opinion on how nuclear power stations work.
[...]Maybe you should reflect on yourself and figure out who is the one acting like a 12 year old.

I said earlier:

And by the way sceptimatic, the high cost/low efficiency of water electrolysis is the main reason we're not running our cars on hydrogen.  Electrolysis is only around 60% efficient, so that 1kg of hydrogen (specific energy = 40 kWh/kg) requires 65kWh of electricity to produce.  This hydrogen then works at to around three times the price of natural gas as a fuel.

And sceptimatic's mature response to this?

You people are just not clued up at all. I can't even begin to answer the utter rubbish you've all spouted since I was gone. One day the lightbulb may come on but I seriously doubt it with a lot of you.

—You may like to rethink who's acting like a 12-year-old on this forum jroa.  It's obviously not me LOL.
 

Geoffrey, chill out. All I'm saying is, stop pretending you people actually know what you're talking about as regards nuclear power, because you actually know nothing other than what they tell you it does. It's all we all know; unless someone decides to come on the forum to profess to being a nuclear scientist, telling us that he/she has seen this direct fissioning of uranium bundles.

They tell us what it is and does, we all know that. We all can see how they say it operates. Weirdly its purpose is to boil water into steam. It not only sounds far fetched, I believe it is far fetched and there is another reason for what those plants are for.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 19, 2014, 02:11:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 19, 2014, 10:56:27 AM

Of course it takes energy, except it is an energy that can be produced using water as an efficient fuel. Have a think about the hydrogen cars and that should give you a clue about how much energy you can produce from using water by extracting the hydrogen gas from it, with a by product of water from it.
That's your nuclear power stations in my opinion.

lol, why do you think water electrolysis is not a good way to make power? Because you input more electricity in the system than you get from the pressure of the gases... It's also a very slow process, unless you add in even more power. It's a lose-lose situation.

Not if you use a flywheel.  The ancient Egyptians did, Ed Leedskalnin did....it's called free energy.  It exists no matter what the suppressors say.

Flywheel is not free energy. What do you think it takes to spin the flywheel. "ENERGY"

Geoffrey, chill out. All I'm saying is, stop pretending you people actually know what you're talking about as regards nuclear power, because you actually know nothing other than what they tell you it does. It's all we all know; unless someone decides to come on the forum to profess to being a nuclear scientist, telling us that he/she has seen this direct fissioning of uranium bundles.

They tell us what it is and does, we all know that. We all can see how they say it operates. Weirdly its purpose is to boil water into steam. It not only sounds far fetched, I believe it is far fetched and there is another reason for what those plants are for.

What is that reason and how do you explain the movement of nuclear waste and the issues with it?

Geoffrey, chill out. All I'm saying is, stop pretending you people actually know what you're talking about as regards nuclear power, because you actually know nothing other than what they tell you it does. It's all we all know; unless someone decides to come on the forum to profess to being a nuclear scientist, telling us that he/she has seen this direct fissioning of uranium bundles.

They tell us what it is and does, we all know that. We all can see how they say it operates. Weirdly its purpose is to boil water into steam. It not only sounds far fetched, I believe it is far fetched and there is another reason for what those plants are for.

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay, I don't know why you think this is all some sort of mystery to everybody... Just because you're uneducated in a field of science (make that any field in your case xD) doesn't mean that everybody else is lying.

Here, thunderf00t will shed more light on this issue, maybe even raise the veil of delusions from your closed mind:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects. 

Quote from: Donk3y on April 22, 2014, 04:16:36 AM

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects.

Which is all that is needed.  No doubt that they exist.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 22, 2014, 04:16:36 AM

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects.

Yes the effect.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2014, 04:02:50 AM

Geoffrey, chill out. All I'm saying is, stop pretending you people actually know what you're talking about as regards nuclear power, because you actually know nothing other than what they tell you it does. It's all we all know; unless someone decides to come on the forum to profess to being a nuclear scientist, telling us that he/she has seen this direct fissioning of uranium bundles.

They tell us what it is and does, we all know that. We all can see how they say it operates. Weirdly its purpose is to boil water into steam. It not only sounds far fetched, I believe it is far fetched and there is another reason for what those plants are for.

What is that reason and how do you explain the movement of nuclear waste and the issues with it?

What movement of nuclear waste? Where have you seen this movement of nuclear waste?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2014, 04:02:50 AM

Geoffrey, chill out. All I'm saying is, stop pretending you people actually know what you're talking about as regards nuclear power, because you actually know nothing other than what they tell you it does. It's all we all know; unless someone decides to come on the forum to profess to being a nuclear scientist, telling us that he/she has seen this direct fissioning of uranium bundles.

They tell us what it is and does, we all know that. We all can see how they say it operates. Weirdly its purpose is to boil water into steam. It not only sounds far fetched, I believe it is far fetched and there is another reason for what those plants are for.

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay, I don't know why you think this is all some sort of mystery to everybody... Just because you're uneducated in a field of science (make that any field in your case xD) doesn't mean that everybody else is lying.

Here, thunderf00t will shed more light on this issue, maybe even raise the veil of delusions from your closed mind:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Briefly explain what you witnessed and where inside this nuclear power station that you witnessed it.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2014, 04:40:39 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 22, 2014, 04:16:36 AM

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects.

Which is all that is needed.  No doubt that they exist.

You can seean apple decay in front of your eyes. Is it fissioning?

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2014, 04:40:39 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 22, 2014, 04:16:36 AM

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects.

Yes the effect.

So what effect of decay do you see? You see, the weird part of this fissioning process they tell us happens, meaning decaying for X amount of years inside a reactor, yet when they remove the bundles, they tell us that the bundles look as though they are new. If that's the case, then what is decaying?

Quote from: Starman on April 22, 2014, 04:44:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2014, 04:40:39 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 22, 2014, 04:16:36 AM

I've been in a nuclear powerplant and I've witnessed radioactive decay,

You can't see radioactive decay, just like you can't see magnetism.  At best, you can see some of its effects.

Yes the effect.

So what effect of decay do you see? You see, the weird part of this fissioning process they tell us happens, meaning decaying for X amount of years inside a reactor, yet when they remove the bundles, they tell us that the bundles look as though they are new. If that's the case, then what is decaying?

What science did you do at school? Passed any exams?