The end of the world is nigh (well our world)

[Rider]

you're right - we would need to up the ante as far as effeciency goes.

for example - conventional light bulbs use 90% of their electrical throughput to generate.........HEAT!! complete waste.

there is a huge loss of heat in current fossil-fuel and nuclear power stations, so energy is lost to the surroundings rather than transformed (eventually, after several other changes) into electricity.

the amount of alternative energy power stations needs to be huge - unless we go for fusion - to meet our ever growing energy needs. even now we are heading for what is termed an energy crisis, and current rate of transfer from conventional to renewable sources isn't going to help.

 

[NSKlad]

IMO, cover as much desert as possible in solar electricity plants. No one needs desert, it's just a bunch of sand. I remember reading some article when I was back in school that only a small percentage of the Saharan desert would need to be converted into solar power plants in order to power the world.

Exactley my opinion. And a desert seems like quite a good place to store nuclear waste, away from everything and everyone else.

 

[gavon]

...

 

[gavon]

almost, but not quite - not a chemist are you? lol!

the equation is:

H2 + 1/2O2 --> H2O

think you'll find that its 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20

 

[Rider]

think you'll find that its 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20

mate i teach chemistry for a living....

my equation is balanced for the formation of water.

standard equations of formation are balanced PER MOLE OF PRODUCT.

ie: 1 mole of hydrogen in its natural state (H2) reacts with half a mole of oxygen in its natural state (1/2O2) to form one mole of water in its natural state (H2O)
your equation is fine, but only form a basic viewpoint in that eliminates the need to deal with fractions within equations. we do this because it is often difficult for pupils to get the concept of the mole. therefore when they see an equation with fractions in it they automatically assume we mean things like half a molecule of methane (or whatever) which is not possible, rather than 3.01x10(23) molecules.

hope that clears things somewhat...

 

[Sid Sidgwick]

Gavon your answer is correct from a chemistry standpoint but Riders IS the correct answer for the exact balancing required in order to facilitate the formation of 1 molecule of water.


ps. Chemsitry teachers have to stick together

 

[arg1271]

anyone know how to build a perpetual motion machine?

 

[Bedlam]

anyone know how to build a perpetual motion machine?

If you have a cat, I have some chicken tikka masala and a cream covered floor! That should keep us going for a while

 

[Bolter]

Exactley my opinion. And a desert seems like quite a good place to store nuclear waste, away from everything and everyone else.

I think deserts constantly change from the weather/wind issues that come with having nothing around. And at some point the nuclear waste would become airborne.

Which could be quite bad.

I dont think it matters how far down you bury it.

 

[Syncopix]

you're right - we would need to up the ante as far as effeciency goes.

for example - conventional light bulbs use 90% of their electrical throughput to generate.........HEAT!! complete waste.

there is a huge loss of heat in current fossil-fuel and nuclear power stations, so energy is lost to the surroundings rather than transformed (eventually, after several other changes) into electricity.

the amount of alternative energy power stations needs to be huge - unless we go for fusion - to meet our ever growing energy needs. even now we are heading for what is termed an energy crisis, and current rate of transfer from conventional to renewable sources isn't going to help.

This is a very good point, and has been overlooked my many years. The amount of energy that is totally wasted is massive, if this was reduced 10-20 years ago, there probably wouldn't be this economic crisis there is today!

Nuclear power is a possibility, there are developments to use high frequency lasers to break down the radioactive isotopes so their half-lives are closer to 30 minutes rather than about 15 million years!

I originally read about this in New Scientist, but I can't find the article, however, there is more info here...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18065