has anyone demonstrated extracting nuclear fuel from the oceans ?
pumped hydropower would certainly benefit from some natural geographic features like an elevated valley in the mountains not far from an ocean.
as for "efficiency" of paraffin battery - we're not going to use it to produce electricity. it is for heating the home at night ( when you actually need the heat ) using heat stored from solar power during the day. heating is always at least 100% efficient because wasted energy is heat.
Oh dear.
Diss, your first question is one I really, really shouldn't need to explain to YOU. DYOR.
Point two, 100% agree.
Point three, okay then but paraffin is still a terrible choice, how will your system recover from an outage at low/normal temperatures? Everything will block. Its hot water, but with worse everything except corrosion. Just use water like our ancestors; better volumetric heat capacity, and synergy with existing indoor plumbing.
phase change of paraffin is the point. it's like freezing of water into ice but it happens at 37C instead of 0C.
it takes a lot of energy to melt ice cubes and this happens at constant temperature of 0C. no matter how much heat you dump into a bath tub filled with ice cubes it will stay at 0C until the ice melts.
used in reverse you can extract all of that heat back without dropping temperature below 0C until the whole tub freezes.
same with paraffin but at 37C which is useful for heating the home.
once it all freezes solid yes - that could potentially be an issue. i think the solution is not to use a tub of paraffin but a tub of hot water with 100% sealed bags of paraffin floating in it.
paraffin bags will simply lock water temp to 37C just as ice cubes lock it to 0C.
there is a lot of research on paraffin phase change heat batteries - just not a lot of practical use yet. but the benefits over water are well explained in the research you can easily find by googling.
I have read quite a bit on the topic. Your idea of combining paraffin storage with water has potential, I'll grant. Water's volumetric heat capacity is so enormous it overwhelms paraffin's heat of fusion advantage over wider temperature ranges, such as facility or district heating, but for small, off-grid applications paraffin comes out ahead, at least on paper.
The problems with paraffin revolve around actively collecting, storing and then distributing that heat to where it is wanted. Paraffin has a ridiculously large coefficient of thermal expansion, and it solidifies at a temperature that is as inconvenient for piping as it is advantagous for temperature control.
you don't pump the paraffin - you store it in a tank and extract heat from it using a heat pump.
More complex and more fragile than hot water, with fewer synergies and small volumetric capacity.
That's a "no" from me, but then I live in a climate where air-source heat pumps never ice over. Your milage will vary...
a car interior is 40F hotter than exterior on a sunny day without any insulation. with strategically placed skylights you can heat a home entirely with sunlight ( without solar panels ) so long as it has enough thermal mass to keep that warmth overnight.
one way to do it is to build out of concrete and place insulation on OUTSIDE of the wall ( so thermal mass is inside ). another is water tank. another is paraffin.
the difference is some of these must be planned in advance while others can be retrofitted later.
now i remember i was considering paraffin specifically for future retrofit of just a standard home. i was concerned a water tank might not fit. paraffin tank can be smaller because it uses latent heat of phase change.
people custom building passive homes use the exterior insulation / wall thermal mass method. the benefit is there are literally zero additional parts versus a regular home - just higher material costs ( concrete vs wood frame ).
you might also get higher comfort with such a home because you wouldn't have any kinds of vents blowing hot air - just walls holding heat from day time.
That works by itself only in a very mild climate. I physically cover my skylights every summer, and it helps only a little.
But as part of an "all of the above" indoor climate management system I strongly approve.
Paraffin as a purely passive system is attractive, although the phase change temperature is a little high. As soon as you add a heat pump, an insulated tank and maybe radiators, you're better going with water. Higher volumetric heat capacity than paraffin, but needs a wider range of temperatures to make use of that.
I have a rather extravagant planted aquarium in my living room largely for passive thermal management (and for guests to stare at, since I refuse to own a TV). Paraffin would have a slightly better heat capacity over water, but only if I let the room heat to 37C!
the amount of solar gain would depend on surface area of skylights and the amount of insulation in the house. with small skylights and thin insulation you would not gain a lot of temperature. but if your entire roof is made out of glass and it's something like quadruple pane glass filled with krypton gas and your other walls are a foot of insulation and your floor is painted black you would probably be able to hit 100+ degrees inside when it is freezing outside with nothing but sunlight as a heat source.
cooling passively would be more difficult but not impossible. for example in NYC area ( where i am ) deep ground well temperature is about 53F so with a vertical ground loop system you could tap into that 53F when it's 95F outside for some passive cooling ... if you covered your roof and walls with mirrors
it's all possible the question is only at which point does it become ridiculous ...
i'm just opposed to people who do NOTHING and then demand we build more nuclear reactors.
reminds me of a fat guy who was demanding that children are vaxxed for COVID beause he was in a risk group for dying from it ... yeah mate maybe YOU should put down the spoon, rather than making kids take the vax when they are at zero risk from COVID and YOU are.
anyway it is not our job to tell Klaus Schwab HOW to maintain our standard of living. our job is to MURDER anybody who tells us that our standard of living ( but not their standard of living ) should go down to save the planet.
let Klaus figure out what the right mix of green technologies should be. whether it is solar, wind or nuclear or coal - i don't really care.
i'm just opposed to people who LEGITIMIZE THE SCAM of "global warming" by proposing nuclear as "the solution"
solution TO WHAT ???
the real solution to environmental damage is to EUTHANIZE EVERYBODY WITH IQ BELOW 100.
that would take earth population from 8 bil to about 2 bil and help a lot with environment without anything of value lost.
but the Jews don't like that because their democracy scam runs on retards.
nuclear literally SOLVES NOTHING.
LOL Diss you know many things but not test design. Your "death test" will be as gameable as any other government program.
Nuclear energy is not a cure for the ills of mass politics or of collusive elite cliques.
It is, however, a treatment that can keep the "patient" alive.
Not to mention he won't survive as he'll find many far better at killing him... 😂
Facts :D
the death test will work very well if i design it
it will work acceptably well if it is designed by people who want it to work
and it will fail if it is designed by people who want it to fail
you also fail to realize i don't "know" things - i make them up. it's a perk of being a genius. i wouldn't worry about my ability to design a death test.
i would start by testing those in prison, then illegals, then those on welfare and in nursing homes, then the retirees, then the unemployed, then the chronically ill etc.
by the time i got to testing gainfully employed healthy young people i would figure out how to test properly.
Klaus doesn't have a clue. We know Klaus doesn't have a clue. Klaus knows we know Klaus doesn't have a clue. And Klaus doesn't care.
Except for the last bit, this is Govt 101.
Some governments are getting out of the way at least a little so that people can use fission to make energy for other people.
They are the smart ones - taxpayers whos lights are on are less likely to start burning things.
Re your glass - CAPEX is not costless, and I can see many sources of fragility in your plan. But simpler forms of it can work well during daylight hours. I have a friend who plans to add a commercial-size plastic greenhouse to her modified reefer container tiny home that she lives in on a mountainside, very interested in how well it works. I can confirm reefer containers are ridiculously effectively insulated even with doors and windows.
my gated community has two swimming pools - "indoor" and outdoor.
the "Indoor" pool is actually covered only by a plastic greenhouse, so it's basically outdoor except i went swimming there two days ago and it was toasty warm while the artificial lake right next to it was FROZEN.
in summer they open windows in that greenhouse to cool it down.
it does have an HVAC but i'm not sure it actually needs it.
granted, target air temperature for a swimming pool is about 90F versus 75F for a residence so cooling a greenhouse to 75F will definitely be more challenging than to 90F ... but heating is not an issue
you only need glass on sides facing where the sun is in winter. in fact it is recommended to NOT have glass on sides facing where the sun is in summer. if you simply position glass correctly and insulate properly you may not need anything else at all.
the roof of the pool greenhouse is plastic which is translucent but not transparent - to reduce the harshness of the sun, an also to save weight.
the walls are clear glass for the views.
it looks similar to image below, but larger and with a separate hot tub:
when i first saw it i was skeptical it would work in our cold climate here in US North-East but it works perfectly. i under-estimated the greenhouse effect. it seems to easily overcome the relative lack of insulation.
as for Uranium according to Google there is about 300 times more Uranium dissolved in the oceans than available Terrestrially but so far ZERO Uranium is COMMERCIALLY produced from seawater
i will admit though that as long as it is even theoretically possible to extract Uranium from Seawater that means it will always be available for cost-no-object applications such as a Mars Colony even if we mine and use all of Terrestrial Uranium to heat our homes at a low cost.
that removes one of my concerns.
i am still concerned about safety because i was in Kiev when Chernobyl happened and Chernobyl is just 60 miles from Kiev. nuclear accidents happen and power plants are always close to some dense population center ( which consumes the power ). idiots tell me that Chernobyl happened because Russians are dumb. I then ask them "what about Fukushima" - that was a Natural Disaster ! Nuclear Boomer arguments sound like arguments of Christians defending their retarded religion and come FROM SAME EXACT BOOMERS.
you boomers should be executed by injection of a fatal dose of radioactive material ( along with something fluorescent ) until you glow in the dark. you will be told that now you never need a flashlight so you can't say it wasn't for your own good. forever ( glowing ) is relative of course but you will glow for the next couple days or so and you will be dead long before you stop glowing, so it can be said you will be eternal light.
but anyway, my main issue is we're using Uranium to replace Coal which is literally harmless - far safer than Uranium. what problem are you solving by replacing Coal with Uranium ?
i will tell you. your problem is you want to appear smarter than liberals while pretending to oppose them while simultaneously cucking to them.
it's the good old " dems are the real raycis " argument that THE SAME BOOMERS use and these are the people who sold us down the tubes.
Coal is nightmare fuel.
Watt for watt, coal plants release 3x the radioactivity that nuclear plants do, through the sheer volume of their waste streams. Then there are particulates, CO2, sulphur oxides, and a vast quantity of ash nobody wants as its toxic to plants AND low-level radioactive.
Every day is 26th of April 1986 downwind of a coal plant. Especially in the developing world where most are built.
And then there's mining the stuff, a whole extra set of externalities.
By contrast the volume of waste fuel rods created by all human nuclear plants ever would fit in one olympic swimming pool, and represent a strategic reserve of future fuel once they've "cooled" for a few decades.
Nuclear fuel isn't commercially recovered from seawater only because we have higher ore grades on land. If demand rises, seawater recovery becomes competitive.
I recommend reading the full report on Chernobyl, you might be surprised how few Russians were involved. Pripyat was a hardship posting for graduates with only diversity to offer. In both Chernobyl and Fukushima, not merely gross incompetence but willful negligence and government-backed impunity ruled. And both are still better places to live than a former coal mine...
It's the decay rate that matters more, radioactive iodine will fuck you up, uranium in small quantities not so much.
So first step before considering it is to get rid of those hired for "what they are" & hire based on "what they can do" instead... Or one of these dipshits will have us all marinating in the nastier stuff...
And it still doesn't cover someone intentionally turning the thing into a dirty bomb with missiles or other explosives...
