I read about this a few days ago, Sunday, I believe. There is supposed to be a more official press release out sometime today. It is not a financially feasible new energy source and possibly not in our lifetimes. Much more work to be done, but this breakthrough means that more work will be coming ahead. :)
mack
7:23 pm on Dec 13, 2022 (gmt 0)
Funny I just read this article before coming here. This is probably the instance when the first rule of thermodynamics has been proven not to be a "rule". More energy out than in is certainly groundbreaking. It's certainly a lot more scientific than the perpetual motion machines we see all over the web these days.
Mack.
engine
10:24 am on Dec 14, 2022 (gmt 0)
We have one of these stable systems that is only 93 million miles away. It generates more energy than we could ever use, and in one day the energy hitting the earth is more than the total energy humans use in one year. The problem we have is capturing that energy: For example, solar panels are quite inefficient. In the short term i'd like to see more effort put into converting and storing that energy as it's already here, each and every day.
Having said that, this development really is an exciting prospect for the future.
Sgt_Kickaxe
12:07 pm on Dec 14, 2022 (gmt 0)
"More Power" is over-rated, "safer" would be more desireable, IMO.
The electricity you'll need to power your electric daily driver vehicle is equal in power need to adding 23 refrigerators to your kitchen.
Lets hope that as nuclear comes back online everywhere that they care more about safety than output. We do not have the grid for electric vehicles, but we have even less capacity to undo the damage a reactor can do.
jimji
3:30 am on Dec 20, 2022 (gmt 0)
I've been to Fukushima Daiichi. Went there on the ground in the second year after we got hit by that shake and tsunami. It is such a sad thing. And I know I repeatedly use that vocabulary "sad" around this community, but it is a safe word. The thing is, if they had spent a little extra money to build a higher barrier, as some of their engineers wanted to do, a lot less trouble could have occurred. Plus, one thing that you don't read much about, is why were the emergency batteries down low? Why not have them elevated, just in case one of those giant tsunamis did happen, as had been shown had happened many, many years ago in that area.
The thing about any power generating equipment of any size/output is safety. Don't try to cut money corners too much when it comes to safety. And think outside the box.
Oh yes, our electricity rates were already going up and up before this latest new style of raising rates. TEPCO was raising rates to stay afloat, as the expenses to clean up Fukushima Daiichi are unbelievable. And we are still paying higher taxes for that, also. Double whammy --- higher electric bill and higher taxes because some executives 30 or so years ago decided they didn't want to spend money on that higher sea wall and nobody seems to have thought about getting those batteries up above a certain level where water couldn't touch them.
But to see the destruction along that coastline from the tsunami was itself an awful experience and then we went to the plant and it was hard to imagine that just the previous hours could be eclipsed with an even more horrible site. Three out of four reactor buildings in a total mess, and the fourth one in rather bad condition itself. I had seen a view from a chopper about two weeks after the initial trouble, but on the ground right there was so much different.
You're right, sarge, safety is the number one issue; even if it is just an emergency generator on your personal property.
