Go Greener Tips

Posts Tagged ‘learn’

In making the below article, a number of academics/tutors/teachers were consulted.

The rush to find a revolutionary sustainable energy source is becoming increasingly important as concerning projections on those remaining are made. Nuclear fusion has proved to produce large energy outputs but only with methods requiring more energy than harvested.

The general concencus from the academics/tutors/teachers was that:
When claims to achieving nuclear fusion relatively readily from noise waves concentrated scrutiny and criticism was inevitable. R.P.Taleyarkhan et al. published the original papers outlining exactly these results in 2002 that have since been dismissed by various scientists.

Taleyarkhan et al. claims to produce fusion using sonofusion, the phenomena sonoluminescence (SL) under specific conditions. SL is when high velocity ultra sonic waves are focused onto very small bubbles inside a liquid, the vibrations from the sound cause the bubble to collapse and let out a flash of light. The experiments carried out in involve creating sonoluminescence in deuterated acetone with unique bubbles, produced using a pulse of neutrons. These demonstrated more stable than tiny air bubbles already present in the liquid, which enabled high pressure and temperature conditions.

If D-D fusion occurs the outputs of tritium and neutrons should be the same and occur simultaneously with the production of light. However, one source shows that the results from the experiments don’t agree with this, with a tritium neutron ratio of a maximum 10:1, and they reason this with:

1)’Neutron energy losses by scattering in the test chamber’

2) ‘Reduced detections efficiency for sizeable-angle knock-ons from 2.5MeV neutrons’

3) ‘Possible irregularities in T concentration in the acetone’

M.J.Saltmarsh and D.Shapira reconstructed the experiment and claimed that these reasons would only permit a 2:1 which doesn’t allow for the 10:1 ratio described in. They also interrogated the difference in timing of the light from SL and the neutrons detected from the acclaimed sonofusion. Suggesting the neutron counts were not harvested in the SL but were from background noise and muddled with the neutrons being used to form the bubbles.

In response to this report Taleyarkhan et al. said didn’t account for experimental discrepancies and that they had mishandled the data in their calculations. Taleyarkin et al. later reported an additional article in 2004 citing that the previous results had been reconstructed with the addition of neutron output on later cycles in the bubble implosions.

In 2005 the BBC got involved, asking S.Putterman to execute an independent experiment Puttermans results produced absolutely no conjunction between the timing of the SL flashes and the neutron signals and so concluded negative.

The moral side of this issue is also of immense interest, with Taleyarkhan being implicated by Dr.Suslick for scientific misconduct in 2006. This was not further pursued when a new report of Taleyarkhans results being repeated by E.Forringer et al was published later that year. However on September 10th 2007 it was declared extra investigation was being reinitiated due to several issues including the repeated results being carried out in Taleyarkhan’s own labs.

The academics/tutors/teachers concluded that:
The riddle over sonofusion can be found with extra experimentation and has the potential to revolutionise the modern world.

Currently fewer than 25/100 of 1 % of the power made in the UK is from wind powered turbines or natural flow, according to UK statistics; the large majority of the power is to be considered made by natural gas and petroleum. We talked to David Hislop, a retired physicist, but now full time tutor, and he said: today the equivalent of about one million residences are fuelled by wind fueled turbines; the tutor went on to say that this stops approximately 3.6 million tonnes of CO2 to be created annually and also results in vast reductions of SO2 and NOx. All of this is done by just 1576 turbines. We asked another scientist, also now a full time academic tutor at a leading university, and he said it is clear from these results that, from an environmental point of view, wind fueled turbines are a viable option as a source of power and an option that could not only be explored further but also implemented immediately. The catch comes however in the cost of the turbines and the noise and sight pollution.

The idea of wind turbines to be considered too noisy is unfounded. A great wind turbine that powers energy for a village worth of residences is as noisy at 250m as having a refrigerator in your house; far less annoying than a car driving past on a nearby road and nobody complains when somebody considers owning a new vehicle. The volume of noise created by the latest wind turbines, that make use of a magnetic system rather than a classic gearbox, is insignificant.

The consideration of a turbine being unsightly is purely a matter of taste and should not be considered when a coal fueled station is so much more unsightly. However this factor does have to be considered where an area of outstanding natural beauty is concerned.

It has also been claimed by some that there is not required amounts of wind in Britain to power the state. However there is required amounts of wind in Britain to power the nation’s power needs three times over.

From these concludes it appears that the main reason for rejecting wind fueled turbines must be cost and possibly also the amount of money that has already been ploughed into other sources of renewable fuel such as nuclear power. The cost of a wind turbine for a personal residence is as follows: Initial setup £12,000 – £14,000. Service £300-£500 a year. Annual saving £300-£700.

It can be seen from these figures that the servicing costs may outweigh the annual saving on your fuel bill. This is obviously a major problem and means that the only reason for purchasing a turbine for personal means today would be if you felt very strongly about the environment. If one were to have sufficient turbines the cost of servicing would be reduced per turbine and it is possible to see how this may be profitable. From a commercial point of view however the turbines would be profitable as there is greater tax relief from the government and as considered above the service costs would be reduced as it is likely that more than one turbine would be required.

Currently fewer than 25/100 of 1 % of the power made in the UK is from wind powered turbines or natural flow, according to UK statistics; the large majority of the power is to be considered made by natural gas and petroleum. We talked to David Hislop, a retired physicist, but now full time tutor, and he said: today the equivalent of about one million residences are fuelled by wind fueled turbines; the tutor went on to say that this stops approximately 3.6 million tonnes of CO2 to be created annually and also results in vast reductions of SO2 and NOx. All of this is done by just 1576 turbines. We asked another scientist, also now a full time academic tutor at a leading university, and he said it is clear from these results that, from an environmental point of view, wind fueled turbines are a viable option as a source of power and an option that could not only be explored further but also implemented immediately. The catch comes however in the cost of the turbines and the noise and sight pollution.

The idea of wind turbines to be considered too noisy is unfounded. A great wind turbine that powers energy for a village worth of residences is as noisy at 250m as having a refrigerator in your house; far less annoying than a car driving past on a nearby road and nobody complains when somebody considers owning a new vehicle. The volume of noise created by the latest wind turbines, that make use of a magnetic system rather than a classic gearbox, is insignificant.

The consideration of a turbine being unsightly is purely a matter of taste and should not be considered when a coal fueled station is so much more unsightly. However this factor does have to be considered where an area of outstanding natural beauty is concerned.

It has also been claimed by some that there is not required amounts of wind in Britain to power the state. However there is required amounts of wind in Britain to power the nation’s power needs three times over.

From these concludes it appears that the main reason for rejecting wind fueled turbines must be cost and possibly also the amount of money that has already been ploughed into other sources of renewable fuel such as nuclear power. The cost of a wind turbine for a personal residence is as follows: Initial setup £12,000 – £14,000. Service £300-£500 a year. Annual saving £300-£700.

It can be seen from these figures that the servicing costs may outweigh the annual saving on your fuel bill. This is obviously a major problem and means that the only reason for purchasing a turbine for personal means today would be if you felt very strongly about the environment. If one were to have sufficient turbines the cost of servicing would be reduced per turbine and it is possible to see how this may be profitable. From a commercial point of view however the turbines would be profitable as there is greater tax relief from the government and as considered above the service costs would be reduced as it is likely that more than one turbine would be required.