Editing Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms. | If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms. | ||
Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
:Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | :Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam. | I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam. | ||
[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | [[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
:You mean you only see one of the long list of jokes in this comic? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | :You mean you only see one of the long list of jokes in this comic? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | :: I guess my mind just thought of the | + | :: I guess my mind just thought of the simpler joke first? :shrug: |
+ | [[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 06:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
The explanation says nothing about the effect this would have downriver from the dam. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | The explanation says nothing about the effect this would have downriver from the dam. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
Line 49: | Line 43: | ||
One of the things I just edited out was the claim that discharging (effectively) distilled water could dehydrate the environment. With an unnaturally hypertonic (dilute) water-source, creatures would not dry out but (if anything) ''absorb'' more water under osmotic pressure, which could lead to cells bursting from too much effort to balance things out. Hypotonic water (too many salts, for a given organism) would draw cellular/bodily stores of water out. Probably a 'pure water discharge' of the kind described would locally dilute the natural body of water that it was set to run into, but would also fairly quickly make itself/its dump-body more eager than normal to adopt ions from the immediate geologies of the run-off path. If you don't presume deluging a parched land with basically your fancy new-water output, there might be effects upon plants and animals adapted to more hard and/or briney water-environments (e.g. creating a disruptive freshwater lagoon within a saltwater marsh), with some ecological concerns to be addressed by careful use of mixing ponds (almost the opposite of most waste-water outlettings, which may require settling ponds or filtrating reed-beds) and questions about relative temperatures (which can be useful ''or'' disruptive to the survival of local creatures who might previously have migrated to more naturally warmer expanses of water), but overall it'd be better than most post-industrial water outflows. With the right eco-oversight to spot side-effects. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC) | One of the things I just edited out was the claim that discharging (effectively) distilled water could dehydrate the environment. With an unnaturally hypertonic (dilute) water-source, creatures would not dry out but (if anything) ''absorb'' more water under osmotic pressure, which could lead to cells bursting from too much effort to balance things out. Hypotonic water (too many salts, for a given organism) would draw cellular/bodily stores of water out. Probably a 'pure water discharge' of the kind described would locally dilute the natural body of water that it was set to run into, but would also fairly quickly make itself/its dump-body more eager than normal to adopt ions from the immediate geologies of the run-off path. If you don't presume deluging a parched land with basically your fancy new-water output, there might be effects upon plants and animals adapted to more hard and/or briney water-environments (e.g. creating a disruptive freshwater lagoon within a saltwater marsh), with some ecological concerns to be addressed by careful use of mixing ponds (almost the opposite of most waste-water outlettings, which may require settling ponds or filtrating reed-beds) and questions about relative temperatures (which can be useful ''or'' disruptive to the survival of local creatures who might previously have migrated to more naturally warmer expanses of water), but overall it'd be better than most post-industrial water outflows. With the right eco-oversight to spot side-effects. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |