The Forever battery (practically speaking)

[Floor]

There has been no "solution" presented in this topic.

[pix]

Microwatts.


Regards,
Pix

[Floor]

https://socratic.org/questions/if-a-substance-has-a-half-life-of-one-million-years-how-much-of-its-will-be-left

[Solhi]

of course there is a solution, always have. Nicola Tesla did drive an electric car in 1920 without using any big battery packs. Batteries is so 1700 AC. It is just ignorance and greediness that creates all the waste the last 100 years.
Do not need nuclear, no batteries. Only the EMF radiation of all this electricity needs a solution.

[thx1138]

quote author=thx1138 link=topic=18933.msg560699#msg560699 date=1633365521]
It sounds like you are a strong proponent of the "linear no threshold" (LNT) philosophy of nuclear power usage that was developed in the early 1950's and has not been modified since. So I guess you don't fly in airplanes, get dental or surgical x-rays, and live and sleep underground.


@ thx1138

You sound like a pro nuclear industry kind of guy.  Sales man ?

Its not that I live underground or that sort of thing. In fact for a large portion of
my life, I have been fortunate enough to live outdoors.

Working professionally as a climber / arborist for more than 36 years,
wrestling logs while 20 feet or more, off the deck sometimes.
Leading people in out door activities.   i.e. ...camping out, wilderness guiding, rock climbing
instructing that sort of thing.  Wanna wrestle ?

But the idea of hunting or fishing in and near the back waters of Chernobyl has
never held much appeal for me.  Neither has snorkel fishing off the coast of Fukushima.

As I previously stated, I don't particularly care for your idea of nuclear waste disposal
via distribution and dilution. I think of it as abhorrent behavior to engage in such a thing.

Wanna go fishing ?  I know a couple of nice spots here in the U.S..  There might be
some uranium mining tailings upstream, but hey, just don't drink the water.

The North American[/i] magazine had an article about the world running out of energy and what the preeminent scientists of the day were planning to do about it. Scientist A stated that the only source of energy available to man after the current sources were exhausted would be wind. Scientist B agreed with Scientist A. Scientist C said not to worry about it because the forests of South America contained enough fuel for fifty thousand years. Scientist D suggested that the sun would assist the wind in providing power. Scientist E believed that man would devise other methods to provide power to the world.
Year: 1902
Scientist A: Lord Kelvin
Scientist B: Nicola Tesla
Scientist C: Thomas A. Edison
Scientist D: Professor Langly
Scientist E: Admiral Bradford
Startling prediction
Scientist E, Admiral Bradford, got it right. They were talking about coal. After coal the primary source became hydrocarbons. Today, 120 years later, both are still in use but the "scientists" of today are still harping on wind and sun.
It's interesting to note that the thing all of the problems you cite are a matter of scale. That's because the people designing these monstrous systems all work on the notion that they can sell power to millions as long as they control the means of distributing that power (wind) or the equipment needed to make the power useful (solar). No one is interested in selling something that will provide long term power for a one-time sale. It's recurring income that they are after.
So 120 years later we are right back where we started. It's absolutely amazing what we have accomplished in 120 years. Imagine what the world will look like 28,000 years from now. I'm guessing we might come up with solutions to the problems you cite in that amount of time.