Posted by
michael
on from the now-I'll-never-get-a-mr.-fusion dept.
Chuck1318 writes "The US is halting its national nuclear fusion energy project, FIRE, and pinning its hopes on the internation fusion research program ITER. However, ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility. The dream of fusion power is getting no closer..."
Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.
Or something...
-- ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets.
--
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Icarus1919
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The fusion reactor isn't what we need to worry about, it's the particle colliding experiments that could cause the whole planet to change into a different form of matter, strange matter.
Whether this will give us superpowers or not is yet to be determined.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Nakkel
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Turning our moon to a black hole wouldnt change things much. All we lose is the illumination provided by the surface of the moon as the new black hole would have the same mass as the moon. It would still orbit and cause tidal effects or something...
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
BabyDave
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.
Yes, 'cause if there's one place we should dump an all-consuming singularity, it's in the middle of our most important source of heat, light and food (via photosynthesis). At least we'll have a backup source, namely... er, the fusion research station we just fired into the sun. Fuck.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
tomhudson
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Nah, if you read the article, it states:
is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility.
... because they can't decide which middle east/third world country deserves to be ground zeroH^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe test site
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
amh131
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, it seems to me that having a black hole eat the moon wouldn't be *so* bad. I'll miss the thing, but the resulting singularity shouldn't cause massive gravitational changes since it will have the same mass as the moon and the same orbital velocity. Might even be sorta handy as a bottomless garbage pit.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
ch-chuck
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The Union Aerospace Corporation could probably handle a moon research facility with no problem.
Hmmm... if we accidentially create a black hole, I don't think we'd want to shove it into the sun. After all, that would mean we'd have to go looking for a new one pretty quickly. Our best option would be to either shoot it into outer space, or (the better alternative) to put it into a safe orbit around the sun, where it can't grow, but where it can be studied.
Yes, I have to take everything seriously. Can't help it.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Third world country like... France or Japan, which are contesting for the site?
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
meringuoid
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Nah. We blow up the Moon, we just have to put up with it. Earth will become a total backwater, of course, what with all the impacts, but that would certainly accelerate the settlement of the solar system.
With a network of jump gates, and the terraforming of most of the larger satellites of Jupiter and Saturn (heat source: to be determined), we could put together quite a nice culture.
Note: be sure to switch off all artificially intelligent laser-armed spy satellites before leaving planet. Who knows what they'll take into their minds over a hundred years or so...
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
How does one shove a black hole or for that matter (no pun intended) pull one?
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
mwood
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If they can't find anybody Over There willing to take ITER due to it having scary words like "nuclear" in its description, maybe they could site it in the U.S. We probably have a facility already worked out that might be able to house it.:-/
the resulting singularity shouldn't cause massive gravitational changes since it will have the same mass as the moon and the same orbital velocity. Might even be sorta handy as a bottomless garbage pit.
Mmmm... and using it as a bottomless garbage pit won't have any effect on it's gravity at all will it... besides, if it's already a singularity before it swallows the moon it stands to reason it's probably already quite massive.
We won't have to blow up the moon, because a jump gate accident will shatter it and cause moon debris to rain down on Earth for millions of years to come.
The move to terraformed cities on Mars and various moons of Jupiter and Saturn will soon cause the inevitable resurgence of organized crime, various tribal cultures, and jazz.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Glog
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually the two counties of choice are Japan and France.
Erm, don't pick on Japan, at the rate things are going all of our fusion reactors will be made there. As a country they seem to be taking fusion power pretty seriously.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
grumpygrodyguy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything
We've already got that. It's called the Hubbert Peak
Those of us who haven't seen Farenheit 911 might wonder who would benefit most from $7/gallon gas prices...and who they have on thier payroll. Cancelling projects like these is one way to keep them happy.
-- The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's a couple of times bigger than Mars, right?
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
aardvarkjoe
·
· Score: 1
Mmmm... and using it as a bottomless garbage pit won't have any effect on it's gravity at all will it...
Not unless we start shoving planets at it, or something like that.
besides, if it's already a singularity before it swallows the moon it stands to reason it's probably already quite massive.
Not really.
--
How can we continue to believe in a
just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You don't really get what black holes do, do you?
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's not that hard.
You throw things at it.
Other than the whole nothing able to leave the event horizon thing, it's just an object, with momentum, mass, etc . ..
If you have a 1000Gg singularity (yes, thats absolutely tiny, but it might be what we would create in a laboratory), you could 'hit' it with objects, and they would 'push' it.
That's assuming it's not so small as to simply pass through anything.
The idea of a teeny-weeny laboratory singularity is not, actually, totally crazy.
Just mostly crazy. Extremely high desity != high mass.
Remember, density = mass/volume. You get a blackhole when you smash something hard enough to overcome the positive neutron pressure.
Which is pretty high, high enough that I'm not certain we'll get there anytime soon, but definetely within the realm of possiblity.
After all, if we made a blackhole (singularity), it's not probable we'll manufacture it with a mountain's worth of material, or a planet's worth.
More likely, it would just be a few errant particles we smashed together.
Kind of a neat thought, eh?
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How does one shove a black hole or for that matter (no pun intended) pull one?
Dump a bunch of electrons down it and haul it around with magnets. Though you would be hampered in this by the fact that any black hole created in a fusion experiment would be much too small to eat an electron in a single bite and would probably drop through the floor into a damping oscillation around the center of the moon before you had a chance to get a charge on it.
We wouldn't have to do that though, in the thousands (millions?) of years it would take for the itty bitty black hole to eat the moon (growing all the while, of course, it might even get big enough to eat an entire subatomic particle in one bite!) we'd have plenty of time to put up a mirror with controllers to mimic the phases of the moon. The mass of the black hole would be the same as the moon used to be, so there's no real effect on tides. Problem solved.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
darkmeridian
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Why not put it in Japan? They have the most experience in dealing with such matters.
-- A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know the black hole bit is a joke, but on a serious note, would creating a black hole on the moon be all that damaging? Yes, we'd lose the lunar cycles and werewolves wouldn't have a big bright circle to stare at once a month, but even if the black hole did consume the moon, it would never be any more massive than the moon. The gravity wouldn't change, nor would the orbit. It wouldn't suck us in. We'd still have normal tides.
If we panicked and shot the moon into the sun, we'd have a different issue. The sun would collapse into this black hole. We'd still be safely in orbit, but without our chief source of energy, Things would get really cold really fast. A small population might survive for a few years on the remaining fossil fuels via hydroponics, but that probably wouldn't last more than a few decades. We'd have to burrow deep into the planet to make use of geothermal energy, which might keep us alive for a few more centuries. Hopefully, by the time we start to run out of energy, we'd have developed the technology to send a generation-ship to a nearby habitable star system, where we'd start over.
Hmm...sounds like a decent back story for a SciFi novel to me.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
YU+Nicks+NE+Way
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to Steven Hawking, they don't actually exist -- the singularity never forms in a quantum mechanical universe.
Bear in mind that a black hole with lunar mass would have a tiny event horizon. Given the amount of thermal noise in the solar center, it would be very hard for anything to "fall in" without being bumped out first. In time, the hole might consume the sun, but my back of the envelope calculations suggest that it's far more likely that the pseudo-singularity would decay in a burst of Hawking radiation long before it consumed anything.
Yes, but then it would suffer pretty badly from Hawking Radiation. Anyone know how to calculate how quickly a black hole the mass of the moon would radiate away?
Nah, according to the UK research the amount of energy and pressure is no where near enough to create a black hole. it may be a few factors hotter than the sun but the pressure is _alot_ less as can be expected from earth based fuision reactors.
I'd be more worried about sudden aurora springing up on the Texas equator.
If your answer is "The Oil Industry", you might want to take a step back and realize that "The Oil Industry" is actually made up of a wide variety of companies, who can either benefit, suffer, or have no change from high prices (and similarly, from price changes).
For example, oil producers benefit in the short term by high oil prices, but suffer in the long run if the prices get too high, because it causes a global recession and encourages research into alternative fuel sources and more energy-efficient cars/power plants/etc.
Oil refiners, since they "soak the curve", benefit in the short term when prices go *down*. Crude prices change before gasoline prices, so their incoming stocks drop in cost while their sales remain at high prices. They lose, short term, by price increases.
Both producers and refiners benefit from political stability. They lobby accordingly - for better relations with hostile nations, for example. On the other hand, oil services providers (which is what infamous Haliburton subsidiary KBR is famed for) benefit from instability, as they get contracts to do things like industry reconstruction.
Some big oil companies are involved in several different aspects of the oil industry, but it is erroneous to treat it as one big business that wants high prices. Depended on how they're invested, their interests can vary a lot.
Of course, one thing is in common between the vast majority of them: They don't like pollution controls, and tend to favor the Republican party with contributions. However, some of their lobbying is quite respectable, especially the lobbying for normalization of relations with countries in which we have had a spat for some reason or another.
Yes, but then it would suffer pretty badly from Hawking Radiation. Anyone know how to calculate how quickly a black hole the mass of the moon would radiate away?
Far, far longer than the present age of the universe.
Same answer if you have a black hole with the mass of an asteroid.
Only very low-mass holes radiate brightly enough to shed mass at any reasonable rate.
Well, it seems to me that having a black hole eat the moon wouldn't be *so* bad. I'll miss the thing, but the resulting singularity shouldn't cause massive gravitational changes since it will have the same mass as the moon and the same orbital velocity. Might even be sorta handy as a bottomless garbage pit.
And even handier as a power source. Dump matter in, and a substantial fraction of its gravitational potential energy comes back out as light from friction within the accretion disk. Sure, a lot of it will be x-rays, but that can be captured by building a shell of matter around the hole, letting it heat up, and drawing power off of the resulting heat gradient.
This is an extremely efficient power source, and with a black hole the mass of the moon, throughput would be high enough to make the project worthwhile.
Of course, we've beaten the "particle accelerators will cause world-eating black holes/strangelets/etc" thing to death already:).
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
san
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But as far as gravity is concerned it doesn't really matter whether the moon has its familiar shape or a point mass.
We could just choose to leave the singularity there in orbit and observe funky gravitational lense effects!
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Rasta+Prefect
·
· Score: 1
Getting rid of the moon would likely be pretty catestrophic too - we rely quite heavilly on the tidal forces.
Another argument against shoving it into the sun, actually - if left in place, the tides would remain unchanged.
If a black hole is 'black' simply because it has enough gravity to prevent light from escaping once past the event horizon, then wouldn't an singularity with the mass of the moon, not be massive enough to prevent light from escaping. Thus we should be able to see the actual singularity (if we could observe something that small.)
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well there's very little chance there'd be a black hole in our solar system anytime soon. A supernova explosion requires a mass heavier than our sun to come crushing down at 1/3rd the speed of light, and even *that* won't necessarily create a black hole. Besides, even if there was a black hole that formed on the moon, there wouldn't be enough mass for it to stably exist for more than a few split seconds.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's a singularity, which means a virtually ponctual object. Whatever mass it is, at some point (radius) the gravity field gets strong enough to 'capture' light; this is what is called the event horizon. For the moon, this radius would be about 0.1 mm
That is actually the word they began using to prevent the president from going apeshit over the US arsenal.
"We have a lot of nucular weapons, not those other things I can't pronounce."
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He means Japan is not a 3rd world country.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If there were a black hole in our solar system all the planets, including Earth, would be sucked into it and life would cease to exist as we know it. Of course a moon cannot become a black hole because you start a fusion reaction on its surface. At most it would become a star whose chances of becoming a black hole upon its death would rely greatly on how much matter it acquires in its life. Of course if it did become a star (which is merely a self sustaining fusion reaction in space), it would probably bombard the surface of the Earth with so much radiation (i.e. UV, XRays, and higher frequency EM fields) that we would all get cancer and die, or that the climate would change so drastically first (hotter) that we'd die. All in all, unless the fusion reaction is controlled it's a bad idea. However, the current problems with fusion are that it is not sustainable and controlable in a way that provides a positive energy budget. That means that if we could make a star we wouldn't need all this research into fusion. At present we can either blast some hydrogen with many focused lasers (current fusion research) or make some isotopes that create such heat in reaction on their own they cause a thermonuclear reaction (H-Bomb). So... quit worrying about black holes.
I think people really really need to learn that black holes don't contain magic gravity, just normal gravity that follows the rules of all other gravity. if there was a black hole made of the moon it would be no more able to suck the solar system in than the moon is able, and last I checked the moon isn't sucking anything.
-- -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Getting rid of the moon would likely be pretty catestrophic too - we rely quite heavilly on the tidal forces.
Probably not catastrophic. It would certainly have a DRAMATIC IMPACT but we could adjust (after a painful transition period). Getting rid of our Sun however, ahem...
-- The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Japan exists.
It seems that's the only criteria needed to piss off the US these days.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
blackpaw
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I shudder every time I see a blackhole related story on slashdot, it always reveals the incredible lack of scientific knowledge and/or critical thinking skills possessed by the average slashbot
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Teehee! And Chinese people have funny accents too! What a liberal ass...
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Rei
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, I found a formula. The lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses is approximately 10e71 * M^3 seconds. The moon is 7.35e22 kg. The sun is 1.99e30 kg. That means that the moon is 3.69e-8 solar masses. That works out to 5e49 seconds to radiate away, which is about 1.6e42 years. So, yes, it wouldn't be disappearing very quickly. Now, given that e=mc^2, the moon has an energy of 6.61e39 joules, so *on average* the moon would radiate away 1.3e-10 watts (yes, I know that the average can be misleading here, but it'd be hard to get any other number). It's tiny, but would at least be detectable.
Lets pick a random asteroid - say, Eros. It is about 3.36e-15 solar masses. That comes out to about 1.2e21 years. Still no short time, mind you, but it will radiate a lot more - just over 15 kw on average.
-- Rock Us, Dukakis.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
MortisUmbra
·
· Score: 1
Something oddly erotic about the mixture of technical speak with terms such as "smash" and "throw things at it"....if you could work in "bash", "wreck", "smoosh" and "pulverize we'd be in buisness!
--
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 1
Science Pr0n.
Coming soon on a monitor near you.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Only two programs at once? I counted three. You missed the part where we invade the moon for its oil deposits. Four if you count the moon invasion to get the Amazon Women on the Moon.:) A joke. The last one is a joke. (Isn't it?)
Except that it would just fall through the floor, eventually come to rest at the center of the earth (or moon) and then eat it up from the inside.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
chaoaretasty
·
· Score: 1
No, it just means that the event horizon, the point at which light can't escape, is much closer to the singularity.
The radius of the event horizon is dependant soley on the mass of the object, if the total mass of the object fits within the radius for that mass, it collapses into a blackhole (so you could have a blackhole with the mass of an apple, but it'd be incredibly small). It still has the same mass and therefore the same gravity to anyone outside the radius of the object. If the moon did become a black hole then the graviational field would be identical upto the surface of what the moon once was.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 1
Well, I'm presuming if we had the capabilities to create one, we could manipulate it with extremely intense magnetic fields, or something.
Not that it wouldn't be dangerous, and I certainly wouldn't want one in my backyard (planet).
My point was more general---If a singularity 'ate' the moon, weird things would certainly happen.
But the mass would remain in orbit around the earth.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
According to Steven Hawking, they don't actually exist -- the singularity never forms in a quantum mechanical universe.
This may be true, but it doesn't really affect the long-term behavior of anything less than a small distance away from the body.
Bear in mind that a black hole with lunar mass would have a tiny event horizon.
It would be a couple millimeters in radius - quite sufficient to fit atoms and such.
Given the amount of thermal noise in the solar center, it would be very hard for anything to "fall in" without being bumped out first.
That doesn't make any sense. Ultra-dense objects are less susceptible to thermal noise than light things like solar sails. Furthermore, the energy in any sort of "bumping" radiation would get eaten, and added to the mass.
In time, the hole might consume the sun, but my back of the envelope calculations suggest that it's far more likely that the pseudo-singularity would decay in a burst of Hawking radiation long before it consumed anything.
That's interesting. My envelope says this burst is more likely to happen roughly 5*10^48 seconds from the time the moon gets swallowed, and this is somewhat longer than your average power lunch. This page might help your envelope a bit. Remember, the exponent in that 10^71 has no minus sign.
-- "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
shadowbearer
·
· Score: 1
Proxmire's legacy lives on....
SB
-- It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Wouldn't matter to us. Or our children. Or our children's children's children's children.
And as Nwabudike Morgan reminds us, "Resources exist to be consumed, and consumed they will be, whether by this generation or some other. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
Ok, maybe it is a bad idea.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
imaginate
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Have you even *been* to France?
I know you think it's supposed to be funny, but all the sudden french-bashing that goes on in America comes from the same mentality that allowed people in other countries to cheer when the world trade centers went down. Do you not see that? That the simple-minded judging, the derogatory attitude, and the holier-than-thou attitude comes from the same place?
I didn't think that's what America was about, but it seems that a surprisingly large majority of America's people think in the exact same way as the people they most despise...
Probably not catastrophic. It would certainly have a DRAMATIC IMPACT but we could adjust (after a painful transition period).
A lot of sea life relies havilly on the tides and would die out (with all the knock-on effects that mass extinctions would have - afterall, we all rely on the sea life)
The tides also affect the weather since they shift large lumps of (differing temperature) water around - I'd guess there would be some pretty nasty consequences for the climate.
Same answer if you have a black hole with the mass of an asteroid.
How would something with the mass of an asteroid become a singularity in the first place? Don't you need something an order or two of magnitude more massive than the Sun to curve the space enough to form a singularity?
How would something with the mass of an asteroid become a singularity in the first place? Don't you need something an order or two of magnitude more massive than the Sun to curve the space enough to form a singularity? Or am I missing something completely here?
Gravitational collapse can only create holes above about 3 solar masses, but other methods of formation can produce smaller holes. Shortly after the big bang, fluctuations in density of the primordial plasma should have produced regions dense enough to generate event horizons. This would have created black holes of all sizes, including ones far below the normal formation limit, and perhaps ones small enough to have evaporated by now or be emitting Hawking radiation strongly enough to detect. There have been searches for the gamma rays these holes should be producing, but they've so far come up empty, which places constraints on how many small primordial holes formed. Dark matter limits place constraints on how many large ones formed.
The second way is to accelerate a particle to the Planck energy. As it gains energy, its wavelength gets shorter and its mass gets larger, until its wavelength is small enough to be inside its event horizon. This gives you a black hole with a radius equal to the Planck length. Nobody's sure what happens then, but the most likely scenario is that it immediately evaporates in a burst of Hawking radiation. Accelerating particles to this energy is not practical, but it's remotely possible that some natural processes will do it, and the temperatre of Hawking radiation right over a black hole's event horizon is close to the Planck temperature (i.e., particles have close to Planck energy). The lower energies we see are the result of a very impressive gravitational redshift.
Lastly, we don't have to propose formation mechanisms for small black holes to be able to talk about them:). There are many fun things they're useful for.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but in order to be a black hole a body needs a given minimum mass. the moon could not become a black hole.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The minimum mass of a body to become a black hole is one far in excess of the moon. This is defined by the Chandrasekhar Limit. A body with mass larger than this limit located at the moon would definately (using "normal gravity") significantly alter the Earth's orbit and would eventually cause the earth to spiral into said body. At that range, it is possible (I haven't done the calculations) that the difference in gravitational forces (since it decreases by 1/r^2) on the near and far side of the Earth would cause the Earth to break up before spiraling into the massive body. I'm not professing any "magic gravity", just espousing the known minimum mass of any black hole. I think the discrepency lies in the fact that you assume there can be a black hole with mass equal to that of the moon. That cannot be. I operated under the assumption that a black hole was located at the moon, which given that it were turned into a star by a runaway fusion reaction, allowed to gain a large amount of mass from its surroundings and eventually suffered death through catastrophic gravitational collapse with mass above the Chandrasekhar limit, could happen.
Finally, the reason people think that black holes have some "magic gravity" is because they have huge mass necessarily. This huge mass exerts gravitational pull greater than our sun, and so would definately fuck up our solar system.
Can't we just simulate one in a computer? Or do we not have enough data to even do that? I dunno...the idea of any blackhole near me dangerous.
At the least, maybe someone will develop a "Singularity Cannon" like in the Unreal II game. Basically, it's the reverse of the BFG in Doom2. If your in it's path, you will get sucked away to never-never land. Hence, removal of threat.
-- Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 1
Actually, no problem simulating one in a computer.
We could probably even convince ourselves that there would be no risk, assuming no system failures.
The problem would be: a)What happens if the magnetic fields collapse? (oops, no more planet?) b)What if we are wrong? What if we forgot something in the simulation?
We know alot about the mathematical construct of a singularity.
We have never encountered one, and indeed, most of our mathematics suggests we would have great difficulty interacting with it.
Not that this matters, mind you---it's pretty unlikely we'll be able to make one.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
There's so many errors in your answer that the though of addressing them is too depressing for words. Just to start off, as your own link indicates, the Chandrasekhar limit does *not* define the neccessary mass for a blackhole.
The rest, do some reading... this is stuff I read up on when I was twelve.
That the simple-minded judging, the derogatory attitude, and the holier-than-thou attitude comes from the same place?
Kind of like how some people can't tolerate a harmless jibe at France, but take great joy in ripping apart the American President who some of us actually respect. I don't *need* to go to France to take a harmless shot at them. They have done enough in the last 4 years to warrant it.
Incidentally, I don't get militant about defending Bush either. He should be derided for his real faux pas. Original post was a joke, don't be so sensitive.
-- nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"If the star has a mass above the Chandrasekhar limit it has sufficient gravity to collapse past the white dwarf stage and become a neutron star, quark star or black hole." Your counter that the link does not say that the limit does not define necessary mass seems to disagree with the source. Would you mind explaining to me how the collapse can occur without mass above the Chandrasenkhar limit? For all your insults I see very little science in your reply. I never meant to insult you, and if you feel my posts are insulting I apologize. If you indeed know something about this topic that you would like to share so that we both might learn something (you how to teach an apparent bufoon and me the science perhaps?) then I look forward to your next post. If you post another insult then I will not post any further replies. Good day.
Wouldn't matter to us. Or our children. Or our children's children's children's children.
Are you positively sure about that?
If I'm not miscalculating something, a black hole with mass of Moon would have a schwarzschild radius of 0.11 millimeters, easily big enough for eating hydrogen and helium plasma with ease.
It would still have the same mass as moon, though, so the same gravity, "particle" that heavy in a sea of almost weightless (compared to it) hydrogen plasma WILL pull them in like a vacuum cleaner. It'd attract objects as far as moon's radius at same 1.6m/s^2, and the nearer you go the greater the force. Pull would be 1g about 700km away from the black hole, 500m/s^2 at 100km, 2km/s^2 at 50km, etc. You get the picture.
Granted, the gravity is very small at the sun's surface 700 000km away, only 10 micrometers/s^2, but the problem is, if you suck up few thousand kilometers of the core of Sun, it doesn't stay empty, Suns own gravity pushes matter from outward back there, also the mass and size of the black hole increases with everything it eats, the inner matter of sun is probably quite dense already giving it mass fast, and once the black hole has swallowed enough to seriously disrupt or stop the fusion, there will be no more radiation pressure to fight back gravity and the collapse will just pick up speed.
Nope. I don't expect it would take that long. Anyone with real insight into this is free to correct any glaring errors.
Semantics - sure mass below Chandrasekhar cannot become a black hole (without help), but that does not mean that a mass *above* the limit can. It could have sufficeint mass to become a neutron or quark star.
Chandrasekhar limit refers to the mass where atoms break down, not to where black holes form.
Good news in a way
by
pt99par
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think that this may get fusion closer becouse now the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own. One good project instead of two half good projects.
Re:Good news in a way
by
dave1791
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or bad news in a way...
Instead of actually building the thing, we can get into a winkie measuring contest about where to build it.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh well.. screw researching fusion power ourselves. Let's just throw money at it and maybe something will happen.
I love this country.
Re:Good news in a way
by
jkrise
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It is a bit difficult to understand the role of money in taking decisions impacting national security. Surely, the US will have more control if the project is within it's own boundaries?
-
-- If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Control as far as security? I don't know about that. But we won't have this UNish squabbling over where to build it, nor will there be yet another layer of redtape for researchers to fight if they decide to take another direction in the research. As little money as we spend on fusion research, as little encouragement as fusion researchers are given... and we pull this stunt. Nice going, congress.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Dr.+Hok
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe they found out that it wouldn't be good for national security if the US were in control?
-- Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
What's to stop them from just funding the research for a while and then as soon as most of the work is done pulling out of the international project and restarting their own project using the rest of the work, making an attempt to keep the information private, for reasons of 'National Security'?
Then they get the best of both worlds, a project with high funding, and an important technology which they can sell off.
If that happens, we're all fucked.
Re:Good news in a way
by
ecklesweb
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
Jay
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because they wouldn't get access to information from research projects done outside the country.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We could easily fund FIRE, our share of ITER, and a couple of other programs as well. Which is what we should be doing, because there's no guarantee that any one approach is the right one. Why do people always think there's going to be one magic bullet?
They're talking about $5 billion, total, to build ITER. That's miniscule money compared to what we're throwing away on fighting in a certain country known for its oil...
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Does anyone know if the National Ignition Facility was part of the "FIRE" program? According to a previous slashdot article (referenced link on story now dead), they had high hopes of firing several Terawatt/TeraJoule lasers to produce fusion by 2010.
Re:Good news in a way
by
R.Caley
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own.
The US wasn't putting any money into FIRE. $2 million for people to sit around tables saying `wouldn't it be nice if we had a fusion programme' (i.e. a pre-conceptual study) is nothing but a fig leaf. It was a place holder to say the US might set up a programme of it's own if it didn't get all it's own way with ITER. Aparently this didn't impress anyone, so there is no point in doing another $2million nothing next year.
-- _O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Good news in a way
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Reads like it's them; same number of laser, all focused onto a tiny pellet...
I remember reading that a lot of the technological hurdles for that project come from the fact that most of the laser-amplification technology they plan to use doesn't exist at their scale (yet), and that that'll be the most interesting part of getting this working, developing these new technologies.
I'd hope we get the manufacture of certain materials in space going, because I think they'll need it (ultra-pure glass, perfectly-shaped focusing lenses, etc...).
Space is the place.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I really have trouble believing that any sort of fusion project, especially one funded by the states, has a measly budget of 2 million a year.
Who would agree to work on that project? That'd be an impossible and insulting proposition. Doesn't even remotely add up.
Pretty sure those numbers can't be accurate, or if they are, it seems as if the funding would have been set that way to ensure the project would never even get started in the first place.
I really have trouble believing that any sort of fusion project, especially one funded by the states, has a measly budget of 2 million a year.
It's a design study. Noone is building anything, or even doing serious design work. Yet. Article mentioned that if they got around to bending metal, price tag would be ~$1B.
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is a bit difficult to understand the role of money in taking decisions impacting national security. Surely, the US will have more control if the project is within it's own boundaries?
I guess (as usual) the US will be joining the pissing contest and demanding that ITER be built in the US...
Re:Good news in a way
by
IronicCheese
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Parent is right. For comparison: We're blowing about $4 billion a MONTH in Iraq.
The cost of war is high. The opportunity cost is staggering.
Re:Good news in a way
by
jspaleta
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I really have trouble believing that any sort of fusion project, especially one funded by the states, has a measly budget of 2 million a year.
Projects are done in stages. 2 million a year on a project still in essentially a design stage, before it reaches the engineer stage where actually prototypes of important physical systems are built and tested, isn't so far-fetched.
You have to take a look at hard far down the road FIRE is to put the cost in perspective. FIRE was just beginning to assess the cost of contruction of things like the magnetic field coils. If FIRE was still a priority, there are several rounds of additional funding that would have gone into the project as it met specific review criteria. These project don't get budgetted for the full project at the beginning. There are multiple phases, with reviews, that if successful mean more money when its needed to actually build things. You don't get the money to even build prototype of critical systems till there is a significant review process of the physics and engineering concerns.
-jef
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ITER is a joint project (Europe, China, Japan, Russia, etc.) The US will not be funding the entire cost of the reactor.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
dumb ass, you don't think the other countries will be paying as well?
You're right. We could easily fund FIRE and ITER at this stage. In the future it will get more expensive, and we'd probably have to pick one basket for our eggs. That would be even more of a political mess. Better to commit to ITER now and stop playing with FIRE.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Woot! I found him! I found him!
What do I win for the "find the mindless, idiotic, U.S. basher" contest?
Re:Good news in a way
by
darkmeridian
·
· Score: 1
We're blowing about $4 billion a MONTH in Iraq.
Well, actually, we are blowing $4 billion a MONTH on weapons TO blow in Iraq.
Yes, it was obvious from reading the links in the submission that this is magnetic plasma confinement technology and totally separate from laser fusion.
However, I'd go with those who say it's still a pity and that the money being spent on much less worthy causes makes the figures much less significant.
Indeed, there are other approaches that aren't even being considered that I still think are worth consideration when you balance out all the benefits.
For instance, instead of lasers it should be possible to induce controlled fission with giant xeon lamps in enormous fused silica "bulbs." The strobe light from hell.
Alternately, you could ignite small scale thermonuclear bombs in an abandoned salt mine. Of course this begins to beg the question of why you wouldn't just tap the abundant geothermal energy that already exists in many many locations throughout the US and around the world.
There are countless ways to approach fission in theory, it's just a matter of engineering it in a cost effective way. If FIRE really isn't cost effective and isn't likely to provide enough knowledge to produce a cost effective reactor then perhaps its not such a bad idea to cancel the program. But fusion research certainly should continue with a degree of urgency and the best way to continue in a cost effective manner is most likely to stick with the game plan. Most of the costs are adminstrative in the end and dismantling what is already in place is incredibly wasteful.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well the USA and Japan voted for Japan. But the rest voted for France. The idea to build it in Japan is not so good because they have earthquakes.
In France they have no such thing becaus Fance is far away form any planetary rift. Well but they are against the IRAQ-War II so the US government will not reconsider their vote soon.
BY the way fusion is a dangerous thing and will not work in the near future. Also it doesn't solve the problem with nuclear waste. As todays concecpt produce a lot of that.
It would be bette to use a fusion reactor which is already up and running at least for the next 5 billion years.
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
. . . just want to say; $200 Billion for Iraq.
There. I said it.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You don't know anything, idiot. The US will back Japan's bid.
Great. Assuming that we had working fusion plants today, we'd still have a world filled with Islamic fundimentalists that want to either convert you or kill you.
There's a lot more to the war in Iraq than the oil. Even though the oil is very important.
-- Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I'm sorry, but I think that the US pulling out of their own program was entirely political in the first place, and it is the same sort of mistake as the US abandoning their OWN space station, and instead contributing to the rustbucket known as the International Space Station, which is late, over-budget, and missing several modules, not to mention leaking air, losing parts, and making strange noises.
I'm sure the US will play catch-up once China announces their all five of their orbital Shenzou modules have combined to form some sort of giant robot bent on taking over the world from space. Oh wait, that's Japan.:-)
They should make a nuclear fusion version of the Ansari X-Prize. That'd be fun. Once.
Unfortunatly, many brilliant plasma physists are now out of work and have no income in Russia. Here is a link to one of the institutes that previously was funded laviously by the Soviet Union, but since its dissolvement, it now is a shadow of its former self.
A shame.
-- --sig fault--
Re:Russia
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Unfortunatly, many brilliant plasma physists are now out of work and have no income in Russia
Which will bring rise to:
Adopt a "Plasma Physicist".
I can see Sally Fields now on tv with pot bellied Russian physicists walking around naked with flys swarming around their heads.
Possible ITER sites
by
BubbaThePirate
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Four possible candidates were: Clarington,Canada; Vandellòs, Spain; Cadarache, France; and Rokkasho-mura, Japan.
Clarington and Vandellòs were withdrawn. But by the rate they're going, Japan and France might be blown off as well.
After last Monday, Japan is a far less likely site. In case you don't get the news from Japan, the Mihama No. 3 nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture had a little steam accident, to the tune of four deaths and seven people badly burned. While non-radioactive (so their government says), it was the second fatality accident at a Japanese nuclear plant in five years, the other being the Tokai Criticality Accident in 1999 that killed two, and resulted in the evacuation of hundreds of people (due to a cloud of radiation emanating from an open bucket of nitric acid and way too much uranium that was fissioning when it wasn't supposed to). Both accidents were the result of gross human stupidity (Mihama: an unrepaired badly corroded high pressure/high temperature steam pipe; Tokai: bucket, uranium, no safety precautions whatsoever).
With such a safety record, the Japanese people are very leery of new nuclear projects, of any kind. A fuel reprocessing project is already in danger of being scrapped. ITER will probably have to look elsewhere.
Godzilla did a very nice educational movie ("Godzilla vs. Megaguirus" - US spelling) on how fusion power plants are the same as fission from his perspective: he can track them both down very easily (fusion gives off gamma radiation and a neutron that makes anything it smacks into radioactive), and both use *his* atom, which he is very territorial about. One does not argue with large, territorial, carnivorous dinosaurs with the power of a god. Swear off the atom, fission and fusion, forever, and go play with nice clean energy like wind, water, or solar. Then Godzilla will leave you alone and go have a nice nap at the bottom of the sea for a few decades.
If you do not heed Godzilla, then you will have typhoons, the sinking of fishing boats, sea quakes that derail trains and start refinery fires (until you shut that *bleep* leaky plant down), and full scale nuclear plant attacks like Tokai and Chernobyl. In short, the wrath of a very angry god of the atom.
Shinoda: "Is Godzilla showing his hatred toward man-made energy?" Godzilla: "Human! Impertinent! I rule the Atom!" "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
I believe one of the options was France, which I would assume is also good for the Americans, for the same reasons as the countries above. But theyre getting upset about it.... I dont know, no consistency these Americans. Give it to the Axis of Cheese Eaters (TM).
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Another issue that lurks below the surface is the question of military application of fusion/related technologies.
In the back rooms of every country are the generals and paranoid politicians - nobody wants to see other countries acquire something as militarily useful as fusion, when it could be used against them.
Some paranoia is probably justified, but I believe that in the long run, this will hurt us all.
nobody wants to see other countries acquire something as militarily useful as fusion
Call me cynical (and ignorant), but I find it difficult to believe that this is the case given... well... the article! ("The US is halting its national nuclear fusion energy project [..] and pinning its hopes on the internation fusion research program...")
In the back rooms of every country are the generals and paranoid politicians - nobody wants to see other countries acquire something as militarily useful as fusion, when it could be used against them.
Thermonuclear weapons already use fusion, and we had *thousands* of them. The soviets detonated a ~50 megaton bomb at one point (57Mton I think). What could *possibly* lead to bigger/better weapons from this research?
AFAIK making a 'bomb' is much easier than making fusion into a viable energy source.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Right... if there was something usable likely to come directly from it, the first thing you'd do is to give up control and then try to persuade the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Russians and we Europeans about your level of involvement!
Re:Petty
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well.. that is not exact. It shows how petty, and obviously not interested in the sciencie are the human politics. The scientifics and the geeks probably dont mind where the reactor is located.
mmmm... in other hand..
Maybe the scientifics would like to get that near them (budget reasons). And I myself (I am in Spain) prefer Japan to the south of France.. When we are speaking about experimental nuclear reactors so far so better.
Re:Petty
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, because in the US you'd have 50 states competing to NOT have it in their backyard.
"boo hoo, I hates me the gnuculahr forces sos much, me am going to protest anything that involves it! I'm going to protest my atoms next!"
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
It's partially petty, and partially practical. ITER means jobs, lots of jobs, for decades. No politician worth his salt gives those up easily.
Re:Petty
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are.
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
-- You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
Yeah, but safety standards have since been raised, and you couldn't get that design built today. It may not be nearby, but it is completely unshielded, and prolonged exposure to it's radiation is known to cause cancer.
--
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Re:No closer
by
MrBruceLee
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"barely even exploiting it"?
How about "without the sun the earth wouldn't survive"?
I think that the grandparent meant that any exploitation of solar energy is historical, incidental, and non-technological. In other words, if plants hadn't had photosynthesis for something approaching a billion years, we'd consider getting oxygen that way a long-shot, and look for a way to extract it from oil. (insert irony emoticon here)
The point being that solar energy efforts get a pittance of money compared to oil exploration. In the past, that has probably been justified. But within the last 10-20 years there have been numerous technological breakthroughs that could really make a difference, and deserve better funding.
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Also, it's known to fail after some time (although that event is believed to be millions of years away), when it will grow and completely destroy the earth. And we don't have a clue how to prevent this.
-- The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Oh, unshielded, you say? Well, let's just lift off away that convective zone there and see what 'unshielded' really means... You got your factor three billion sunblock handy, mortals?
-- J. Hover, chief stellar engineer, Sirius Sector
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The Sun puts out about 3.9E26 watts, of which the Earth intercepts some 1.7E17 watts.
We're using about a two-billionth of the Sun's power. I think that counts as 'barely even exploiting it'.
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:No closer
by
MultiModeRb87
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
While it's true that fusion has been "15 years away" for over 30 years, one must keep in mind that the 15 year estimate assumed that fusion would receive full funding.
Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the fusion research (more engineering, really) program has never been fully funded. If you were to look at the original projections for fusion development, and compare the amount of money estimated as needing to be spent to the amount that has actually been spent, you'll see that the state of the art in fusion is just about the same fraction of the way towards a reactor as the fraction of money which has been spent on it.
Entertainingly enough, the one single, solitary thing I like about the Bush administration is that it has really pushed to fund fusion research during its term in office. Makes me wish Kerry would publicly promise to do the same, so I could at least think about that when I vote for the lesser of two evils...
Here are a few things that I've always wondered about so-called 'free energy' sources:
1. Solar.
We put up solar panels everywhere we possibly could. We get unlimited free energy. After a few years, the temprature of the Earth begins to drop due to the fact that the energy which would have been converted to heat is now used for other things. Even if those things produce heat as a biproduct, some heat will still be lost. We all freeze.
We put solar panels in space and beam the energy to the surface. Exact oppisite problem. The Earth begins to heat up due to extra evergy in the system. We all burn.
2. Wind.
We put up big windmils everywhere. All the birds fly into them. We are all eaten by insect plagues. Even if the insects don't kill us, shifting weather paterns due to disrupted wind system wreak havoc on the planet. We all die.
3. Waves.
Same prob as wind. We either kill off all the fish, or disrupt the ocean's currents to the point that we all die.
4. Geothermal.
Let's take heat from the crust that escapes anyway and use it to drive turbines. Turbines need pressure. Pressure that would have been released naturally is now stored in the crust till peak hours. Pressure in the crust causes massive earthquakes. We all die.
So, here is my question: How do we get the things we need without causing harm? Fussion seems like the only easy answer. There really isn't anything else for us...is there?
-- I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Yeah, but to collect this solar energy you have to build space-based systems, and they are very pricy to build. Fusion on earth, on the other hand, can be done at the surface and produces much more power/area than solar panels in space.
It's actually quite simple: Less people that use less power.
Not many people seem to grasp that a population 1/6th we have now on earth, would not have the problems we have now. Combined with less powerconsumption and a different consumption pattern would be far more effective than anything else we can come up with.
-Pat
(BTW you're right, English is not my native language)
Birds don't fly into windmills. There are large enough that the tip-speed is fairly low and birds can avoid them.
Now you will get some extra stupid birds. But every species have those and it would be progress if they don't breed.
Add to this the improved health of the enviroment from reduced pollution and bird levels would probably increase, not decrease.
Re:No closer
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Think bigger people:
Why not just build a giant boiler and steam turbine near the sun. Then use it to generate power. Now you just run 90000000 miles worth of power line. to a point in orbit that stays still relative to sun, not earth. Here you charge large batteries that are retrieved by a shuttle.
in case you didn't know, I'm joking of course
Re:No closer
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A !tang would folow "all die" with "O the embarrassment."
That prediction was based on a growing fusion budget. Back in the late 70s the budget was over 700 million US$/year and has decreased steadily to 280 million US$/year in 2002 dollars. That level is basically life support for the program. They killed the 2 million$/year design program for FIRE because they can't AFFORD to do FIRE, maintain the basic program and participate in ITER. The US and Soviet Union started the original ITER in the late 1980s, and now the US is participating at the level of China, and Russia has in kind contributions, but no cash. You want fusion in 30 years, you have to PAY for it.
There's basically one place for energy to go besides heat on the planet. It can be turned into EM and sent outward, and some of it will make it. (Hence lighted cities from outer space.)
Every other bit of solar energy that's turned into electricity eventually turns into heat, somewhere.
As almost all the light that's sent into space comes from space in the first place, this isn't really a worry. One solar panel will block more light from reflecting off the dirt back into space than we could possible turn into EM and spend back into space.
Basically, think of an air conditioner. Operating ten thousand air conditioners will not cause a city to freeze, because air conditions make things hotter on average. Likewise, solar panels make things hotter on average. All you've accomplished is to move heat around.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That quip about the massive fusion plant is no joke. For all the money we've blown on fusion development efforts, we could have had a thriving solar industry by now, with electricity predicted to be "too cheap to meter"... and even though it would've turned out to be just as expensive as the standard fuels coal, oil), those standards have been thrown into suspicion due to pollution and war. In short, solar energy would have been on-line in time to short circuit the intense social problems that the standard fuels have brought us.
We are even further ahead on wind turbine technology, considering generation capacity, than we are on solar. That's why I cheered once the Superexpensive Superconducting Supercollider was killed off. Those programs are boondoggles from the word go, hence pathetic. Culturally, we've no willpower to see a technology through to the end result: installed plant servicing consumers. Culturally, we have too many academic parasites who want to study things endlessly.
-- [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Well geeze, that is even worse. With all the dumb birds not breeding because they died in tragic windmill accidents, the inadvertant selective breeding of these birds will make them smarter and smarter until they rise up and overthow us humans! Wind power will be the death of us all!!!
Oh hooray! Some completely unscientific, unresearched, blown out of proportion anti-green propaganda with not a single damn link to back it up. I'm so impressed!
We put up solar panels everywhere we possibly could. We get unlimited free energy. After a few years, the temprature of the Earth begins to drop due to the fact that the energy which would have been converted to heat is now used for other things... We put solar panels in space and beam the energy to the surface. Exact oppisite problem.
Ignoring the fact that the amount of change we even despite our self-important belief that human beings cover the entire Earth, could possisbly make to the self-correcting climate system is basically infinitesimal, and also ignoring the fact that heating up the Earth is already being done by greenhouse gasses and deforestation, did it ever occur to your divine wisdom that perhaps we could use both of the systems you berate in your post? We could regulate the Earth's climate ourselves. Why not, we've started taking over for Mother Nature in basically every other area of managing Earth's ecosystems, and it works decently well although we still get reminders of our inadequacy from time to time.
We put up big windmils everywhere. All the birds fly into them.
One link please. Just one. A single link.
Have you ever even seen a wind turbine? In your life, have you seen a single one? Have you noticed how the blades get stained red with the blood of animals? No? Perhaps because they don't? Because the blades spin at around 10 rotations per minute. The shock of being hit by one of these is right up there with having a baseball bat pressed against your shoulder. Yes, being beaten to death with a baseball bat would suck, do you think the same thing would happen if it was only lightly pressed against you? Of course not. We're talking about great big windmills slowly spinning in the wind, not jet turbine compressors.
Birds face much more danger of running into buildings, especially modern all-glass-exterior buildings. Why don't you go about wasting your effort trying to get rid of those.
[Waves] Same prob as wind.
And that would be? The scale of the ocean probably eludes you, but let me offer you a hint: IT'S HUGE. You know the saying, "it's like pissing in the ocean", well, tidal power is basically like that. By the way, tidal power is actually graviational power that comes from the moon's orbit.
You know what's more of an environmental concern? Nuclear power plants (this will include fusion, sorry) that eject their (now very hot) cooling water into lakes, rivers, and oceans. That kills fish, and disrupts water currents.
Oh, and not to scare you, but the north atlantic conveyor current is showing signs of shutting down already, despite the fact that we really have no tidal power plants to speak of, and it has nothing to do with that. It happens. It has happened long before humans around, and it's going to happen again. Get used to it. Currents change. Climates change. We may all die, but it's sort of unlikely, given what a resourceful bunch of lunatics we are.
Let's take heat from the crust that escapes anyway and use it to drive turbines.
I'm going to ignore the silliness of the claim that increasing the pressure inside the earth by a few kilopascals here and there, a place where the pressure is measured in giga- or terapascals will make any difference whatsoever in whether gigantic plates of rock will move or not. By the way, that increase in pressure you presume isn't even necessarily true as the heat is generally captured after it has already been released from the crust and would otherwise be entering the atmosphere (see section above about whether adding or removing heat from the climate makes is a big deal).
Do you disagree that small changes have big impacts?
100 years ago, no one suspected that unchecked coal burning could change the climate. After all, it's a big atmosphere and we really aren't burning that much stuff.:)
In any event, I'm not trying to be anti-green or anti-technology. I'm just looking for answers that don't involve killing off 75% of the population of the planet. Do we really have any answers? I don't. And everything I've heard will affect the Earth to some extent.
How much it will affect and how long we can tolerate the effects is for others to research.
Oh, and why the tone? Nothing I said in any way was directed at you. Rather than attacking the speaker, try attacking the points of the speach.
-- I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
That quip about the massive fusion plant is no joke. For all the money we've blown on fusion development efforts, we could have had a thriving solar industry by now
Care to explain that last statement? Exactly how much money do you think we have 'blown' on fusion research, compared to the money spent on photocells?
And comparing fusion to the superconducting supercollider is stupid. The former is engineering for energy production, and the latter is engineering for physical understanding. Your statements show that you have no understanding of the value or functioning of R&D.
Would you have considered large particle collider experiments a waste of money if they led to the discovery and construction of FTL or inertialess propulsion systems? Sure, we now know such things are unlikely to be possible to construct, but we wouldn't have that knowledge if we didn't have a deeper understanding of the structure of the universe.
"[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]"
Is that your [pathetic] attempt to belittle private gun ownership advocates?
-- Speckpot?
Vested Interests
by
tiled_rainbows
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Which is a great shame, because it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
and/or
b) the world running out of fuels before finding adequate replacement and reverting to a state of pre-industrial, Mad-Max-style savagery.
So, in conclusion, I reckon that if our respective governments aren't willing to fund proper fusion research, then they should at least get working on the Thunderdome.
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
I expect distant prospects, like fusion, to get more funding from these people. What won't happen are things that would cut oil consumption here and now, like stopping tax breaks on SUVs.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Really? Not all people in the EU are scared of nuclear power. France uses it as their main power source, and as far as I know other countries like Spain and Germany also make heavy use of fission reactors for power.
Re:Vested Interests
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies. The smart ones recognize that, the dumb ones think it's all about oil. No-one wants oil. What they want is motive power.
Also remember that not much oil goes into power stations - mostly they're natural gas, coal nuclear, hydro, etc. Oil ends up in automobiles of one sort or another. Pitch it to Bush that Texas can provide all the oil the US needs and fusion will supply the rest and he can get the US out of the Middle East for good (barring support for Israel of course), and he'll jump at the chance, I reckon.
I don't know about that. If I were the CEO of Shell, or BP or the others, what would you rather sell? A product that is expensive, has to be dug/pumped out of the ground, refined, etc, or would you rather sell Shell branded fusion reactors or low cost energy from your Shell branded power plant? No one is holding fusion back, it's just somewhat underfunded. I'm also fairly certain that there is a lot of private funded research on fusion as well.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
So... you advocate pumping a lot more energy into the atmosphere? You know, the near-endless energy from fusion reactors, which inevitably ends up as heat once we use it? And you're doing this to... prevent global warming? Yes, that makes sense.
Re:Vested Interests
by
mehtajr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Seeing as they're all turning in record profits, I think the CEOs of Shell, BP, etc. would tell you they have no problem with selling fossil fuels.
I wouldn't expect them to want to move to alternative energy sources-- after all, once you've sold someone the Shell branded fusion reactor, they're not going to be filling up their tank every week, paying prettymuch whatever price you demand.
It's a question of taking a large amount of revenue up front, or the guaranteed revenue stream over the long term. I suspect that most businesses would take the latter.
Plus, it necessitates scrapping a giant amount of their infrastructure (drilling operations, refineries, possibly even gas stations), which is expensive to do (buying out employees, etc.).
Granted, there will still be associated costs with the Shell branded fusion reactor, unless they bundle Mr. Fusion with it, but I think the long-run revenue of fossil fuels would still bring in more money.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the cause of global warming is not such heat generation.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
What is a decent level of funding? How much is needed and how do you come to that number? Here is a link to the spending on fusion by the U.S. What would spending more money get us? How would it be spent and what result would be expected?
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma/fusione ne rgy.pdf
Re:Vested Interests
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Just some small little sidenotes...
First of all, a substantial part of the electricity in EUrope is generated using nuclear power, especially in France.
Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power
Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.
Then, just try to imagine what it is to take all the population of the USA, add soem 50% to it, and then sqeeze it onto a landmass 1/5th of the USA. You will get a lot closer to the population density that EUrope has to deal with, and with that population density, spots where you can put up a nuclear powerplant safely are rather limited really.
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
I have an alternative theory. Governments are generally unwilling to drop tens of billions of dollars into technologies that may or may not end up being useful.
1) We have at least thousands of years of coal left at any reasonable consumption rate (much of it in the US!) so we are not running out of coal.
2) As for that global warming thing, the US government seems to be saying bring it on! So even though I am swayed by this argument, GWB and others don't seem to see a problem with the 1-4 degree (F) increase in temperatures.
3) Worst of all, you can't really claim fusion power will necessarily be cheaper than fission power, and what keeps us from using fission power is largely the fact that it cost twice as much as coal to make electricity. (Though wind power now runs cheaper than coal in some places, even without government incentives, making it a nice alternative.) We have little reason to believe that fusion power would be economical. The plants will be very expensive to build, and will be expensive to tear down (commission / decommission) and since nothing last forever we can only expect to generate power from a plant for a certain period of years (which is where the fudging on 'projected' cost are.) If it is not economical, then we are unlikely to use it, and billions of dollars were wasted that could have gone to school budgets or (more likely) to buying new bombers and helicopters!
I am not saying it would or would not be economical. I have no idea, but it is a complex issue at any rate, and if the govenrmnt thought it was open and shut i suspect we would have fusion power plants already.
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
I don't think this theory holds water. Fusion power is far enough off to be off the planning horizon. These guys are capitalists, and capital is mobile. They have plenty of time to switch from being the plutarchs of oil to being the plutarchs of fusion before fusion becomes an economic reality (which it won't in any case in their lifetime).
People who are old enough to remember the Reagan administration have been through this before. These guys have an ideology that runs like this: if a piece of research leads to valuable applications, then it would be funded by private capital. Therefore any research with possible applications is inherently waste.
This is an attractive sounding theory except for a couple of problems. There isn't really a sharp line between basic and applied research. Presumably basic research will lead to technologies far in the future. Likewise some applied research like fusion is not going to yield anything for twenty years. Risk is not a barrier to a sufficiently lucrative investment, but tying up capital is. You can get somebody to invest in a one in twenty shot, but you can't get them to invest in a payoff in twenty years investment unless the risk is essentially zero.
The problem is that using your private sector mental filter, you wouldn't fund anything you wouldn't fund if you were in the private sector. If you take this attitude, then government truly has no place in doing applied research.
So, in conclusion, I would say that the lack of interest in fusion research is not self-serving, but serves a world view. It's the world view itself that is self-serving.
-- Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Vested Interests
by
EinarH
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The big oil companies, those that really operate on a global basis, are "energy companies" per se but in reallity they are still mainly oil companies..
Remember that they have invested _billions_ each year in their oil business. They have paid (or the state has paid for them) insane amounts of money for all the production capasity, transportation, knowledge, contracts, refineries and all the other infrastructure. They know the oil business, the other people in the oil business and the customers in the oil business.
Most likly they conclude that with a status quo, they will continue to literarily print money.
The incentives for them to change the energy situation are few and elusive. In a world based more on renewable energy and distributed harvesting of the energy they are not guaranteed success. Such a situation would increase competition and make it harder for them to compete at what they are good at.
And you are incorrect about most of the oil ends up in automobiles etc. IIRC, USA uses about 40% of the oil for automobiles/transportation, 20% for power/heating/electro and 40% for industry/chem/stupid plastic toys.
--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Re:Vested Interests
by
marcello_dl
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Shell is an established oil company, you are assuming it could become a key player in the business of fusion reactor but that's not certain at all, especially if fusion is left to private funded research.
-- ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
I think it is rather naive to think that oil companies are so shortsighted as to not realize that the commodity they are pumping out of the ground has a finite quantity. They will run out eventually. Therefore, they need a long term strategy to adapt to this.
Providing gasoline and lubricating oils form a signifigant part of their business. The fusion power that would arrive in the next couple of decades will replace fossil fuel fired power plants, which are already predominantly coal or natural gas fired. Fusion power will not replace internal combustion engines, nor will it make all electric vehicles any more viable. If anything, oil companies should like fusion power, since it will stretch oil supplies out even longer and allow their core business to remain profitable for a longer period of time.
Re:Vested Interests
by
maximilln
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies
Precisely. GW Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wanted the oil. The financial movers and shakers in this nation needed an excuse to drive an American wedge into OPEC. OPEC has had a stranglehold on the US for decades and it wasn't getting any better. The only way that the US could ever break the controlling hold of OPEC was to physical invade their territory. If OPEC had been allowed to continue their trend then their money, money which came from sale of oil, would never be spent on alternative research. By putting an American political wedge into the Middle East we can finally hold some real bargaining power when it comes time to decide where the trillions of dollars in oil revenue get parceled out.
That means they only lose 20% of their business to fusion, maximum, and that is over-estimated because people who use oil for heating and power tend to be very remote and therefore off the gas/power grid and wouldn't be effected by fusion power.
The Oil companies know that their reserves are getting 'slim'. They know that they can't have it 'this good' for much longer. What they know they need to do is adapt to change and provide alternative forms of power.
For example, BP - formally British Petroleum, now Beyond Petroleum, is one of the worlds biggest suppliers of solar panels AND they are a huge producer and refiner of oil.
Excuse me, but Bush *has* funded fusion research during his term in office. Sure, he represents big oil companies, but those companies aren't too stupid to realize that all the oil's going to be gone in 50 years or so.
These guys are in the business of selling energy. You don't think they want to be on top of the next big thing? Fusion is pretty much the only way out, if we want to maintain a high-energy civilization.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, we really have some bargaining power now, don't we? What "we" do you mean by the way? Quit thinking in terms of Nation States; the powers that be aren't.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nah, he won't want to get the US out of the Middle East anyway. Not unless he can find another boogieman to keep Americans scared and willing to give up their liberty for safety.
Besides, you have to remember that he really believes Jesus is coming back once Armageddon starts, so he has a big vested interest in getting it underway.
Re:Vested Interests
by
joib
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.
Ah, you mean the 32 people that so far have died because of the Chernobyl accident? As opposed to the estimated 100000 people in Europe that die prematurely every year due to inhaling fossil fuel exhaust?
Yep, we really can put things into the proper perspective here in Europe, as opposed to those rednecks on the other side of the pond.
This is correct to an extent that not many people realize. I worked a short time ago for a large oil company (hint: largest oil company. Largest company in the world until it was overtaken by Wal-mart a couple of years ago) and I was told that it owns the rights to more uranium than any other entity in the world. It used to be second, but then the USSR fell apart.
You're referring to Tchernobyl, aren't you? There are no such reactors operating in Western Europe and those in post-communist countries are being upgraded to meet modern standards. The Tchernobyl catastrophe was caused by terrible negligence on the part of the reactor crew. Besides, the Western Europe is overracting even with Tchernobyl. Most probably more people are dying because of illnesses caused by car exhaust and industrial pollution then died because of Chernobyl. And a large part of Tchernobyl deaths would have been avoided if the USSR didn't try, in a totally criminal and inhuman way, to cover up the scandal initially (they didn't evacuate people) and after that send soldiers to clean up without any substantial protection (they were cleaning up the debris with hand-held spades).
With the advent of pellet fuel technology, the security will dramatically increase. We have a good, clean technology (nuclear power) and we're still smoking coal. It's drastically stupid. Whenever I hear such argumenting against nuclear power, I smell some 'Green' politicians counting votes and Greenpeace activists trying to get more funding.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Vested Interests
by
Jodka
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants..
So much for your theory that cutting back on fusion research is part of a secret righ-wing plot to protect oil profits.
It took me 12 seconds (I timed it) to google that up. New tab, "Bush Nuclear Power", first link, first sentence, here.
Is is too much to ask that moderators spend 12 seconds before modding up crackpot propaganda such as the parent post? Of course it is. It's an election year, so you need to use your moderation points to advance your political prejudice that George Bush is public enemy number one. That's justified, because we have the proof: If he backs nuclear power, then that is proof that he is environmentally reckless. If he does not back nuclear power, then that is proof that he is conspiring to protect oil profits.
> Bush *has* funded fusion research during his term in office
I don't believe Bush created any funding for fusion research.
The first mention of fusion in the national energy policy is on page 101. Fusion is a back page line item.
Bush didn't push for it, a working group recommended it to them: "The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to develop next generation technology -- including hydrogen and fusion."
It also said "recommended that the Secretary of Energy be directed to "develop an education campaign that communicates the benefits of alternative forms of energy, including hydrogen and fusion."
Note they didn't recommend research, just education about it!
I think you're mistake here is that you infer good sense should be used in planning and decision making. Look around you and you can easily see that's not the case.
-- --
Programming with boost is like building a house with lego.
It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power
That's a myth. Most of the energy in a fusion reaction comes out as fast neutrons; these gradually mess up the structure of the reactor vessel and make it radioactive.
Secondly, most or all of the possible ways to catch the fast neutrons create secondary nuclear waste.
The idea that fusion power is 'clean' is not backed up by the facts.
--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Vested Interests
by
semafour
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Most likly they conclude that with a status quo, they will continue to literarily print money
Why is it that people insist on using the word "literally" when they mean figuratively?
> You're referring to Tchernobyl, aren't you? There are no such reactors operating in Western Europe and those in post-communist countries are being upgraded to meet modern standards.
And at least 2 of the remainign reactors of Tchernobyl are still being operated, and the state of the encasing of the damanged reactor is not such that it will still be standing a century from now.
Also, risk assesment does of course include the actual chance of somethign happening, which is small, and getting smaller and smaller as technology develops and old systems are being decommisioned.
The other side of it are the potential consequences, and those are enormous.
> The Tchernobyl catastrophe was caused by terrible negligence on the part of the reactor crew.
And a bad design that failed to contain the radioactive dust.
> Besides, the Western Europe is overracting even with Tchernobyl. Most probably more people are dying because of illnesses caused by car exhaust and industrial pollution then died because of Chernobyl.
And the relation is?
Fewer peopel are likely dying of the exhaust from the local gas driven powerplants then died from thcernobyl, which amkes for a much better comparison unless you are going to stick nuclear power into every car maybe.
Btw, I agree with regards to the car polution problem, but it is simply a seperate issue.
> And a large part of Tchernobyl deaths would have been avoided if the USSR didn't try, in a totally criminal and inhuman way, to cover up the scandal initially (they didn't evacuate people) and after that send soldiers to clean up without any substantial protection (they were cleaning up the debris with hand-held spades).
Which completely disregards the consequences this accident had for Europe's agricultural sector for example.
Tchernobyl caused a lot more damage then soem fatalities.
How many people are still being treated but didn't die yet from its consequences? How many peopel basicly lost all they had as a consequence? How much land in the USSR will be uninhabitable for decades to come? (luckily they have enough land there)
In other words, you look at one very specific type of damage it caused, and ignore most of the effects.
> With the advent of pellet fuel technology, the security will dramatically increase. We have a good, clean technology (nuclear power) and we're still smoking coal.
There are other, much cleaner alternatives without having to turn to nuclear power.
> It's drastically stupid. Whenever I hear such argumenting against nuclear power, I smell some 'Green' politicians counting votes and Greenpeace activists trying to get more funding.
Yeah, whatever. Whenever I hear the type of arguments you brign up, I start thinking about scientists utterly out of touch with reality.
Oh, we really have some bargaining power now, don't we? What "we" do you mean by the way?
Of course you raise a fine point. The average American citizen is still screwed. The Federal Government is going to continue to tax us for all we're worth until the Federal Reserve dismisses the debt owed to them. Since that will never happen then the Federal Reserve and the largest corporations will continue to profit through the elaborate money-laundering scheme called the stock market.
I wasn't indicating that "we" as a nation have any bargaining power. It's pretty clear that the only things that really matter are controlling business interests. What I was mostly commenting on was the common quips about Bush "wanting the oil". It's not that Bush and Associates, LLC, et. al., Inc., International wanted the oil. They wanted a way in which to divest themselves of the oil. With OPEC controlling such huge streams of financing through their unlimited stranglehold on the oil market it was almost impossible to convince any other large corporations to move away from suckling at the OPEC teat.
By invading Iraq and showing OPEC that we will force our politics and our puppets onto them we have given our multinational business interests a beginning wedge with which to influence how OPEC funnels the stream of neverending oil money.
The original poster had a potentially accurate point except he should have said big coal companies instead of big oil. The coal companies have the Bush administration wrapped around their little finger, I think Kerry too. You know it when you hear both of them talk about "clean coal" technology as "the" solution to our electricity generation problems, Kerry just recently announced support for it probably to win over coal miners and big business in places like West Virginia, another example of how more alike Bush and Kerry are than different. Well you can make burning coal cleaner but you are not likely to ever make it "clean" especially when it comes to green house gases.
You might be right that energy companies would just jump on fusion if it were viable and go on its merry way. Not sure its true though. It would be a very disruptive technology were it to be developed. For one thing there aren't exactly reserves that a company could own. You can get the raw material from sea water with work, the next likely source that could be owned would be the moon. The beauty of fossil fuels are they are in pockets, and you have to gamble to find them, and the pockets can be owned, and they are finite resources resulting in them being excellent ways to make lots money and ideal for Machiavellian global geopolitics (which is why the Bush and Cheney clans love it so much). In the last few years an oil company found oil off the west coast of Africa. I think it was Mobile who took the rather dumb, greedy dictator to the cleaners in the negotiations. The dictator, his family and cronies are rich beyond their desires but the entire rest of the country is still in abject property when their standard of living should be way up. The oil company is for all purposes practically printing money doing what great business empires have often done, looting a 3rd world company for it.
With fusion pretty much anyone could get in the energy business as long as they had the capital to build the plant and to harvest the fuel. Getting the fuel wouldn't be as onerous as it is for fission reactors either and disposing of the waste would probably be no problem at all. There would be a business in building the plants which might be down GE/Westinghouse's ally but otherwise it would completely alter the current energy market, probably destroying some huge empires in the process. Huge empires usually don't like that and will do everything in their power to stop it. It would no doubt ripple in to the auto industry because cars would almost inevitably go electric. Detroit has been paying lip service to electric/hybrid but it took the rather more forward looking Japanese to actually make it a reality and Detroit looks to be more than a little reluctant to embrace moving away from fossil fuels.
All in all when it comes to breakthrough technologies you do need to be thoroughly aware that the current powers that be can and do actively throw road blocks in the way if it is potentially disruptive to their business, though it would be a massive benefit to the planet as a whole. We could have had vastly more fuel efficient cars if we'd just continued the trend started in the first oil embargo in the 70's towards higher MPG. Instead thanks to the direction most auto companies took, with the blessing of big oil fuel, efficiency has often gotten worse, not better which is a key reason the U.S. in particular is massively dependent on oil imports and is waging wars and trying to topple governments, like Venezuela's, to secure its supply.
So, if they are putting money into energy, I wonder how much the oil companies have put into wind, solar, geothermal, or hydro-power? Near Zero you say? Power companies are doing so as they are looking at ways to lower their costs, but oil companies are looking at oil/natural gas/any mined energy etc. If nothing else, notice that W. has increased loads of money for fuel cell research using oil, but has cut just about all other forms of energy generation/conversion/ etc.
I suspect that if the current admin were offered an immediate solution to replacing oil, they would kill the bearer of the news.
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Vested Interests
by
CrimsonAvenger
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
White House types (and Congressional types as well) have the dubious privilege of putting their assets into a blind trust, which must basically sell it all off and put it elsewhere, without telling the principal just where it is invested (hence "blind"). This is to prevent that particular form of corruption.
Far more dangerous is Oil Companies (or Software companies, Disney, Media companies, etc) making direct political contributions to elected officials. Which they all do, to all candidates.
Except Nader, maybe. Not sure who is making contributions to him, but I expect they all have political axes to grind...
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Exsqueeze me, but my S.O. happens to be a grad student in the fairly small field of fusion research. As a fusion researcher, she is keely aware of the overall funding situation (seeing as how it impacts her *directly*).
While fusion may be a 'back page line item', in a budget somewhere, it is in reality something that the administration is interested in funding, (as evidenced in the many visits by top DOE officials to her lab) and as a result has not only avoided having its budget cut (in real dollars, like most research has in recent years), but has actually increased the amount of funding available to researchers. The US has also gotten back on board with ITER by promising to pay a huge part of the cost of construction, after it had previously backed out, saying it was too expensive. The real availability of money for research is the only thing that counts.
And yeah, they're interested in an educational campaign about fusion. How the hell else are these big corporate interests going to maintain, in the long term, public will to fund fusion research programs? Even if he wins re-election, Bush won't be in office long enough to ensure the program reaches fruition.
It doesn't matter if Bush came up with the idea himself. The point is that he has supported their recommendation. People have been recommending that fusion be funded for years, and are usually completely ignored.
Interesting stuff, please enlighten us some more if you happen to have some links to related information.
What you say sounds rather plausable and I did hear it before. It came to gether with the claim that this would still be a much smaller problem due to it not staying radioactive for centuries to come, but I do not know if there is any tuth to that.
That may bring up one of the most important issues with nuclear power btw, people can more or less grasp the working and the dangers associated with fossil fuel, but can't with regards to nuclear power. Fear of the unknown is quite a human trait, not always such a good one, but one that is undoubtedly there for a reason.
> my S.O. happens to be a grad student in the fairly small field of fusion research.
My girlfriend in college was a nuclear engineer. That doesn't qualify me as an expert in nuclear engineering or politics. It might make you a bit more well informed, but I don't believe we can use second hand exposure as an indication of wisdom.
> It doesn't matter if Bush came up with the idea himself. The point is that he has supported their recommendation. People have been recommending that fusion be funded for years, and are usually completely ignored.
The budget contains thousands of items. I believe that few of our lawmakers are cognizant of the details of even a reasonable percentage of them. I don't believe Bush saw this as anything more than a power point screen that got an increase because it looked good politically.
"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan."
I'm glad it got funding and think it needs a lot more. I believe you're giving Bush credit for something he doesn't deserve. Fusion reasearch was funded long before Bush came into office. I believe the article says we spent 2.5 million on our research, internationally there was 5 billion. So our research budget was 0.05% of the total? In a field that requires expensive machines to validate theories? To claim 'credit' for that miserable lack of foresight seems foolish to me. Now they're going to cancel the program entirely? Let others do all the research and gather all the wisdom? I think you listened to the spin doctors and didn't think this through for yourself.
-- --
Programming with boost is like building a house with lego.
It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
The largest fusion reactor in the world (Joint European Torus, JET) is located in Culham UK and is funded by EFDA so I think it's a little unfair to say that the EU doesn't have sufficient funding for fusion research.
> > my S.O. happens to be a grad student in the fairly small field > > of fusion research.
>My girlfriend in college was a nuclear engineer. >That doesn't qualify me as an expert in nuclear >engineering or politics. It might make you a >bit more well informed, but I don't believe >we can use second hand exposure as an indication >of wisdom.
As a physicist, I'm probably about as close to an expert in the subject as one can get without actually being a nuclear engineer, but that's irrelevant to talking about whether or not something is getting funding.
And if you want to treat information coming from the people who are getting paid to do fusion, about how much they are being paid to do fusion this year, as opposed to years past, as 'second hand exposure', then I don't believe you'll be convinced by anything which can be presented on slashdot, and you're just a troll.
>The budget contains thousands of items. I believe >that few of our lawmakers are cognizant of the >details of even a reasonable percentage of them. >I don't believe Bush saw this as anything more >than a power point screen that got an increase >because it looked good politically.
Hell, I don't care if he consulted chicken bones and the witch-doctor. (although I think that's a bit extreme). *All* politicians look for things to make them look good politically. Most of them choose defense contractors (Bush included). And hell, it *does* make him look good politically simply because it *is* good. I don't mean to give Bush full personal credit if that's what's bugging you, but I do give credit to his Sec. of Energy, and his willingness to be led to fund fusion. That's not to say Bush is my favorite guy, or that I'll vote for him in Nov., but it doesn't mean you should ignore reality.
>Fusion reasearch was funded long before >Bush came into office.
Agreed. I never argued otherwise. I merely stated that fusion has seen increased levels of funding under Bush.
>I believe the article says we spent 2.5 million on >our research, internationally there was 5 billion. >So our research budget was 0.05% of the total? >In a field that requires expensive machines to >validate theories? To claim 'credit' for that >miserable lack of foresight seems foolish to me.
Part of the problem is that there isn't very much to spend a huge amount of money on at the moment. The field of fusion research is limited to a very few universities (and national labs, if you want to count NIF, which I don't). This is because, historically, fusion has never been fully funded, and what funding there is can only support a limited number of researchers and research groups.
And it's not like it's just Bush's lack of foresight. It was under Clinton that we pulled out of ITER in the first place. It's just the usual inability to consistently fund expensive research programs over the long term that we've also seen with NASA. Politicians want to fund activities which will show results by the next election cycle, and tend to cut the budgets of anything which takes longer. Other countries (China especially) have a better focus on the need for fusion, since their need is greater (they see that their economies will be just getting up to steam when the oil runs out..)
>Now they're going to cancel the program entirely? >Let others do all the research and gather all >the wisdom?
Hello? We're still in ITER?
>I think you listened to the spin >doctors and didn't think this through for >yourself.
And I don't think you read the article, or have been paying attention. Let me recap for you:
First, there was ITER, the grand planned collaboration to make a big stomping test fusion reactor. It was going to be very expensive.
The U.S., looking at the huge pricetag, and not wanting to build it somewhere other than the U.S., pulled out of
> if you want to treat information coming from the people who are getting paid to do fusion, about how much they are being paid to do fusion this year, as opposed to years past, as 'second hand exposure', then I don't believe you'll be convinced by anything which can be presented on slashdot, and you're just a troll.
I'm not on purpose being a troll. If you were on the budget committee or accountant in any of these programs then I'd treat your information as having more weight. Since the discussion was about budgets, not about physics, I don't think your experience as a physicist really adds much. I don't think word of mouth from your SO adds much either. I work for a company, but that doesn't mean I have any knowledge whatsoever about it's total operating budget. I'm not even allowed to ask the salaries of my coworkers.
>I don't mean to give Bush full personal credit if that's what's bugging you
That was it.
>Now they're going to cancel the program (FIRE) entirely? >Let others do all the research and gather all >the wisdom?
I believed what would happen was we would give money to an international organization which would fund research in other countries, which our scientists would not participate in, or benefit from.
> Part of the problem is that there isn't very much to spend a huge amount of money on at the moment
An Arab friend of mine told me a "secret". He said the largest recipient of US foreign aid was Isreal. He indicated that was a large part of the root of our Terrorist problem, but let's leave that one for another discussion. I looked it up. He was right. We gave 2 billion to them. Maybe it's naive, but why don't we spend that on fusion? It's not like the money is actually buying us any stability in the middle east.
> The U.S., looking at the huge pricetag, and not wanting to build it somewhere other than the U.S., pulled out of ITER, saying it wanted to focus its efforts on its own domestic research programs. (i.e. FIRE). Everyone who actually worked in the field thought this was a dumb idea, but they were used to dumb ideas by then.
Based on what the funding levels seem to have been pulling out of ITER probably was a bad idea. We reduced the already poor chances of success. Personally I would have preferred a real effort instead of the token one we seem to have put forth. Thanks for the clarification, that helped a lot.
-- --
Programming with boost is like building a house with lego.
It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
I believed what would happen was we would give
money to an international organization which
would fund research in other countries, which
our scientists would not participate in,
or benefit from.
I see, and if this were the case, then it'd be a little silly, yes. But fortunately, U.S. researchers are likely to be involved if there is U.S. funding. Lots of big projects are done with international collaboration these days, and researchers are typically a pretty mobile bunch.
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies.
The reason I doubt this is that oil is a tangible commodity. Someone owns it, and other people can sign leases for it, still others can distribute and market it. By definition, it's scarce, and scarce = profit.
But fusion...fusion will (mostly) just be a technology. Once the kinks are worked out, anyone could build a fusion plant. Even it's patented and copyrighted, you can't stop a sovereign nation from building their own, short of bombing them. There's no scarcity, so no profit. Even if you fancy yourself an "energy" company, would you hurry along the day when your scarce, supremely profitable business will be superseded by a ethereal technology that no one can control (much less profit from)?
(I know that certain rare raw materials will likely make the best fusion reactors, at least initially, and those raw materials may be most abundant in out-of-the-way places, like the moon, leading to scarcity and profit. But in principle, and eventually, one would think, in practice, all you need is water and seed energy.)
Precisely. GW Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wanted the oil. The financial movers and shakers in this nation needed an excuse to drive an American wedge into OPEC. OPEC has had a stranglehold on the US for decades and it wasn't getting any better.
North America has enough reserves of oil and gas to supply its energy needs for a very long time. Fossil fuels are bought overseas because this a) is somewhat cheaper and b) gives the US political influence over OPEC (you don't want to tick off a big customer).
If the middle east dropped off the face of the planet, the price of oil in North America would go up, but not catastrophically so.
1) Funding fusion research and building more nuclear power plants are not exactly the same issue. Not all "nuclear" is the same.
2) It's ironic how you took one link (and also noted the 12 seconds it took to find it) for you to be convinced that what was modded-up was simply "propaganda". Did you bother even reading the whole article before you responded? Do you even know the broader environmental and energy (nuclear) policies the Bush administration has taken?
This post isn't for or against Bush but it simply says that you don't have much ground to stand on in casting the other person's post as simply propaganda.
--
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sounds like cheap fusion power too cheap to meter is at least 26 years aways;-> Seriously the "Hydrogen" economy supporters should realize that best hydrogen storage technologies today use methane, ethane and/or propane - easy to transport, liquify or compress with much higher energy density than hydrogen. "Hydrogen" economy supporters should also realize that they are really supporting premium cost coal power as a marginal replacement for oil and gas to help keep Arab (and Russian) bargaining power down. For the next 25 years the world will be shifing toward gas to replace increasingly heavy crude oil (think tar) - no real choice unless you really insist on coal. After 25-50 yr consider space based power - fusion or solar. Wind, new fission technology, and terrestial solar power will continue to increase but still make minor inroads in global energy use. The fusion projects I find interesting are the aneutronic derivatives of Farnesworth's IEC Fusor and any space based fusion technology.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's not exactly about vested interests financially (although Bechtel a Bush crony corporation will surely get lots of contruction contracts for the nuke plants). It's about being able to park an army over the resource and control it. Uranium mines can be controlled, but since the fuel for fusion can be harvested from seawater, it is almost impossible to control. The same goes for solar power in terms of its widespread availablity. That's why Bush and his cronies are anti-solar and anti-fusion.
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
BushCo wants new fission reactors We are talking about research into fusion.
The vast difference between these two topics was apparently completely lost on both you and the original poster. Maybe moderators should have modded you both down for lacking many clues?
Re:Vested Interests
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The US has more than enough energy reserves to provide us all the energy we could possible need for DECADES. It's stupid liberals like you who weep for the displaced Caribou if we build a pipeline that are causing our DEPENDENCE on foreign oil.
Cheney can say whatever he likes about building Nuclear Power plants, because it's going to get blocked at the state level. It's a free hit, so he says the popular vote winning thing (the majority wants nuclear power, just not in their backyard), without any risk of blowback.
Course if you'd read that article you'd linked, you might have noticed that.
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
Uh, dude... everyone invests in oil companies. I'll bet a not-insignificant piece of your pension/portfolio is in the energy sector. You may not know, because it's wrapped in a pension or mutual fund, but you're almost certainly an "oil company profiteer" to a certain degree.
BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc. are spending billions working on alternative energy. They're not stuipd. You think they want to do business in places like Persian Gulf? The overhead costs of transport and security and the overall business risks are sky-high. But oil is still cheaper than solar/wind/whatever at current technology levels. Energy companies will gladly switch gears to providing us solar-produced hydrogen cells when it becomes economically feasible.
You're referring to Tchernobyl, aren't you? There are no such reactors operating in Western Europe and those in post-communist countries are being upgraded to meet modern standards.
And at least 2 of the remainign reactors of Tchernobyl are still being operated, and the state of the encasing of the damanged reactor is not such that it will still be standing a century from now.
It's an individual case which can be dealt with by shelling enough money to Ukraine to make it close the reactors. It's just that Western countries want to deal with it cheap (which makes one think they don't see so much danger in it as they declare publicly).
Also, risk assesment does of course include the actual chance of somethign happening, which is small, and getting smaller and smaller as technology develops and old systems are being decommisioned.
The other side of it are the potential consequences, and those are enormous.
With every large-scale technology one can find an enormously fatal accident caused by its usage, and declare that, no matter how small the odds are, the danger is unacceptable. Taking such approach means one is ideologically opposed to the technology in question.
Fewer peopel are likely dying of the exhaust from the local gas driven powerplants then died from thcernobyl, which amkes for a much better comparison unless you are going to stick nuclear power into every car maybe.
Why are you picking gas plants? We have coal plants, which emmit sulphur (which is filtered out, but needs to be stored afterwards) and radioactive elements and provide the incentive for coal mining, which is heavily damaging the environment.
There are other, much cleaner alternatives without having to turn to nuclear power.
But none of them makes economical sense. And don't tell me you want to put windmills everywhere and call it 'clean'. I call it 'scary'.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
> With every large-scale technology one can find an enormously fatal accident caused by its usage, and declare that, no matter how small the odds are, the danger is unacceptable. Taking such approach means one is ideologically opposed to the technology in question.
Whatever you want to call it. TO me it means I fidn the consequences too big, no matter the risk level.
You have by far the best situation by looking for technology of which the risk of going wrong is higher, but the consequences are within what we can manage.
> Why are you picking gas plants? We have coal plants, which emmit sulphur (which is filtered out, but needs to be stored afterwards) and radioactive elements and provide the incentive for coal mining, which is heavily damaging the environment.
Because where I loive we have gas plants and it is a very good alternative, lots cleaner, and without the absurd risk of nuclear energy?
Why don't you try thinking outside the box for a bit instead of fixing yourself on 2 known alternatives?
> But none of them makes economical sense. And don't tell me you want to put windmills everywhere and call it 'clean'. I call it 'scary'.
Solar energy? wind energy? energy from the tidal movement of water? energy from the 'normal' flow of water?
All of those have consequences, but before calling them scary I'd suggest you actually come up with what scares you about those (if it is somethign else then that your fosterchild nuclear energy might not be used afterall)
"The idea that fusion power is 'clean' is not backed up by the facts"
Huh? Let's see:
Coal: releases radioactive dust into the air. Releases massive amounts of crap into the air (I know, if I leave magnets on my fridge, the edges turn black and you see dark soot outlines if it doesn't rain for a while). Strip mining is highly destructive.
Oil: Less radioactive dust... And oil wells are better for the environment than coal mines. Easier to contaminate large areas of ocean, though.
LNG: Better. Still a lot of CO2 vapor into the air, and as we all know, the air is hard to clean. Not too bad.
Solar: Takes more energy to make a solar panel then you get out of it currently. Manufacturing process has huge amounts of toxic waste.
Wind: Requires huge tracts of land. Otherwise, not bad. I like wind.
Fission: Radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel rods, control rods, and some materials that need to be replaced every decade or so. Modern plants can't melt down - loss of coolent means loss of fission. Bunch of solid radioactive waste that can be dumped in one place instead of forced into the air.
Fusion: Like fission, but no fuel or control rods.
Look, you take a fusion reactor, stuff in the fuel, heat it up- it fuses.
Now, the heat energy you put into the reaction; most of that comes out as fast neutrons; plus the fusion reaction energy- again most of that energy is in the fast neutrons.
So you've got a net loss of energy.
One way to recover the energy is to line the inside of the reactor with lithium. The fast neutrons transmute the lithium- you then haul off the lithium and stuff it into a fission reactor, and go through the steam cycle to make electricity.
Clean? No.
Cleaner? Maybe, maybe not. The one advantage you have is that the half life of most of the waste is only a hundred years or so IRC, so you're still better off.
But of course all of this assumes that you can actually get fusion to work- the good news is that it's only 20 years away! That's much better than 30 years ago, when it was 30 years away!
Sadly, I see the same same type of international jockying over the site selection for this project as I do when I watch the UN in action. International cooperation sounds good, but seldom is very efficient. Just look at the International Space Station for another example. In my mind, this project has unlimited potential. However, it will most likely never be realized do to such squabbling.
*Yawn.
How long has this project been around now, 3 years? I don't see very much cooperation, and it doesnt look good if they havent been able to even agree on a site placement. I believe that any international cooperation should be tempered by a large dose of realism. Sad but true.....
Peace, Dusty
Re:The UN model?
by
R.Caley
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just look at the International Space Station for another example. In my mind, this project has unlimited potential.
The ISS never had any potential. It was a PR stunt for NASA who needed an excuse for keeping the shuttle flying, an excuse to pump money into the former SU for the white house, and the other `parnters' just saw free money for building bits of high-tech white elephant.
As an example of an international project which does produce results, look at CERN.
-- _O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
This is actually a very good option
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Considering Tokamak based fusion plants will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the near future ITER seems like a waste of money, wasting time talking is a very good alternative to actually building the thing IMO. As they say, they basically have the science needed to build it. It is just about engineering and acquiring knowhow, not fundamental research.
Personally I find spending that much money to acquire the knowhow to build something you wouldnt want to build commercially a waste of good money. Give more money to La Sandia instead for their pulsed fusion research (yeah yeah, I know it hasnt produced anything worthwhile either... but it is comparitively cheap at least, it will be interesting to see how MTF turns out).
Re:This is actually a very good option
by
Chembryl
·
· Score: 1
Good circular reasoning there. Yes if you DON'T put research into something then you will NEVER reap any potential rewards.
-- - This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
Re:This is actually a very good option
by
Strontium-90
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The only way that we can ever make fusion commercially viable is if we do build things like ITER. As for the timescale, if the US fusion programs were properly funded, there would probably be a lot more progress toward reaching the goal of having fully functional fusion power plants. However, I don't want to get into issues of funding.
To say that ITER is just about "engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you are simply ignorant about all that is and will be going on with the project. There will be a great deal of information on large plasmas produced at ITER that cannot be produced anywhere else, since ITER will be the largest fusion tokomak ever built. Learning how larger plasmas behave in real-life situations instead of computer simulations is definitely on the list of information that I would like to know before building a real reactor. Additionally, developments made at ITER, both in fundamental science and engineering carry over to such things as propulsion systems for space exploration, large scale information management (Do you realize how much information is produced during a 1 sec. test on a tokomak?), materials science, and other fields. No, to say that ITER is "just about engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you just don't understand: Much of science is about building devices (of whatever kind) to test your theories, obtaining additional knowledge, and then refining your theories and tests.
Do some real reading about what you call a "waste of money" before you write it off as such. There are lots of fringe benefits to tokomak-based fusion research that you simply don't get with pulsed laser fusion. However, given the potential benefits from having functional fusion power plants, I think both strategies should be researched to their full potential. Just because I don't know a whole lot about pulsed laser fusion doesn't mean that I'm going to just write it off as expensive and unproductive (which is what my limited knowledge tells me). I would have to learn a lot more about it before being able to justify doing that.
Re:This is actually a very good option
by
plaa
·
· Score: 1
Considering Tokamak based fusion plants will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the near future ITER seems like a waste of money
Define 'near'. ITER is supposed to produce 10 times as much energy as is consumes, so it will be a viable power plant. Will fusion energy be more expensive for the next 50 years than fossil fuels are today? Very probably. But what about when you've burnt all the fossil fuels (at the current rate around 50-150 years)? Fusion will be very commercially viable then. If you don't R&D things beforehands, you'll have a major energy crisis on your hands soon...
This smells like it has the beginings of another ISS type fiasco.
With almost all things 'International' being done for the sake of individual national glory while shifting costs to others, one would wonder if it is wise to depend solely on such an international effort.
The world needs to break free from fossle feuls as a source of energy, and i think competition would drive the effort faster then arguing over stupid things like where to put a building.
-- Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
It seems these days there is a battle of EU vs US (and others). One side wants France. One Japan. Science waits.
I say, pick a desolate area in Asiatic Russia. Land will be cheap (if not already polluted), and the scientists will have less outside distractions. And the EU faction can claim victory even though it will be geographically closer to the Japan land area.
The goal is to get clean, enconomically viable fusion WORKING. Not to see who has the facility.
Re:YAPM
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One part of the problem is that the scientists and researches also want the plant near to where they live now. Cost or pollution have little to do with it.
Apparently the Cadarache site is also near to some existing research facility and/or university. I know very little of the other site, I assume it has similar benefits as well.
(Personally, I'd settle for a round of rock-paper-scissors between French and Japanese delegates to settle the issue;)
Indeed, but it appears that Bush and co. are interested in punishing the EU (and France in particular) for opposition to the war in Iraq. Prior to the US getting back into the ITER collaboration, Caderache was the favored spot to build it, and even Japan had said that it wasn't going to push for its location on its northern coast.
As soon as we jumped in, however, we swiftly pushed Japan into opposing the French location, and convinced South Korea soon afterward (which itself is impressive, given the traditional animosity going on there).
Re:YAPM
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I say, pick a desolate area in Asiatic Russia. Land will be cheap (if not already polluted), and the scientists will have less outside distractions.
Your next problem is persuading good scientists to go there. Do you want to spend your career in a freezing cold toxic-waste dump 1000km from the nearest city? (and that nearest city is probably in outer Mongolia). Thought not. Nor do I. (I'm a physicist and have worked on fusion projects).
Put the project in Cadarache, on the other hand, and my resume will be in their mailbox minutes after they announce the email address for applications.
Both camps (Japan and France) have offered to take up half the costs to build in their locale. Answer is obvious. Take the original planned investment, and give half to each camp, and build 2. We'd probably learn alot more from having them both, and we could explore different options in the building process. And we could finally get to work and start seeing news on slashdot about the progess instead of the squabbling
Re:answer is obvious
by
dykofone
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But then what country would want to foot half the bill for something that another country has anyway? The only reason either country is offering that half is to be the exclusive site of international fusion research.
You're idea makes perfect sense, from a "let's get the job done and learn some science" point of view. But that really doesn't seem to be the point here. As many have pointed out, it looks like just another ISS.
I'm kind of interested in who would own the technology once it's completed. Sure, governments subsidize and control energy technologies, but they still have to hire private companies to build and design many of the parts. Most nuclear reactors in this country have turbines built be either GE or Westinghouse, and in EU it's Siemens.
Hey... you propose something that makes sense and woudl actually solve something... We'll have to disqualify you, with such peopel we cannot have pointless eternal discussions.
Re:answer is obvious
by
chrono325
·
· Score: 2, Funny
No no no, you guys have it all wrong.
George Bush finally saw spiderman 2 and became worried over the possibility of robot terrorist octopus men.
Japan should just follow the model set forth in Contact - let France build theirs, and they build their own in secret so when the French one is destroyed by terrorists/disgrunteled employees/whatever, there is a backup. And what's a mere $5billion? The machine in Contact was over a trillion, wasn't it?
IIRC from a presentation I was at back in the summer of 2001 at PPPL, all countries that particiate in International effort joinly own the technology that comes out of it
Both camps (Japan and France) have offered to take up half the costs to build in their locale. Answer is obvious. Take the original planned investment, and give half to each camp, and build 2.
A lesson we learned from Haddan in Contact: "Why settle for one, when you can have two at twice the price?"
-- Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Unfortunately that is not feasible. That would basically mean that France and Japan both get a fusion plant (experimental), funded with their own money, a bit of American money and some help from Russian scientists (but no money). Obviously, the US will not be happy with spending money to build a plant for France and Japan, so they will want one of their own. But they just said they don't want to have their own, so we have a contradiction, proving that your idea is unfeasible.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
This electricity is licensed, not sold. The Licensee allows the Licensee to power up to ten facilities at the same time, with a maximum summed power consumption of 1500 Watts. The electricity may only be used for the purposes of producing heat, light or force, and for powering computers running Microsoft software. Any other use of the electricity is prohibited.
This license does not permit the Licensee to store more than 1Ah of the supplied electricity (e.g. in rechargeable batteries) at the same time.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this license immediatly terminates the license.
LIMITED WARRANTY NOTICE. MICROSOFT GIVES YOU A 30 DAY WARRANTY ON THE WIRES CARRYING THE ELECTRICITY INTO YOUR HOUSE. MICROSOFT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE THE DELIVERED ELECTRICITY OR LACK OF DELIVERY MAY CAUSE, EVEN IF IT WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE ERROR BEFORE.
-- The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Put it on the Sun
by
PingPongBoy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh. It's already there. Time for lunch.
-- Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Look at projects where only one dominates, or there is only one branch.
Money gets spent well, but inovation is lacking.
On the other hand look at some of the projects that have multiple incarntions, some would say people should have reuesed code and not wasted so much time, but the projects combined would be more advanced than a loan project.
-- thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:Maybe not so good...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> [...] but the projects combined would be more advanced than a loan project.
ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility
This reminds me of a passage from of a Woody Allen book I read. Two professors
chasing and hitting each other with umbrellas over the campus area in order
to settle the dispute on whether the bell marks college end or break begin.
--
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
More to it?...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Hey, maybe this has something to do with the DOE's current re-evaluation of cold fusion...or the much-discussed sonofusion results...
Well, my take on cold fusion is that it's somewhat improbable, but it's fun to dream. Currently, many researchers claim to have semi-succesfully fused deuterium resulting in helium and heat energy, but no or little gamma radiation. Semi-succesful meaning the reactions haven't been sustained or have been troublesome to reproduce. For googling, there's an acronym I ran across re Cold Fusion: LENR (Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction). Check out LENR-CANR.org. LENR in a nutshell: If you bring two hydrogen or deuterium atoms close enough together, they will fuse into helium and release energy in the form of heat and gamma radiation. The problem is the atoms have a strong repulsion to each other. Rather than the high-energy approach LENR researchers are looking at less intensive ways of achieving this. Sort of like working smarter, not harder. Perhaps the solution in the end is a hybridization of the two approaches?
BTM
-- That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Re:More to it?...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, Popular Mechanics just had a cover article on the DOE cold fusion thing. It was a pretty crappy article, but it does appear that DOE is doing something. Maybe they're just doing it for fun, though, not "seriously."
While sonofusion is facing a lot of knee-jerk skepticism, the results have found their way into a major journal, and they've been partially replicated (someone independent got temps to a million degrees, one order of magnitude from fusion temps). A lot of initial skeptics are starting to come around on this one.
Well, my take on cold fusion is that it's somewhat improbable, but it's fun to dream.
Except that you have to wake up and face reality some times, too. Especially when talking about what you think the taxpayers money should be spent on.
Currently, many researchers claim to have semi-succesfully fused deuterium resulting in helium and heat energy
But far fewer have actually done so.
That site you linked to is a typical example of pseudoscience. Confusing and unintelligble, filled with bogus references on irrelevant matters, and nothing at all supporting the stranger claims.
Just to pick an example: This phase diagram. What is that? Well the text will have you believe it's the Palladium-deuterium system. It is not. Nor could it even possibly be that. Because you can't plot a binary system on a two-axis plot like that. Where's the relative Pd/D concentration plotted? Nowhere.
I'll even tell you why: That is NOT a phase diagram of a metal-hydride(deuteride) system. It isn't even a phase diagram of a binary (2-component) system.
It's a phase diagram of a single gas in it's gas and liquid states, as seen in any chemistry textbook discussing gas laws. (See for instance the exact same thing plotted for carbon dioxide in Atkins, "Physical Chemistry", chapter one, figure 1.23)
The dashed line indicates the area in which the substance is a liquid, the critical isotherm (that's what the lines are called) around 275 degrees in the graph is the critical point above which the substance cannot exist in liquid form.
This is an example of what a phase diagram in a binary system can look like.
That site is just incoherent blathering and some images stolen from chemistry textbooks and a bunch of irrelevant links thrown in for good measure.
OK, I'll grant you that it's mostly pseudoscience. I like the approach though. Because high-energy fusion is perpetually 20-30 years away, why not examine the problem from different angles so long as we don't abandon the mainstream research?
BTM
-- That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
What risks?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You guys sound like there is terrible risk with fusion plant... and argue where far away you should put it (moon, North Korea, Iran... "if not already polluted" and so on). You do not seem to understand what you are talking about!
What is the waste that comes from fusion plant? Can it blow up with chain reaction? The walls of the plant will in time get active. And the problem with fusion is that we can not have a sustainable raction going on - if it gets out of hand it'll just die.
Sad to see USA close their project. I just hope this makes to remaining project that much better with more resources... at least in theory.
Re:What risks?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Maybe is not so dangerous like fision but..is not radiactive?
Re:What risks?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All tokamak projects (FIRE and ITER being the latest examples) carry out deuterium-tritium fusion. Tritium is highly radiactive and embeds itself in metals very easily. Once you fuse deuterium and tritium, you then release neutrons, much like a conventional fission reaction. A working DT fusion reactor, in actual practice, would not be significantly cleaner than a well run fission plant. The irradiated material might become clean in a shorter (hundreds of years) span, but the volume produced will be similar.
In the long run, there are fusion reactions that are clean, but they don't happen in a reactor, they happen in ion beams and colliders, and at present at such a low rate that energy recovery is impractical. He3 and HB are the current lead candidates. The Sun works on H-H fusion (a multi-step process ending in Carbon, hence Carbon cycle). ITER and FIRE are not conducting research in these advanced fusion designs, and are in fact taking away money that would otherwise be spent on such advanced research.
If you want to go to the stars, you pretty much need advanced fusion (at least) to avoid the thermal recovery process. You don't get to just throw away reactor shielding regularly on an interstellar voyage.
...that a black hole would consume the sun as well, right? The best thing you could do with a black hole, is to stay the hell away from it. Of course, if you can compress the moon to an object less than 0.05455mm (yes, millimeters) in radius , I think there's some wierd shit going on already...
Kjella
-- Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Morgaine
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Put it on the Moon.
It's worth examining this proposition at face value for pros and cons, rather than immediately discounting it.
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?
Questions like those are probably more likely to be of interest than any handwaving about danger from black holes.
-- "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
$10,000 per pound just to reach orbit is a big CON. You are going to have to have a lot of savings to make up for that.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Even if you build it on the moon, you still have to transfer the power back towards consumers on earth, and THAT'S a big problem.
Microwaves? Too dangerous. Space elevator relay? Theoretically possible, but practically impossible to build, and costly...
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
rs79
·
· Score: 3, Funny
you still have to transfer the power back towards consumers on earth, and THAT'S a big problem....lots of little rechargable batteries.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
You know, you say that jokingly, but - Wasn't there a science-experiment that succeeded in freezing light within a container?
Maybe that technology (once it gets developed) will yeild REALLY high-power batteries that we'll be able to charge at a space power-station and then transport down.
C'mon singularity, get over here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_ singularity
I think we're gonna need help to get this working!
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
dtfusion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The vacuum in space is much much better than the best laboratory plasmas and the surface of the moon is comparable to lab plasmas.( 1 particle per cubic cm for space, 10^6 to 10^5 for the the moon, and 10^5 to 10^4 for the lab) or in atmospheres ( 10^-20, 10^-13 to 10^-15, 10^-12 to 10^-15 ) source:http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/pre ssure/
The real problem is that you still need a plasma facing surface and to generate a magnetic field. All that mass is expensive to get to the moon, and the constraint on the physical size of the magnets (bigger is more expensive) and the need to protect them from the plasma would result in a very similar vessel being constructed on the moon. So there would be very little direct benefit. There is the remote possibility of using the exotic D-He3 fusion reaction - one that is much more difficult to create, but that is essentially neutron free. Since He3 is only found in any concentration in the surface of the moon where it is deposited by the solar wind.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Oddly_Drac
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?"
And which state gets the massive influx of cash and jobs? Seriously, you don't seem to understand the game.
-- Oddly Draconis Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
ncc74656
·
· Score: 1
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon?
This page states a typical pressure of 10^-7 atm for the interior of an operating fusion containment vessel. It refers to this condition as a hard vacuum, which this page defines as "a vacuum that approximates the vacuum of space." This page states an atmospheric pressure of 3*10^-9 atm at an altitude of 150 km, which isn't even LEO. (Al Shepard went more than 3x higher, and that was still a suborbital flight.) IANAHEP, but this would seem to indicate that taking advantage of the vacuum of space wouldn't be a bad idea. (The sticking point would be getting the other heavy equipment up there, along with a power supply.)
-- 20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
tompaulco
·
· Score: 1
If it works alright on the moon, we'll take the consumers to it!
How many permanent moon colonies did those campy 50's newsreels estimate we would have by now?
-- If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Brandon30X
·
· Score: 1
In a recent IEEE magazine (spectrum I think?) they discussed the feasibilty of sending microwave power from a moon based station, and their conclusion was that it is indeed safe and could eventually pay for itself. It spoke of using large rectenna arrays the size of farm fields scattered about the globe to collect the power. I guess what I am saying is that people seem to "jump" at the word microwave just like the word nuclear, its not as dangerous as you think. -Brandon
-- Quitters never win,
Winners never quit,
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
It *is* dangerous when you consider the energies we're talking about here. A high-powered microwave beam is NOT a going thing to be in the way of, even when it's comparitively low-powered like a cell-phone tower, say.
When it's thousands of times MORE powerful, and the beam drifts a few degrees from where it's supposed to be collected, we're talking melt-your-fillings!
OK, maybe not, but possibly boil-the-water-in-your-brain hot.
Also, wouldn't the microwaves HEAT the dust and other airborne particles they traverse on the way down? What would that do to the climate?
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Brandon30X
·
· Score: 1
-- Quitters never win,
Winners never quit,
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
OK, not to be argumentative, but that doesn't explain HOW it's going to be safe. How can something that will undoubtedly lose energy (read - convert to heat) as it goes through clouds, dust and rain have NO impact on the environment? And with NO containment like that, what about birds?
Granted if you're a few (how many is a few?) meters away from the receiving dish, you're going to be exposed to something akin to a 20% more-than-usual sunburn, but where's the data about beam control?
Let's say you're on the moon, and you're beaming power to earth.
The ONLY way you can know you're on-target is by receiving telemetry back from earth confirming the beam's correct contact.
Let's say a meteorite hits earth (or the moon) or there is a moonquake (or eathquake) sufficiently close enough to either terminal for the beam to be knocked out of alignment by a degree or two.
The earth-station's communications latency is about one second. that means there'll potentially be one second (more or less) while the beam is pointing somewhere it's not supposed to.
It might be strafing be a village, might be strafing a desert...
*oops* just set fire to a forest there, sorry!
I don't know, but I'd actually feel safer if we relayed the energy back to earth along transmission lines running down space-elevators...
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
OwlofCreamCheese
·
· Score: 1
oh no! a fire in a forest! oh not a forest fire! the worst thing that could ever happen is there was a forest fire in a senereo that requires a freakin meteor to hit the earth!
-- -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
duh.
It could be "Oops, you've incinerated a village" instead, if you prefer.
The point is you don't know where the beam will hit.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
OwlofCreamCheese
·
· Score: 1
when a METEOR hits!? is a microwave beam a few feet across your largest concern when your talking about a meteor hitting the earth enough to shift the whole planet enough that a beam is no longer targeted at a stationary location? I mean I realize thats not the only disaster you listed... but seriously... if there is meteors spinning the earth or moon into wild new orbits you got more problems than a kinda warm thin beam of energy
-- -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
Someone quoted a design here, and it turns out that the beam would be AT MINIMUM.5 kilometers across.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
G-funk
·
· Score: 1
Antimatter:)
(too much sf for me)
-- Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
OwlofCreamCheese
·
· Score: 1
dude, can you not understand the conciquences of one of the senerios you are asking if this is safe under!? one of your ideas is wondering if it would be safe if a METEOR HIT THE EARTH ENOUGH SO THAT IT WAS MISALIGNED. you realize that if this was to happen most of the sea would evaporate and much of the land would be turned to a liquid state. if this was something that happened... I don't really see anyone much careing that a beam that can be turned off in 3 seconds is burning a forest or town. seriously... if meteors are strikeing the earth enough so that it changes where parts of the earth are in relation to where the moon is.... a tiny beam with medium amounts of energy that can shut off automaticly if the base station isn't sending confirmation that its on target... isn't really something worth thinking about.
-- -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
OK, conceivably the earth couldn't move very much, but the moon might. There is no atmosphere on the moon, so meteors are able to hit its surface without frying up first. Depending where it hit, it could simply jar the beam.
Maybe we'd never have an accident, but there are a lot of ways that the beam could get diverted, and I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.
The beam is half a kilometer wide or more, and just moving it one degree would make it hit the earth many miles from where it should.
For some reason, the idea of the moon as an Imperial Death-Star just popped into my head! LOL!
OK, maybe that's exaggerating.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
OwlofCreamCheese
·
· Score: 1
the moon moveing half a degree will also require the sort of event where the moon would physically melt... which will hopefully stop the beam when it also melts from a billion tons being moved instantly by an impact.
-- -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Don't be hasty.
by
Mukaikubo
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I see this possibly as the DOE saying to Congress, "Okay, you neoluddite twits, go ahead and deny funding to ITER. I dare ya. Then the US will be the only country save freaking TOGO that doesn't have fusion reactors and plentiful, cheap power in 2040."
Probably won't work, Congress is too short-term-focused, as elected officials tend to be. But it's a spirited attempt.
Hooking up with ITER may well be a way to pull the project along as you describe because it seems that FIRE with its meager $2 million/year budget would be all too easy for Congress to cut. I would worry now that the contribution to ITER would be cut to mere token levels especially since I don't see big oil being all that wild about fusion technology that they wouldn't own.
And maybe, just maybe, the U.S. can provide some leadership to help resolve the current ITER squabbles. But given the current administration's track record on international cooperation, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one!
Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill.
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
emorphien
·
· Score: 1
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Sad but true. No doubt they've bought other technologies to slow development. Any competition and any chance of an alternative coming out while they're still finding oil would be such a terrible thing for them that they must stifle innovation.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
Yes, they're not that efficient yet. My uncle has a house on an island with no utilities and he uses solar power to run it. They have a small fridge, stereo, a couple water pumps and some lights in the house. It also can power vacuums and laptop computers (although i'm sure the batteries provide a bit of grunt when running a vacuum), I think the system would cost aroung $5000. He got some discounts because he's a dealer in solar power equipment for the other residents on the island.
--
Presently here, but not there.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is certianly NOT cleaner, not in the photovoltaic cell form that you seem to be refering too. The process to produce, clean, and dope silicon semicoductors in the huge surface area needed by solar cells is increadbly messy. The chemical waste produced by semiconductor production is never discussed by the greenies. The current cells are usefull for about 15-20 years max, so there would have to be massive productions of solar cells. Suppose we could just farm photovoltaic production out to China, they seem to have no quams about just dumping the by-products in to the river.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
GrandMJ
·
· Score: 1
I will start using it somewhere next year (you known when there is a roof to put the panels on...). So I will put in my share, however you have to take into account that the solar panels will not produce electricity at night, when there are power requests from all those people turning on the lights and the television sets. A nuclear plant can't take these surges either. So yes, it would be good that there are a lot more solar panels, but you will still need other sources run on gas or coal or fuel (or water from a reservoir or...), because these are the only ones that are easily used for supplying the spikes in power demand. I don't know about fusion, but I think it will only be usefull to replace the nuclear power used today.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No doubt they've bought other technologies to slow development.
I've heard this asserted many times. But, the patent database is online, Slashdot refers to it all the time. I've very curious to know if you can post a patent number for an oil-alternative that is currently owned by an "oil" company for the purpose of suppressing its development.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Remlik
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't be so quick with the black helicopter theorys about oil companies lobbying against distributed solar power. Fact is less than 25% of all oil is consumed to fuel our cars and power our homes. The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing, and thus demand will not be significantly reduced by simply adding solar.
Second, the technological challanges are minimal. We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it. No they are not cheap and that is the only restriction to distributed power. No one can afford it up front, and it could take 20 or more years to pay for itself (not including maintaince or replacment costs). On top of that some areas (like oh I dunno where i live in MN) are not Optimal for solar power production. Up here it could take more than 50 years to make my money back on the initial investment...course the panels are only rated for 30 years use.
FUD is fun, and everyone likes to hear about how big bad corps are ruining the world and how its all the presidents fault because he has money invested in oil but the fact of the matter is right now oil is cheaper and easier. Until that changes, you will NOT see solar. Oh and one more thing..DO NOT RAISE MY DAMN TAXES TO SUBSIDIZE SOLAR FOR THE WORLD. Instead, give the money in grants to schools and companies to make the tech affordable/better.
Nuff
-- Apple free since 1990!
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget about trick #2 - sealing patents for reasons of "national security". The energy companies tell their military buddies to seal the threatening ones. 40 years later, you might see them (see recent naval patent releases visible via cryptome.org)
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
Yes! Millions of automotive fuel cells running on magical fairy juice that simply appears at the millions of generating facilities (garages) distributed willy nilly across the suburbs of our vast land! Without care as to proximity to water resources (for cooling), transportation resources (for fueling), or air quality (ground level emissions - but wait, this is probably magical HYDROGEN fairy juice!).
It's a good thing that the electrical grid is just a big old lake of electrons, where you can take power whenever/however you want, and dump power back on whenever/however you want, without care as to supply and demand and load balancing and transmission limitations. Oh, and better yet, since the magic fairy juice generating plant creates DC power, everyone can have their very own incredibly wasteful DC power inverter so that they can put the power back on the grid in a form that's useful for transmitting electricity for more than about, oh, a mile.
Friendly friend rainbow monkey goodbye hugs to everyone!
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1. No tin-foil hat thinking in my post. That fact is that there are many billions of dollars tied up in coal/oil power plants. The owners of these would not want distributed solar power generating the bulk of the electricity for the people. And to be fair to the "evil corporations", lots and lots of jobs are created with those billions of invested dollars in these plants. These are natural incentives to lobby against distributed solar power.
2. The technological challenges are not "minimal" if we've nearly tapped out how far our solar materials can go. If we've reached the peak of what it can do, then the cost per kW of electricty if way too high. The huge technological challenge of boosting the efficiency of solar panels while simultaneously bringing down the price is a requirement before any advances in this field can be made. Like you said, it may take many years for a solar investment on my house to pay off. That would need to change before I did it, and I'm part of the masses.
3. Your last paragraph is entirely FUD. I never blamed anything on Bush or cronyism, nor did I allude to raising taxes to subsidize solar research.
I do agree with you that oil/coal powerplants are currently the easiest and cheapest way to generated kilowatts. That's why it's still producing the bulk of our electricity. NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) prevents greater use of nuclear power in the U.S. In this single instance, the U.S. can learn a lot from France (I can't believe I actually said that...), a country where 80%+ of the power is generated by nukes.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
kippy
·
· Score: 1
Just wondering, where did you get the metric of 25% of oil going toward cars and 75% percent going into plastics etc.?
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is there any doubt that they do it?
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Phanatic1a
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Fact is less than 25% of all oil is consumed to fuel our cars and power our homes.
FSVO 'fact.'
In the real world, upwards of 40% of a given barrel of oil ends up as gasoline, and maybe up to 60%. Gasoline. That's used in cars, military vehicles, and small planes. It's not used to power or heat our homes.
The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing, and thus demand will not be significantly reduced by simply adding solar.
Wrong. Plastics and other manufacturing concerns consume the minority of each barrel of crude. Now, granted, if we stop using the lighter fractions of crude to drive our cars, that doesn't mean we can magically turn the whole barrel into heavier stuff suitable for plastics feedstocks, but your numbers are way off.
We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it.
Yeah, and? Next step is to make them cheaper. Or more durable, which basically amounts to the same thing.
Besides, we've already got the technology to move beyond fossil fuels, it's as safe or safer than burning coal, pollutes a helluva lot less, and has enough fuel sitting around to last us practically forever: fission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Remlik
·
· Score: 1
WHen the oil prices jumped up a couple months ago that rough split was what every major talk show (radio) used as a break down. I belive 13% of that 25 is used for gasoline and other fuels. Which means only 12% of oil consumed yearly in the US is used to create electricity directly.
As to where it came from directly I can't tell you. My guess is the department on energy web site, but I don't have the time now to go find it.
-- Apple free since 1990!
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Remlik
·
· Score: 1
1) The owners of those plants are so heavily leveraged, subsidized, and given tax writeoffs that they can actually make money by losing money.
Are you telling me you actually believe that Shell oil would spend money (billions) to lobby for laws and requirements just to keep a dieing tech rolling? You believe that if there were money to be made in solar power Shell would ignore it just to continue losing money in oil? Sorry pal, doesn't pass the sniff test.
2) Technology advance or limitation has very little effect on market price. Batteries have been around forever and yet it still costs me $4 for two AA batteties at Super America...why? Certianly not because we haven't had any technological advances in batteries since 1950...
3) My last commet was more of a general rant against many responses blaming all our problems on the big oil companies and Bush. To be fair you wrongly assume that Oil companies could not make any money from solar power and therefore would do everything in their power to stop it from coming forth. Thats the old "Horse Carriage company sues the Govmn't for letting Ford make cars" arguement. Its a bunch of BS.
-- Apple free since 1990!
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Derkec
·
· Score: 1
Yes. I for one would be curious if there was an example.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 1
The owners of those plants are so heavily leveraged, subsidized, and given tax writeoffs that they can actually make money by losing money.
can you back that up at all?
Technology advance or limitation has very little effect on market price.
bullshit! are you trolling? Technological advances go hand-in-hand with prices. Look at Henry Ford and the assembly line which dramatically reduced the price of cars. Look no further than the computer in front of you. Technological advances put a PC on your desktop at a very affordable price.... you're not typing this from a greenscreen connected to a mainframe, are you?
To be fair you wrongly assume that Oil companies could not make any money from solar power
I never said that. My thread was about generating electrical power. I am very interested in the work being done with hybrid cars and solar panels that allow excess electricity to be sold back to the power grid. Someone in this thread posted links to websites with information about the vehicle-to-grid transfer.
My entire point was that having millions and millions and millions of cars and homes generating electrical power and selling that power back to the grid is a Very Good Thing. Just as distributed computing creates more CPU cycles for a task (a la SETI) than several mainframes, I believe that distributed power generation could produce more electricty more cleanly and safely than our current system of fossil fuel power plants. Then I made the point that power companies wouldn't want this for all the reasons I have already discussed.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Electrical energy lost to wire resistance isn't any worse for DC than it is for AC. HVDC lines aren't so common but they do have uses. Just so you know.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
bullitB
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the real world, upwards of 40% of a given barrel of oil ends up as gasoline, and maybe up to 60%. Gasoline.
Firstly, grandparent's point stands. A huge amount of oil is used for stuff other than gasoline. Furthermore, a lot of that gasoline does stuff other than fueling cars and homes, so, yeah, 25% sounds reasonable. We have no replacement for making plastics, nor for powering the turbines in jets, nor making asphalt. The point here is that even if we all stopped driving petrol-powered cars and switched to electric cars powered by big fusion generators, the oil industry wouldn't disappear; the stuff still has lots of uses.
Besides, we've already got the technology to move beyond fossil fuels, it's as safe or safer than burning coal, pollutes a helluva lot less, and has enough fuel sitting around to last us practically forever: fission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.
I'm a proponent of fission power. I know it's pollution-free, the reactors are vastly safer than any other method out there, and the anti-nuke crowd is very much to blame for a continued reliance on coal. However, fission is not an end-all solution. Uranium is not a limitless resource and reactor-safety, while not as critical as some have made it out to be, is an issue that needs to be regulated, which adds to inefficiency.
It's my personal belief that until we get fusion working, someone ought to do a re-branding effort on fission. Resell it to the public as "SafePower(TM)". Yes, with a small PR-manuver nuclear power could once again be our answer. The money from the t-shirt sales from SafePower(TM) would go to fusion research.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
bigpat
·
· Score: 1
"I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill."
Why maintain such a complex and expensive distribution system if it only acts as a backup to local generation? The economics of running the meter backwards just don't scale. It will only ever work to the benefit of those that do this if they remain few.
Having set up a cheap wind turbine as an experiment and pissed off a few neighbors with the noise during a couple wind storms... there is no way that individuals living in close proximity will be able to generate meaningful amounts of electricity at a reasonable cost with current levels of technology. And even if we someday get efficient solar panels that cost $1 a square foot, those that live in cities will still need to rely upon centralized generation because there won't be enough light and surface area to go around.
That is at current levels of technology. If we all get a "mr. fusion" or cold fusion, then the economics change. But all you earthy crunchy types living in densly populated city neighborhoods thinking that someday you will independent in your energy needs, might as well test that theory by trying to meet all your nutrional needs with your roof garden.
Though for those of you living outside of a city on at least 5 acres of land, may I suggest setting up 3 of these turbines Especially, if you have some outdoor off the grid energy requirements.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
John+Newman
·
· Score: 1
Fact is less than 25% of all oil is consumed to fuel our cars and power our homes. The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing
I wish I had a few mod points to mark you "Troll". Fact is, you're so amazingly misinformed as to give a very good impression of being completely full of shit.
According to the US Department of Energy, the vast, vast majority of oil used in the US is used to produce energy. Most of that energy is for transportation, and most of that energy for transportation is in the form of gasoline for motor vehicles. Only a tiny fraction is used as industrial raw materials.
(1000's of barrels per day) 19,254: Total US petroleum consumption in 2002 13,079 (68%): For use in transportation 8665 (45%): In the form of motor gasoline 878 (4.5%): All residential use (heating, cooking, etc.) 4926 (26%): All industrial use (energy + raw materials)
Only a fraction of 26% of our oil is used as raw materials. Unless we replace gasoline as the fuel of choice for motor vehicles, we'll never significantly reduce consumption. You cannot possibly have a reasonable opinion on energy policy without understanding these basic patterns of consumption. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/petro.html/
(The harsh tone of this post is in direct proportion to degree of certainty with which the parent expounded completely incorrect "facts". However, the parent's conclusion that solar is not the answer right now is correct for the wrong reason. Precisely because there is not yet any reasonable alternative to gasoline for motor vehicles, and because gasoline is the #1 use of oil in the US, we will never reduce our oil consumption without developing a viable alternative to the internal-combustion engine. Solar can produce electricity, but electric batteries are, at the moment, an awfully poor way to power a car.)
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 1
Likewise... solar panels on homes [would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid].
They can do that now in many areas.
In particular, in some states (i.e. Nevada) you can grid-tie a renewable-energy system (solar, wind, and/or hydro) of up to two kilowatts capacity and use "net metering" - paying for the amount of power you use beyond that which you produce. You default to monthly billing, but can easily arrange a change to annual billing.
You get to use the grid as the world's biggest storage battery for nearly free (just paying the keep-connected fee - about $36/year in NV). The power company benefits, despite buying your power at retail rather than wholesale, because:
- Solar tends to generate during peak periods (when power costs the electric company more).
- Wind tends to generate when the Heating/Cooling/AirConditioning (HVAC) loads are higher (again resulting in higher demand).
- If you generate more than you use during the period they don't have to pay you for the excess (though there are other deals where they'll pay you the wholesale rate, for bigger suppliers such as windfarms.)
Also: If your generation site is far from your consumption site (i.e. a windmill half a mile from your house) you can connect them both and net-bill the combo, using the grid for wiring from the distant generation (and getting wholesale from the excess).
Details differ depending on your state and your utility. But this is common across the country - due to pushes from government, environmental groups, and home power advocates, and because it's often a better deal for power companies than building more plants.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course there is no examples. If there were, there would be constand outcry about it. It has effectively been hushed up and locked away.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
pretty much the truth. sadly
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Urkki
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm a proponent of fission power. I know it's pollution-free, the reactors are vastly safer than any other method out there, and the anti-nuke crowd is very much to blame for a continued reliance on coal. However, fission is not an end-all solution. Uranium is not a limitless resource and reactor-safety, while not as critical as some have made it out to be, is an issue that needs to be regulated, which adds to inefficiency.
Check out breeder reactors. They can solve a lot of problems, including availability of fuel, and waste-disposal. Only real show-stopper is that it's hard to develop a breeder cycle that doesn't produce easy bomb material..
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
iwadasn
·
· Score: 1
I agree to a degree, but don't kid yourself into thinking that selling power back would get you much. If it's a sunny day then everyone will be trying to sell back their power, and quite simply the power company probably doesn't want to deal with the difficulty of collecting all this power from the countryside and funneling it somewhere it can be useful. Face it, you use energy at peak times, and you produce energy at off-peak times. In either case the power company has to transport it for you. You aren't going to get even 20% of what you pay for power back, even if you sell as much as you buy. Off peak distributed power just isn't worth much.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
n8_f
·
· Score: 1
[F]ission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.
Which people? Living in Washington State, home of the Hanford site, people have some reason to be skeptical of fission proponents who claim there are no problems with fission. It seems like there are huge issues of waste management and regulation that have to be sorted out (as well as proliferation on a global scale). There is a lot of irrational fear, especially from the Cold War generations, but there are also some very legitimate issues that, as far as I can tell, haven't been adequately addressed. Do you want Yucca mountain in your backyard?
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
jcam2
·
· Score: 1
Isn't this a bit of a self-fulfulling conspiracy theory? "Of course there's no evidence the martians shot JFK - they've covered it up. That only proves how powerful the conspiracy is!"
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
Remlik
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, strangly enough I heard those figures on a rather well informed talk radio morning show a few months ago. They caught me by surprise then too. Granted I didn't go to the USDE to compare facts and figures but your point is well taken.
Sorry for the trolling, I'll make sure to do some better research before regurgitating radio info.
-- Apple free since 1990!
Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
BigAlexK
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
What a big fat waste of time fusion research is, what a white elephant, what a dead end road.
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously, and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Cold Fusion's another one with bad press but proven real world results (go and actually check it out rather than believing the big-media stories).
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
AlexK
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
meringuoid
·
· Score: 1
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down?
No, no, not at all. That bit about zero-point energy alone is a +5 Funny if ever I saw one!
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
hairykrishna
·
· Score: 0
Be quiet.
What do you base your "dead end road" assesment on? The fact that JET got break even? The fact that experts in the field belive that ITER is the next big step to a viable power reactor? The fact that it's based on solid physics and is actually working?
Cold fusion- you can't seriously think that it (or zero point energy for that matter) is a serious alternative to hot fusion? It's not even certain that there's an effect there to exploit! (putting it mildly...)
Let me guess, you're not a physicist?
-- "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
k98sven
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously,
Proven how? Zero-point energy as an energy source is pure psuedoscientific bullshit. And that's a fact. They have yet to produce any reproducible experiment proving their bogus hypotheses, or any valid theory to give reason to believe any of this stuff.
and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Being everyone who actually knows something about these matters.
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
Sure, it's lunacy. I don't believe in education through moderation though.
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
Aardpig
·
· Score: 1
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously...
Can you cite a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal which supports this statement?
I thought not.
-- Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
djfray
·
· Score: 1
proven future potential!??? What else do you see in that crystal ball?
On a serious note, if you are going to try to convince people of crazy things, don't talk about 'proven future potential' or railroading hopeless 'scientists.' This kind of reminds me of Wolfram's theory that everything is based off of Cellular Automata, in which he takes criticism as approval, and claims that those who disagree with him are not intelligent, etc.
-- This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Zero Point Energy?
"May I ask if you watch stargate?"
and
"Wasnt the potential energy of one of those "ZPM's" enough to blow up the solor system?"
Lol, it wouldent get past the UN if it could produce that much energy and it certianly wouldent be a global effort to create the biggest WMD known to mankind.
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
confused+one
·
· Score: 1
You've been watching way too much Stargate Atlantis.
There's no such thing as a ZPM. Zero point energy doesn't exist. It violates laws of physics. I'm not going to mod you down; just so others may laugh at you...
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 1
>There's no such thing as a ZPM. Zero point energy doesn't exist. It violates laws of physics. I'm not going to mod you down; just so others may laugh at you...
"Even in its ground state, a quantum system possesses fluctuations and an associated zero-point energy, since otherwise the uncertainty principle would be violated. In particular the vacuum state of a quantum field has these properties. For example, the electric and magnetic fields in the electromagnetic vacuum are fluctuating quantities."
This is taken from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_poin t_energy
Maybe you shouldn't start laughing too quickly.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
k98sven
·
· Score: 1
No, zero point energy definitely exists. If it as the Wikipedia article correctly point out, if it didn't: That would be a violation of laws of physics.
However, the jump from there to that ZPE could be used as an energy source, is just as big as assuming gravity or any other conservative potential could be used for energy.
Zero-point energy is conserved, just like all other forms of energy. There is simply no work to be had from it.
I can even think of a practical experiment to show this: Some real-world effects caused by zero-point effects are van der Waals forces and the Casimir effect (which are very much the same thing). Liquid helium is held together in liquid phase by vdW-forces only.
So: take gaseous He at the vaporization temperature and cool it until liquid. Measure the energy that took. Now heat the liquid He until it's gas again. Measure the energy that takes. (Remember to take entropy into account)
You will get the same number. Zero-point energy is conserved. It's no more difficult than that. And this also means that building a zero-point energy machine which produces energy is no more difficult than building any other kind of perpetuum mobile.
(Which BTW, isn't possible. But that never stopped people either, did it?)
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
lavaface
·
· Score: 1
I was going to post a question about zero-point energy elsewhere but since you seem to know so much about it maybe you could fill me in. I googled a bit for it but couldn't come across any definitive sources. I admit it seems "pie in the sky" but also can't help but be intrigued by the notion. I guess I'm particularly interested in your opinion of blacklightpower.com -- they seem to have some smart folks on board. To sum up, I'm definitely skeptical but the conventional wisdom has been radically changed in the past; it could easly happen again.
Thanks,
Jonathan
But we can't build anything there, they're soverign countries and we don't have any bases inside... oh, I see where you're going with this.
-- My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
clean??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I know this is US-centric slashdot. But why has fusion to be called clean? It will generate large amounts of radioactive waste. (Show me a single concept that will not need the reactor chamber get replaced every dozen years because the radioactivity has weakened the material too much, the concepts currently in planing seem to even shorten that as they get energy out of neutrons)
It is a nice concept to finally have when mankind does extrastellar travels or on far away planats when the sun is too far away. Nothing to actually use on out planet.
Some types of fusion generate fast-moving neutrons, others do not. Proton-proton fusion reactions (the kind going on in the Sun), for example, do not generate any neutrons and thus no radioactivity. They are harder do to than deuterium or tritium reactions, that instead do generate neutrons and convert some of the building into radioactive walls.
Which studies do you cite for the reactor replacement schedule? AFA the reaction itself, Boron (hydrogen/boron) fusions are said to create NO radioactive waste, and helium is the only byproduct.
From this , I got the following excerpt:Over their lifetimes, fusion reactors would generate, by component replacement and decommissioning, activated material similar in volume to that of fission reactors, but qualitatively different in that the long-term radiotoxicity is considerably lower [no radioactive spent fuel]. The use of advanced low activation materials and recycling could further ease the management of radioactive waste. Overall, the study indicates that fusion waste would not constitute a burden for future generations....
It's not waste; it's a resource you haven't bothered to exploit.
Re:clean??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, "it is harder" translates to "we can try to do this when we have to much money and after we have build the other types". Or have you any idea how to get the energy out of the process?
And also with other reactions you *will* create masses of radioactivity. The only difference is that it is not the main reaction...
More like 50 years...
by
Bigboote66
·
· Score: 0, Troll
and we're never going to get around to exploiting solar energy as long as we remain terrestrial - there's simply not enough energy hitting the earth to supply our needs. We need to get that space elevator built and get those orbital solar satellites running pronto!
-BbT
Re:More like 50 years...
by
meringuoid
·
· Score: 1
Planet's Primary, Alpha Centauri A, blasts unimaginable quantities of energy into space each instant, and virtually every joule of it is wasted entirely. Incomprehensible riches can be ours if we can but stretch our arms wide enough to dip from this eternal river of wealth.
-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Centauri Monopoly"
-- Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
CaraCalla
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
... but is anyone here actually aware of the fact that fusion, should it ever work, is not going to solve any of our problems?
It produces even more radioctive waste than fission, because you have to transform the all the neutreons and other radiation coming out from the reaction, to heat.
The number one problem of humanity is that we are consuming too much natural resources. The availability of a power-source like fusion would increase our consumption even more instead of reducing it.
Please everybody stop dreaming of fusion and use your resources (intellectual and monetary) on techonlogies like solar power,....
My 2 cents.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How is fusion increasing the use of natural resources? Hydrogen? So what is your plan to consume less? Plan on going back to preindustrial revolution?
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
jabberjaw
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is a reason that your opinion is unpopular. It is wrong.
It produces even more radioctive waste than fission, because you have to transform the all the neutreons and other radiation coming out from the reaction, to heat.
I strongly suggest that you read more about nuclear fusion.
The number one problem of humanity is that we are consuming too much natural resources. The availability of a power-source like fusion would increase our consumption even more instead of reducing it.
Why would it not reduce our consumption of resources? When fusion is realised, less coal, oil and natural gas would be required to produce power.
Please everybody stop dreaming of fusion and use your resources (intellectual and monetary) on techonlogies like solar power,....
I put my intellectual and monetary backing behind nuclear fusion, solar power does not spark my interest as I find that too much energy is reflected. This is a personal opinion of my own.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well thereoretically there are fusion reactions which dont produce neutrons, in practice ITER wouldnt be able to work with such reactions... and even if we find a way to use these reactions there might still be neutrons from contamination and spurious reactions.
I agree, solar power in one form or another is probably the way to go (not necessarily solar cells, could also be through photobiological hydrogen production).
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
at_18
·
· Score: 1
Look at what Wikipedia has to say on the subject. Some fusion reactions generate neutrons and thus radioactivity, many others not. Unfortunately the easier ones (deuterium ) actually generate lots of neutrons.
About natural resources consumption... eliminating all coal consumption, most of oil and natural gas, and removing assorted dams and wind power installations seems to me a big improvement.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
mwvdlee
·
· Score: 1
You actually have d******t knowledge of what fusion is, have you?
* It actually produces a lot less radioactive waste (it's only a by-product of the containing the neutrons inside the reactor, the material resulting from the reaction itself is not radioactive) with a lot smaller half-live.
* It actually will use a lot less natural resources (if they get it working as they intend to). Current fusion techniques primarily revolve around deuterium, a forms of water which exist in nature.
-- Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It produces even more radioctive waste than fission, because you have to transform the all the neutreons and other radiation coming out from the reaction, to heat
No, no, no, not even close. While fusion does produce radioactive waste, the volume and activity is much less than fission. Plus, you can use MHD direct conversion.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm afraid you're short of some infomation with regards to redioactivity here.
Lead represents the most stable nucleus. If you can build your reactor out of light element (lighter than lead), then neutron bombardment will only make other light element isotopes, which are either stable of decay via short chains to stable.
Therefore by careful design it is possible to minimise the production of radioactive waste. A new generation fission reactore would create about 10% of the waste of the first generation models. The limitation with fission is that you have to use nasty heavy elements for the fuel.
With a fusion reactor, the fuel limitation is removed, and so the amount of waste can be very small indeed.
On your second point, it is true that expensive energy would raise prices and reduce consumption. But fossil fuels will cripple us through the greenhouse effect before we run out of resources.
I'd rather we built windmills than fusion plants, but I'd rather we had fusion plants (or at least the option) or even new fission plants than continue to burn fossil fuels.
BTW, Germany now produces 5% of its power from wind and has about 1/3 of the world's wind power, Denmark produces a higher percentage and is aiming for 20%, Gelderland is aiming for 50%.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Pius+II.
·
· Score: 3, Informative
- the materials used for the fusion reactor are supposed to have a halflife of about 100 years, whereas the fission products have halflives in the 10,000 year range. Also, current designs are based on a lithium blanket "shielding" the reactor walls, at the same time producing new tritium for fueling the reaction.
- lithium as fusion fuel is available in abundance, unlike fossil fuels.
- technologies like solar power have their own, hidden costs, e.g. the energy cost of creating the cells. Also, for many areas of the world, the intensity of solar radiation is simply too low. Other techniques may be viable in those regions (wind power), but these, again, have their own pitfalls (noise, effects on wildlife, high servicing costs).
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Neutreons? What the fuck?
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Steve+B
·
· Score: 1
The number one problem of humanity is that we are consuming too much natural resources.
Nope. The problems are side effects of consuming resources (i.e. running out and disposal of waste products).
It's ideologically convenient for some people to redefine the problem in such a way as to exclude engineering solutions, but it won't wash.
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
TheSync
·
· Score: 1
From the site:
for ITER we will be left with about 6000t of waste after 100 years of post-operation radioactive decay. That is equivalent to a cube with about 10 m edges. As this decays at a slower rate than the rest (taking about 200,000 years for the worst isotopes to decay to levels at which the material can be re-used with direct human contact) it makes sense to dispose of it in a long term repository where it can safely be forgotten. Such repositories will have to exist by then because, whatever you do with fission power, today's power stations will have to be disposed of safely. They have isotopes which remain highly radioactive for much longer, and are much more potentially biologically active than fusion waste if it gets into the "active" environment. You'll see from the above links in fact that ITER's waste is less biologically active than coal power station waste 100 years after operation.
I have a funny feeling that fusion power plants will have a large amount of nuclear waste over time.
My belief is that more safe and scalable fission research and deployment should be done, waste repositories opened, and when (if) fusion power becomes reasonable, we will have a waste disposal system ready to go for it.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
CaraCalla
·
· Score: 1
> How is fusion increasing the use of natural resources?
We are currently hitting an upper limit to production (and thus consumption) due to shortage of oil. Ok, its not a hard limit yet, but we are experiencing the first signs of oil getting more expensive due to increasing shortage. If we had a power-source like fusion, production could continue to grow for another 100-200 years until we reach some other barrier. This would have devastating effects on the biosphere.
> Hydrogen?
Is just a mean of energy distribution, doesn't change the basic problem that we are consuming too much too fast.
>So what is your plan to consume less?
Enhance overall efficency. Better refrigerators, better heat-insulation of houses. Make cars which consume less. Make trains faster and cheaper. More efficent computer power supplies,....
Discourage shipping goods half way around the globe and back by creating more localized markets. Make human labour cheaper compared to energy.
Invest in "green" technologies.
Encourage birth control.
Change capitalism from "more is better" to "the same using less resources is better".
> Plan on going back to preindustrial revolution?
Well, Earth, the biosphere, evolution all have a way of dealing with species who unbalance the natural equilibriums. If we continue to ignore the cybernetics of the biosphere this choice might be forced on us sometimes in the future.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
vofka
·
· Score: 1
Current fusion techniques primarily revolve around deuterium, a forms of water which exist in nature.
In Deuterium-Tritium Fusion reactions, the by-products are simply He-4 and a neutron, see here.
-- Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
jabberjaw
·
· Score: 1
I have a funny feeling that fusion power plants will have a large amount of nuclear waste over time.
The deuterium and tritium reaction is but one of a few options. It is however the easiest option to realise.
My belief is that more safe and scalable fission research and deployment should be done, waste repositories opened, and when (if) fusion power becomes reasonable, we will have a waste disposal system ready to go for it.
I am sorry if I was implying that fission research should be halted. Again it is my personal opinion that as of now fission is our "best bet".
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
coso
·
· Score: 1
I can point at a few working fusion reactions you can see tonight. You might call them stars. They seem to be quite stable in the long term too. We know fusion is possible, we just haven't gotten the details of private, home use down yet.
Can you point me to a working Zero Point Energry reactor that's not on StarGate? ZPE is a nice theory, but that's all it is. Fusion is a fact. I'm willing to bet I'll be putting my trash into a Mr. Fusion 100 years perform ZPE powers an bright-blue LED.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most of your suggestions are sensible. However, bear in mind that human labour is not free: humans performing physical labour need more food than otherwise idle humans. Growing more food needs energy, land, water etc. So it's not necessarily more efficient to make people rather than machines do all the work.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Also, current designs are based on a lithium blanket "shielding" the reactor walls, at the same time producing new tritium for fueling the reaction.
Using shielding that gets converted into fuel. Isn't that rather like painting your airship with rocket fuel?. Or feeding your cows on more dead cows?
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
iwadasn
·
· Score: 1
Spoken like a true anti-nuke. Go vote for Nader, he supports your "kill 99% of the world provided it's not me and lets live like cavemen" world view.
And of course your facts are entirely wrong as well, but that's pretty normal for an anti-nuke as well.
The US stopped cooperating in the ITER project and directed all the money to FIRE.
What a world;)
-- Privacy is terrorism.
Actually, no
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
From the article, it'd seem US is not abandoning its own fusion program, just its try at magnetically confined fusion.
Actually, main target for US fusion research has been inertially confined fusion, while the rest of the world has been studying mostly magnetic confinement (Tokamak et al). The big deal with inertia confinement is the fact it's actually a bit like exploding a series of miniature fusion bombs to produce energy, whereas magnetical confinement doesn't have any resemblance to weapons.
Now, ask yourselves: which technology you'd rather see made available to most industrialized countries when fusion becomes feasible?
Microscopic fusion explosions don't sound much like a weapon to me, unless you're going to war against plankton or something. I'd much rather have a magnetic confinement (and aiming) technology if I wanted to make a fusion weapon.
Re:Actually, no
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
With your reasoning, we should force all third world contries to give up the combustion engine because it works by exploding a series of miniature vapor bombs to produce energy.
The US has OTHER fusion programs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While it is sad to see this program closed, the USA has at least 1 other fusion project active.
Yes, but Congress is the same way. So is any democratic political structure. The squabbling is useful to get all opinions aired. Sometimes it's not very productive. But the ability to air different views is always very important.
The day the UN/Congress/et al starts unanimously agreeing to everything will be a very sad (and suspicious) day indeed.
Re:The Congress model?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
the UN just flat out doesnt want to accomplish anything.
look at Bosnia in the 90's
they were still passing sanctions while the US had milosovich on a plane on his way to the Hague.
international coorperation sounds great, but it doesnt work because as of now, there really are not that many common goals that the world really salivates over.
Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil wells
by
Paul+Crowley
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Energy companies" that own a lot of oil wells tend to be "energy companies" that are quite keen on protecting the value of their investments.
And if fusion delivered what fission failed to - energy too cheap to meter - you can bet it wouldn't be long before significantly less oil was going into automobiles of one sort or another.
How much more energy do we need?
by
bigberk
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources. The assumption being that Fusion power won't so much replace oil, coal, and nuclear but rather just become a new way to generate power.
We already generate enough power world-wide. The reason we worry about power needs is because, (1) development perpetually accelerates industry's demands, and (2) we don't take energy conservation seriously.
The clue that something is wrong is in the words "perpetually accelerates". How can one earth, a closed system, sustain ever-increasing amounts of wastes produced by industrial throughputs? This is obviously not a sustainable practice. In other words it's not the lack of energy that's going to kill us, but rather the byproducts of what we process using that energy.
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
galonso
·
· Score: 1
While I see truth in your argument, I would say that your glass is half empty.
The only way we will ever replace the dirty technology is by both having the cleaner technology ready, and by having the philosophical understanding to make the change.
"Perpetually accelerates" is a good definition for technology, lower power consumption on a 'per unit of work' basis also follows. As long as population increases, and the 'per unit of work' ratio increases, the "perpetual acceleration" is inevitable.
Is that such a bad thing?
But the point is well taken, we need to change the way we consume.
-- -[joke removed for your safety]-
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.:-/
-- Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
Lonewolf666
·
· Score: 1
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
The problem with the 'dirtier' power sources aka oil and coal will probably solve itself within a few decades. While oil will not run out worldwide, the easily exploitable reserves in the middle east WILL do so. That will lead to oil getting way more expensive, and assuming we have a clean and cheap energy source, it will displace oil wherever possible. Read: In every stationary application. Traffic will probably go last, as the energy density of a tank full of gasoline is hard to match.
-- C - the footgun of programming languages
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
bsiggers
·
· Score: 1
The earth is not a 'closed system'. The sun provides us with energy from outside. However, in the context of industrial waste, makes more sense, but still is not a closed system in the scientific sense.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
Hognoxious
·
· Score: 1
"And when all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death."
-- Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 1
Replying to myself here in hopes of getting some explanation: a "Troll" modifier? Dude, check my posting history. I don't troll, and I'm not trolling here. The post is on-topic, rational, and contains no inflammatory language.
Unless your definition of "Troll" reads "Opinion unlike mine", or perhaps "May encourage exchange of views", I think you might need to get down off that high horse of yours - the air seems a mite thin up there. Cheers!
-- Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
zijus
·
· Score: 1
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
Moded as troll
I want to beleive your man made a mistake. "Troll" ? Hugh ? Post was very much at the hart of the problem. T'can only be a mistake.
Now on topic. Suggesting reducing population is a way. Would require a good dictatorship I'd say. How about reducing the consumption per head ?
Question relates to : owning a private care? owning a supper dupper frige producing ice 24 hours a day? going for short holiday brake by plane? travelling mad fare for futiles reason ? All those things are insanely energy-greedy. Maybe we want to review what we use ?
Now fusion and ITER. Well it looks like a way to controle green-house gas production. I worked at SCK-CEN in Belgium and CERN Switzerland. (Am not a physicist). In terms of conventional fission we indeed still are facing a major problem: waists. To my opinions, anyone claiming this is sorted is juts plain ignorant or lying. Waists are dormant bombs on the long term.
Just as an anecdote, some questions were raised as to "How could humanity remember in 3000 years were are radio-active dumps?" Keep in mind that longest civilisation lasted just about 2000 years. Suggestion were made to build pyramid on top of dumps. Silly isn't it? Yet, there are no solution to this simple question. That is why we can't stay on conventional fission. Yes research as to be furthered on fusion. No it's not a waist of money.
ITER. Splitting project in tow, and have one in Japan and one in EU ? Guys, the point of the raw is that no single organisation has the financial ascet to pay for an ITER. If you split the bill, you don't get tow ITER's, you get tow nothing. If you read the article, you understand that FIRE US project would not at all yield the same kind of results as ITER would. That's why US considered again joining ITER.
About solar power. If we want every inhabitant of the planet to avail of the same luxurious way of live as I have (as a westerner): just forget about it. The entire earth surface coverd with 100% efficiant solar pannels wouldn't be enough. That, to my opinion tells us something: problem is more on what we consume not on producing more energy.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
michael_cain
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources... We already generate enough power world-wide.
The "wealth" of a country -- per-capita GDP -- is tied rather closely to the amount of energy it can generate and apply.
Western Europe and Japan are roughly the baseline for efficiency -- their per-capita GDP is about the same as the US, but they use about half as much energy.
Western Europe and Japan have some clear geographic advantages compared to the US and Canada that makes it easier for them to be more energy-efficient.
Hong Kong is pretty much at the extreme of efficiency for a rich "country", using only about one-quarter the per-capita energy of the US.
But we can't all be Hong Kong -- someone has to grow crops and refine metals and all the other energy-intense activities a developed economy requires.
At least four billion people on this planet live in poverty -- very low per-capita GDP.
For the economies in which they live to become richer, they will have to consume more energy.
For example, look at the increases in energy consumption in China over the last ten or fifteen years as their economy has boomed.
Energy consumption is not up because they got richer -- they got richer because they increased their energy consumption (and hence the goods and services produced per person).
We produce enough energy worldwide ONLY if you're willing to tell those people that they and their children will have to be poor forever.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
daem0n1x
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the population is that big, and I belive the population growth is going to slow down in the next years, as China and India begin to develop. The whole First World is facing demographic problems due to population reduction, now. It's mathematical, the more developed a country, the less the people have kids.
As to fusion, think about an infinite, clean power supply. Imagine you can depolute the rivers, recycle everything, turn deserts into forests, because energy is cheap. This is great. If the fusion, when possible, is offered to the world and not locked by private possession, it can solve our environmental problems for good.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the population is that big, and I belive the population growth is going to slow down in the next years, as China and India begin to develop.
Population growth may indeed slow, but experts suggest that we are already at or near our sustainable carrying capacity. Slower growth is not the answer - population reduction may be.
There's more to consider than just carrying capacity, too - like quality of life. I'm fortunate enough to live in a country with vast natural wealth, both overall and per capita. I want it to stay that way. I want my descendants to be able to hunt and fish and canoe and hike in unspoiled wilderness just as I can. Many regions of our planet have already reached or surpassed their carrying capacity, and the environmental consequences are not pretty (to say nothing of the human tragedies).
The whole First World is facing demographic problems due to population reduction, now. It's mathematical, the more developed a country, the less the people have kids.
I agree that demographics are shifting, and there are short-term difficulties inherent in the shift (my generation having to pay the medical bills of the generation that prededed it, for example). To the best of my knowledge, though, the only other "problems" presented by the shifting demographics you site relate to business models that rely upon constant growth. I don't believe such models are any more sustainable than population growth; in fact, I believe they are inherently dangerous to our environment and our quality of life.
As to fusion, think about an infinite, clean power supply. Imagine you can depolute the rivers, recycle everything, turn deserts into forests, because energy is cheap. This is great. If the fusion, when possible, is offered to the world and not locked by private possession, it can solve our environmental problems for good.
I'm not knocking fusion - it would be great! My original post intended merely to point out the often-overlooked demand side implications of population dynamics.
If you're interested in a very good read on population, allow me to recommend Lindsey Grant's excellent Juggernaut: Growth on a Finite Planet. Cheers!
-- Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
daem0n1x
·
· Score: 1
I don't think population should be reduced, just stop growing. Some countries in the world are almost empty, namely the USA and Russia. The main problems are caused by concentration in huge metropolis, leaving the rest of the country desert. It happens in my country, too.
About economic growth, I totally agree with you. Perpetual growth is not possible. Nowadays, we produce a lot more than the whole world population can consume. That causes periodical crisis, massive pollution and social problems.
A balance should be found. That will be the main issue in the XXI century, I think.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 1
I don't think population should be reduced, just stop growing. Some countries in the world are almost empty, namely the USA and Russia. The main problems are caused by concentration in huge metropolis, leaving the rest of the country desert. It happens in my country, too.
The USA is hardly empty - with a population density of 31 people per square kilometre, it has 10x the density of Canada (my home). The result? Very little unspoiled wilderness and massive environmental impact (to cite just one parameter, the USA has almost no old-growth forest left). The true picture of the USA's environmental impact is hidden by the degree to which it relies upon imports - by outsourcing production, you also outsource those impacts resulting from it.
I am horrified at the thought that the land I love might one day be forced to support and absorb the damage caused by that many people. No, thank you - give me an "almost empty" country any day!
About economic growth, I totally agree with you. Perpetual growth is not possible. Nowadays, we produce a lot more than the whole world population can consume. That causes periodical crisis, massive pollution and social problems.
A balance should be found. That will be the main issue in the XXI century, I think.
I agree that reducing consumption is important. Think about this, though - if the human population was a tenth of what it is now, we could cut production by 80 percent, distribute what's left more equitably, and all enjoy a quality of life much better than the current reality for most of the world.
And yes, I think this will come to be a major issue for this new century. At least I fervently hope so. Cheers!
-- Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
daem0n1x
·
· Score: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
Man, it's hard to compete with you, Canada is one of those in the bottom!
You sure have plenty of room to stretch your legs! I gave the USA as an example because I thought it was your country, and because I was there recently and got amazed at how some states the size of Spain have just a few million people. Compared to most of Europe, USA is "almost empty".
I live in Portugal, though it is not densely populated (it's in the middle of the list), compared to the USA, I feel like living in a crowded box.
The population reduced by 90%? Now that would be nice, no traffic jams, ghettos, crowded beaches, supermarket lines, etc. But it would take a LOT of time by natural causes, and genocide is definitely not my kind. So I'd better move to your country and enjoy the space.
Of course, if we don't stop destroying our planet, Mother Nature itself may get fed up and deal with us her way.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
kalidasa
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but remember, that US states are all different. For instance, the state I live in is one of the bottom for area, but in the top 20 for population, and so comes up near the top in population density. Some states have population densities much higher than Spain's (mine has a population density 10 times higher than Spain's). Go out west to Wyoming or Montana, though, and you'll be basically in emptiville.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
mxpengin
·
· Score: 1
remember , its not just how much energy we need , but how clean is it. For example the United States should follow the protocol of Kyoto . I know other countries are also polluting at a high rate , but the US as 'the world leader' its supposed to be should give the example in this matter. And about the amount of energy needed , I have no idea about actual trends in consumption , but if the idea is to give every family in this world a microwave,tv set, dishwasher and bread toaster , I think we still need more energy.;)
-- "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
Kiryat+Malachi
·
· Score: 1
We already generate enough power world-wide.
So, I guess those California rolling blackouts didn't happen then?
What's the saying about bandwidth, CPU power, and everything else...
Oh, yes. Demand will rise to fill capacity. Or something like that. If we provide the capability of generating more power, that capability *will* be used. There are all sorts of things that might be practical if large quantities of energy become cheap. For one thing, recycling is energy-intensive - cheap energy allows recycling to become cheaper than mining and refining new materials. Things like that.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Relatively inefficient compared to what?
by
panurge
·
· Score: 1
No, actually I agree with almost everything you say (except that Shell got into trouble with its shareholders for investing in solar power...perhaps you should blame the shareholders rather than the oil companies), but solar power is relatively inefficient compared to what? Oil is only apparently efficient because we were not around when all that biomass was growing and then rotting, getting compressed etc. At the moment processes like bioDiesel look comparatively attractive but the actual efficiency of solar utilisation involved in growing oil plants and processing them is, I suspect, not as good as the latest solar cells. I suspect that the efficiency is already good enough, but as you say the price needs to fall (and, probably, the durability needs to increase.)
It's amazing how people keep thinking that fusion will somehow be clean, because AFAIK all the current processes being considered produce a lot of radiation. I think the real problem is that politicians and civil servants want centralised power generation because it puts them in control. Fully distributed power generation would actually greatly weaken central government, as would a mobile population.
The fact that distributed power is more resilient to external attack (it's very hard to destroy all of a wind farm or a significant fraction of small solar plants with conventional weapons, whereas it is all too easy to destroy any feasible form of nuclear or oil based plant) ought to make it attractive to governments, but their military planners want to be able to take out the opposition too.
-- Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
In an ideal world, research like this would be done by an internationally funded, politically independant organisation. When the research was done the technology should be public domain - free for all to use. No patents, no licensing.
But unfortunately politics and economic interests again gets in the way and science suffers yet again.
There will never be fusion as long as oil sits in the presidential chair..
-- Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Re:One can dream...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The problem of course is people. If we could just get rid of the people, then we would have a perfect world. But, people give the money, they want a little say in how and where it's spent.
If your dream is a world where people give you their money and they get no say, that sounds like a nightmare.
The Grip of the Oil Companies Tightens Even More
by
Cryofan
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Follow the money, people. Who is going to be hurt if fusion becomes viable?
-- eat shiat and bark at the moon
Exploiting the sun
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
Why isn't private enterprise operating massive solar farms in the many extremely sunny desert areas of the US, and selling power to the national grid? It's not as if the US had an excess of power currently, quite the opposite.
You'd think that solar power would have great earning potential, since like hydroelectric there is no fuel cost, and the lack of continuous output must have been solved already or there would be no wind farms. Unlike either of those two though, it has extreme potential for growth. Why no takeup?
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
aldoman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Because as much as the environmentalists love to peddle the idea it would only take a few square miles to supply the planet, it's just not true in theory.
For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.
To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.
Not only that, they only produce when the sun is shining. Maybe in CA this is ok as power demands are exceedingly high with the amount of air con in the daytime.
Another important question is whether the national grid could handle the amount of fluctuations in supply that a solar grid produces - one moment you'll have 1.2MW, next moment you'll have 0.9MW as a cloud passes over - this presents a huge problem for the grid as it's very hard to quickly adjust the major producers (coal, and to some degree fission) to cope with that supply problem.
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
Baki
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Therefore exploiting solar energy must go hand in hand with introducing hydrogen as "fuel", that is as a means to store the energy retrieved from the sun.
Use solar energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be done by a number of means. Solar cells is one one, but solar power can also be used in huge turbines instead (more efficient) to generate AC current. In either way the electricity can be used in the neighbourhood directly, and be used for electrolysis for large scale use and storage.
There are empty areas enough (deserts come to mind, especially deserts that are quite near seas and oceans) that can be used. Yes it will require huge investments (to transport the water to the dry and sunny areas for example) but the oil industry also has required an enormous infrastructure (refineries, oil tankers) and wasn't built overnight. It is doable and necessary, and at some time one must start to invest in it for the long term.
Like our existing system isn't extreamly expensive too!
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
EllisDees
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.
>To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.
True, especially in the context of the parent post, but if everyone had these high-efficiency solar cells mounted on their roofs it would be less a problem.
-- --
Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
danharan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
OK, I call BS.
Efficiency doesn't need to go up to make solar cost-effective. The most efficient PV modules are insanely expensive to build; give me 10% efficiency for a dirt cheap thin-film that I can put on my roof and I'll be happy. The sector is growing some 30% a year, and each doubling in production brings prices down. Modules are now around $4/watt, and the Japanese, with their solar roof program, have taken a leadership position and created a huge market. With that comes more incentive to find break-throughs in thin-film technology.
We likely won't have massive farms of the stuff any time soon. Building-integrated photo voltaics (BIPV if you want to google for more info) is one of the more promising avenues. Solar energy and consumption is distributed, as should be its conversion to electricity.
In a distributed generation system, local variations even out on a larger scale so you won't get massive drops as clouds pass over. Even in overcast days you can get 70% of the energy of a bright day, so the energy produced is not going to suddenly drop anywhere. In places where energy use is highly correlated to air conditionning, this is a very useful addition to the power mix.
Solar is a fascinating field, if much smaller than wind. I wish/.'ers would stop it with the over-the-top FUD, and get a bit better informed on the topic.
-- Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
ChrisMaple
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Silicon photovoltaics (solar cells) have been at about 23% efficiency (for premium grade devices) for more than 30 years. This is a theoretical limitation of silicon and they're not going to get significantly better by themselves. The much more expensive gallium-arsenide, or combined silicon gallium-arsenide devices get into the 30s.
Individual cells are low voltage DC, but they are easily combined in series to obtain higher voltages. DC is superior for transmission. Inverters can be very efficient, 90% would be considered bad efficiency at megawatt power levels.
-- Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
That's why you use the solar energy to make hydrogen (use the H2 as a battery) and then transport and use that, but keep a few days/weeks/months supply in the system for when it's cloudy.
Then make H2 from other stuff as well as solar. That's what we need to do.
--
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
A shift of 0.3MW really isn't that much of a shift in the scheme of things, it just depends on how dependent we'd be on solar. Almost every power generation company routinely produces more MWs than they can use at the current time (at some point or another), and the extra energy is traded realtime at market; a fluctuation that minor would just reduce the overage they previously had available for trade, or simply necessitate the purchase of another company's energy.
However, if we're talking about regional suppliers very much dependent on solar, yeah, there'd be a problem, as probably all of their production would go decrease at once.
--
---
What
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Solar is a fascinating field, if much smaller than wind. I wish/.'ers would stop it with the over-the-top FUD, and get a bit better informed on the topic.
And I wish pigs would fly. Just because it'd be really hilarious to see.
You had me convinced with your statement right up to the point where you said DC is superior for transmission.
Copper may be a great conductor, but miles and miles of this stuff makes for a high DC resistance. The AC resistance does not vary as greatly with the length of the copper line. That's why westinghouse won out in the 1800's and we use AC for distrabution today.
There's also the benifit that you can use transformers on an AC line to vary the voltage. You can't do a thing with a DC line to step-up or step-down the voltages without haveing an AC segment in between.
I'm an environmentalist, but I think PV cells aren't the way to go. For a cheaper alternative on a large scale, I was thinking of solar powered heat engines. Basically, you use the sun to get a working fluid nice and hot, and then use it in a steam turbine, a stirling engine, or something of the sort. This can run an alternator as big as you want, so inverters aren't needed. Not nearly as many chemicals are involved as making PV cells, and I see people claiming stuff around 28% efficiency.
Furthermore, it isn't required to just use solar panels. Windmills are usable in areas where the sun doesn't shine all day long. Combine the two and you'll have adequate power most of the time.
Dealing with fluctuations is something that we'd just have to engineer in. Partly, we have to deal with it by spreading things out so that all of our power generation isn't concentrated at one point. 10,000 windmills and solar panels across the countryside are much less variable in total than they are by themselves. Insurance companies make profits every day by spreading things out. That's how any workable future system will have to be.
-- "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
This may or may not be what you are describing, but I will elaborate anyway.
The best use of solar technology is not fields of panels, but panels on roofs. It is worth looking into if you need to replace/repair your roof. Having both done at once can save a lot of money. There are also some nice government incentives.
Almost anyone can use solar power. You can keep your meter and pull from the grid when your demand exceeds what you produce (ie: at night). Then, if you happen to have excess energy (ie: in the daytime) your meter will run backwards, as you are then supplying energy to the grid. This is called "net-metering."
-- TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
First of all, weather patterns are large. Clouds aren't independent random variables, it's not too difficult for the whole Eastern US to be socked in with clouds.
Secondly, I'll call BS because we have this thing called "nighttime" that covers the WHOLE COUNTRY AT ONCE!!!!!! What are the odds of that? Virtually garanteed every 24 hours or so.
Basically, the power grid is creaky as it is, and that's just with demand varying chaotically. If the supply did so as well, look out. Solar can probably provide 10% of our power before this becomes a problem. If you think it's going to provide 60%, you're living in a dream world. Strangely, Ralph Nader thinks this, but then again he's never met a scientist he didn't think was wrong about everything.
It sounds like the guys I once worked for who were convinced that software failures were independent random variables. They had a cluster of like 4 MS SQL servers, convinced that if each one was up only 90% of the time they'd have 4 nines of uptime. Of course if your failures are software in nature, then whatever bug crashed server N will crash server N+1 just as easily, and all four would go down in less than a second. A little understanding, please.
Let's be fair here, the original statement I was responding to was this:
one moment you'll have 1.2MW, next moment you'll have 0.9MW as a cloud passes over
Now granted, you can expect fluctuations, but they aren't going to be so damned dramatic that you're going to shed 300kw in the few seconds it takes for a cloud to go by. You could get daytime fluctuations up to 30%, but that's something that can be managed.
Now, since I've visited homes where most of the energy came from solar cells (natural gas cooking/hot water; wood heating), I know it's not such a crazy idea. The moment you are more than a couple miles away from the grid, it can be cheaper to go solar than to pay for the wires to your home. With a few batteries, you can handle nighttime load as well.
The grid is getting old and fragile, but distributed generation should be able to help. By adding new generation capacity in smaller increments, and getting a mix that better correlates with peak load. Solar can help with that, and while 60% sounds a tad high, 10% should be relatively easy to accomplish. Like for your MSSQL example, a grid is far more robust if it has different power sources.
That peak load is damned expensive, and some power companies are willing to help out with the costs of demand management or adding power generators if that can be used to help meet peak load. Solar is no panacea, but it's not useless either.
You haven't seen the fluctuations I've seen from home-grid connected solar modules. Dropping to 500W then back up to a few kilowatts in a couple of minutes, because of clouds.
There is no way a grid can handle this unless you join it all togther across North American (so you take advantage of CAs surplus of production when it's morning rush hour in NY) - however this would require such highly efficent (and therefore expensive) transmissions systems that it would be unfeasable).
If the USs power grid is so creaky that a few failing generators can take out tens of millions of peoples power out, how do you think we could cope with sub-minute spikes and troughs in production.
But spending billions on huge battery (since that's what they'd effectively be) vaults that wear out every 10 years and causing a huge demand for lead that we couldn't supply, totally mocks the point of a grid power system.
Oh also, you can't store AC current in a battery, so that'd be pretty unworkable, too.
yeah, a few kilowatts... for a single house. take a few hundred in any area, and you'll have manageable fluctuations.
-- Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was at a TPV (thermo-photovolaic: eg. like solar cells, but on lower bandgap materials like GaAs) conference earlier this year; I came away from it with a couple impressions.
One is that just about everyone has a different way of calculating efficiency. You hear some people complaining about only having 90% efficiency, and others proud of having 1% efficiency. The former is a quantum efficiency (percentage of photons striking the cell that get absorbed) and the latter is a system efficiency (ratio of output electricity to total power put into the system). Typical numbers for cell efficiency that were floating about (20-30%) are usually the ratio of electrical power out to light that falls _ideally_ on the cell. Those don't count the cost of cooling the cell, light you can't use efficiently (wrong wavelength), etc.
The second issue is cost and power density. Most cells, so far, have a very limited power density - throwing more light at it doesn't increase output power. To achieve a given output power, you can start by concentrating more light on your cell with cheap mirrors or lenses. But once you reach the power density limit you need to add more cells. Today, the highest performance cells are based on crystalline semiconductors (silicon, GaAs, Ge, GaAsP, etc). Everything but silicon is VERY pricey due to limited production; but silicon wafers are still remarkably expensive. Most microchips get around this by miniaturization; smaller chips means that, for the same wafer cost, each chip is cheaper. But you can't make your solar cells smaller because of limits on power density. The only way around this is to look at amorphous materials, which tend to be cheaper but less efficient. Another promising technology is thermoelectric (TE) generation, which is using a Peltier cooler backwards. It's really inefficient, but cheap to make (just make a junction between two metal films).
I've actually heard of these guys already, and that's precisely the type of company I think is going to create a revolution in the coming years.
Cheap, reliable BIPV can have very low installation costs; along with net metering and favorable mortgages, it could take off faster than a lot of people expect. (Where I live, we don't have net metering yet, and banks aren't happy to lend you the money because they aren't assured of the resale value...)
-- Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
You're so wrong
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
there's simply not enough energy hitting the earth to supply our needs
OMG, you don't know just how wrong you are, by umpteen orders of magnitude!
It would barely take the energy falling on a few hundred square miles of desert to supply the entire electricity requirement of the planet. It's one of the incongruous aspects of mankind's approach to technology and power than nobody is trying to harness it in a big way.
No doubt this is related to oil and big fortunes... sigh.
Re:You're so wrong
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right, because whoever figured out how to harness all the energy you claim is available would not make any money.
Ahh, yes, of course. The almighty buck. With your attitude we're fucked.
Thankfully there are people like myself with different attitudes. If I had cash to throw at this problem, it'd be there already. I don't care if there is no FINANCIAL return on investment, the gain from succeeding in this area cannot be measured against the almighty buck.
no. 3 HP is ~2.25KW. Incident sunlight is less than 140W per square foot. With current solar cell efficiencies, you're talking closer to 20W per square foot than 2000W per square foot.
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe it *was* per square yard. That'd be more than 1.2kw for whatever you are counting as "incident sunlight". I think the source I'm remembering was counting everything from long infrared up to gamma rays. Clearly we have no direct-to-electricity converter that covers such a spectrum at any non-laughable efficiency. But I (thought I) was talking about how much energy hits a patch of earth, whether we know how to make it all do work or not.
Re:You're so wrong
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thanks for clearing that up you superior fucking condescending jackass. Go work for the government, then you can plow all the cash you want into unworkable useless technologies that tickle your green guilt the right way.
I'm not sure I understand why my comment pissed you off so much. Seems to have hit pretty close to home in some way. Ahh well, don't have a heart attack mmm kay?
Quite so. 1.2+KW is not 3 HP either. More like half that. Note that I'm only quibbling about the numbers. We can do a lot with solar, once the price is reasonable, and the efficiency is acceptable.
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:You're so wrong
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Thankfully there are people like myself...".
Pat yourself on the back some more, you self-congratulatory asshole.
And by the way, how many solar cells have you bought for your personal use? You don't have the money to set up a solar farm for the entire world, but I'm sure you've started on one for yourself, since you don't care about things like monetary efficiency.
Don't worry, you won't be 12 forever and the hormones will balance out over time.
-- No Comment.
Re:You're so wrong
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And the puerile psychobabble fails to mask the lack of details on GeckoX's Wondrous Self-Righteous Solar Farm, and the vast financial sacrifices the wonderful humanitarian made to make it all possible.
We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
csoto
·
· Score: 0
Look up in the sky, during the hours of about 8a.m. to 8p.m. (shorter in some lattitudes, YMMV). Solar energy capture, including photovoltaic, photothermal, geothermal, tidal and wind are all very clean, very economical means to harness this. Chemical stores such as petroleum, are not so good.
Harness the sun. It's free. It's dependable. It's not owned by evildoers (Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc.).
-- There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The sun is far from dependable in most of the world. And harnessing it is far from free. And if Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and Shell are evildoers, then why do they contribute more to ending starvation in the third world then all of the feel-good organizations put together? Hmm?
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
then why do they contribute more to ending starvation in the third world then all of the feel-good organizations put together? Hmm?
Because they get a tax break, jackass.
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
JBMcB
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Solar energy is not reliable, anything less than clear sky and the system isn't running efficently. Photovoltaic energy has expensive delicate solar panels you have to protect. Photothermal has huge arrays of mirrors you have to maintain and protect. Unless you are in a desert or Arizona there's not much hope for solar.
Geothermal is great as long as you live near a volcano or hot springs. Geothermal heat pumps work great, though expensive.
Tidal and wind farms kill fish and birds respectively, so you have Audobon, Greenspeace, etc etc after you.
What makes you think evildoers won't own any of these alternative energy sources? They have a vested interest in maintaining their position in the energy market, and if people swing towards alternative energy they are going to be involved.
-- My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Solar energy is not reliable, anything less than clear sky and the system isn't running efficently. Photovoltaic energy has expensive delicate solar panels you have to protect. Photothermal has huge arrays of mirrors you have to maintain and protect. Unless you are in a desert or Arizona there's not much hope for solar.
On the other hand, solar tends to provide you with electricity when you really need it. Electricity demand goes up during the day and falls roughly with the sun. Demand is highest in the summer--witness last year's blackout--because millions of people are running air conditioners on sunny days.
Yeah, solar is too expensive right now, except for certain niche markets. (My grandparents' cottage actually runs on photovoltaic panels, because it would cost about thirty grand to connect them to the grid.) It's rather a chicken and egg problem--solar panels will get cheaper when people buy more panels, but people won't buy more panels until they get cheaper. Perhaps this is someplace where government subsidies (*gasp*) might be appropriate?
Arguing that photovoltaic panels are delicate is a bit of a red herring. Yes, I suppose they're moderately fragile, but so what? We have windows on our houses. We cover entire skyscrapers in glass. You might have to provide some cover for a panel array in the event of large hail, but beyond that I wouldn't be too worried. There's the added benefit of modularity. If I throw a rock at a panel, or even drive a truck into the edge of an array, I only take out a very small fraction of the total area. If one panel is damaged, it's the work of an hour for a guy to drive out and slap a new panel in place, and generation from the rest of the site stays up. Not only that, but you get an automatic twelve or so hours of downtime at night every night to do maintenance work.
What makes you think evildoers won't own any of these alternative energy sources? They have a vested interest in maintaining their position in the energy market, and if people swing towards alternative energy they are going to be involved.
Well yes--if the evildoers in question are the big energy companies, they will be involved, and they'll probably try to manipulate energy markets as they always have (*waves at Ken Lay*). With respect to evildoers in the Middle East, it's much more difficult to ship PV generated electricity here from Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Even if OPEC decides to build solar plants in Arizona, they're going to be working in U.S. territory under U.S. law. Mexico hasn't threatened to invade Texas for quite a while now, and it's fairly unlikely that California will try to annex Nevada. The region is stable, and nobody will have to drop any more bombs.
I completely agree that solar power isn't some sort of magic bullet that will solve all of our energy problems. No doubt the future will have a mix of energy sources, in the same way as we do now. It isn't anywhere near valid to write off solar because it isn't appropriate for all energy needs.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
hey
·
· Score: 1
> The sun is far from dependable in most of the world
Of course, there are clouds but -- correct me if I am wrong -- the sun rises everyday in every (non artic) place on earth.
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion
by
csoto
·
· Score: 1
Direct-capture Solar (photovoltaic or photothermal) is most dependable when it is most useful - on hot, sunny days. This is when energy demand spikes. When it's dark or cloudy, go back on the grid, or use a different technology.
When you live by a spring, use geothermal. When you live by an ocean, use tidal. When you live where it's windy, use wind. Each of these kill far fewer fish or birds than the cooling needs of coal, gas and nuclear plants, the swamping of lands by hydro, or the draining of wetlands and dumping for coal mining and processing (Alcoa is doing this in my county).
My point is that ALL energy on this planet is derived from the Sun. Worship the sun! Quit wasting its energy...
-- There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
A bit of clarification...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
1.) RTFA: FIRE is one of many fusion research projects in the U.S. This article gives the impression that we just 'gave up' on this whole crazy fusion thing. This is far from true...
3.) ITER is the next step towards a steady state or 'burning' plasma. This is (obviously) a critical part of building a production-class fusion reactor.
- Justin
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
mikael
·
· Score: 1
From the web-site:
The major fuel, deuterium, may be readily extracted from ordinary water, which is available to all nations.
I am sure many third-world residents will greatly appreciate having their fresh water supplies being redirected into providing fuel for fusion reactors. Though, maybe it will be possible to power water desalination plants using fusion reactors?
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
Quatloo
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention that they could make the decision to mothball FIRE in its current state for a 1 or 2 year period at a fraction of the cost. If ITER 'details' can't be solved it would then be easy to restart FIRE. ANd like the poster said, this is just one of many programs.
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
CnlPepper
·
· Score: 1
No, a fusion reactor can not explode or "run-away" as the reaction requires active involvement to enable it to occur (it must be maintained at high pressures and temperatures). If the magnetic containment fails the conditions which support the fusion reaction are removed and the reaction collapses.
Dramatic losses of confinement in tokamaks, called "disruptions" in fusion research, are regular occurances during experiments (as we push the boundaries of the containment to determine its limits etc...), they don't do a lot except throw the machine around and occasionally melt a small section of the vessels inner wall.
I've watched many disruptions occur and I'm still sitting here, exactly 75m from the JET tokamak (my place of employment)
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From the PPPL link:
"No Risk of a Nuclear Accident:
The amounts of deuterium and tritium in the fusion reaction zone will be so small that a large uncontrolled release of energy would be impossible. In the event of a malfunction, the plasma would strike the walls of its containment vessel and cool. "
RTFA before posting, thanks. - Justin
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
Bearpaw
·
· Score: 1
I am sure many third-world residents will greatly appreciate having their fresh water supplies being redirected into providing fuel for fusion reactors.
Does it need to be fresh water? Presumably deuterium exists in sea water as well -- is it significantly harder to extract?
Though, maybe it will be possible to power water desalination plants using fusion reactors?
That depends on whether fusion makes energy significantly cheaper. If I understand correctly, the major expense of large-scale desalination is energy. Cheaper energy => cheaper desalination. Whether fusion will make energy significantly cheaper depends on a number of factors that are unknown at this time.
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, you get more deuterium from the world's oceans than from lakes and rivers. You need very little deuterium to power a plant, and the water doesn't have to be "fresh", or even remotely safe to drink in order for it to have heavy hydrogen in it. Plus, third world countries trying to build fusion reactors when they lack clean water sounds like pretty fucked up priorities to me.
RsG
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
mikael
·
· Score: 1
Does it need to be fresh water? Presumably deuterium exists in sea water as well -- is it significantly harder to extract?
I guess they would want to get the sodium, potassium , minerals and other rare metals out first. I remember there was a story about how a reactor core had to be completely scrapped because a beancounter figured ordinary tap-water would be cheaper to use than distilled water.
Re:A bit of clarification...
by
Strontium-90
·
· Score: 1
Additionally, fusion reactions/plasmas can be halted (with no ill effects) simply by injecting some heavier elements into the plasma, such as shooting pellets of frozen neon into the tokomak. The situations required to form and maintain a plasma are very specific, and disruptions simply stop the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much the only thing that happens when the plasma suddenly stops is that occasionally the tokomak tries to "jump" when the plasma's magnetic field suddenly disappears.
Yeah
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And if something goes wrong, they'll be used to it.
Also there'll be a cool biker chick to document the results, and we'll be able to see the images here on slashdot =)
OK Bad joke I know. Sorry to all you Russians out there.... But.... probably there are lots of areas in Russia that don't have anyone living there. It's a big country!!
Vehicle-to-grid power, links
by
roesti
·
· Score: 1
I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid
This concept is called vehicle-to-grid power - more information here, here and here.
Silly fools. How soon they forget the lessons of Mars and how
never mind. you didn't read this. I wasn't here.
Bollocks
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
CERN, Red Cross, NATO...
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, with current design the estimated cost of fusion electricity is about double of current price. All due to huge construction costs.
This is bound to change, not by fusion getting cheaper but by other energy becoming more expensive as supply can't keep up with the demand.
Dream of fusion power?
by
tod_miller
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I think the reality of fusion power is not getting any closer, whereas the dream would seem to have already arrived, taken off it's shoes and asked whats for dinner.
I just hope fusion engineers/scientists are not like computer programmers (me included).
*Boom*
Aaah I see, yep, yep, yep, thought so, no no problem, can we schedule a test for next week? Yep, gimme a minute i'll check the calculations...
*Bigger Boom*
Ooooh, mmmm mmm, yep, no - that's good, we are doing something right, that was definately different, lets hope we don't get a BlackHoleException, yeah, I'd throw a try/catch around that whole nasty business there... *vague pointing*
*fading image of old tv screen switching off*
*smacks head* d'oh! Oh well at least the moon base survived...
Re:Dream of fusion power?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
One of the many benefits of fusion powerplants is the lack of 'boom'-potential. In the worst case scenario, the reaction simply becomes unstable and STOPS. There is no risk of it overloading or somehow exploding...
- Justin
Re:Dream of fusion power?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
at lest I think that's what my AP physics professor said...
Re:Dream of fusion power?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's annoying to see so many undocumented people, even here on slashdot!
Fusion inside a tokamak cannot create a black hole or anything! The reaction burns something, unlike fission, which means that if you stop the injection of deuterium (about every ten seconds in the form of tiny ice cubes) the reaction just stops it cannot be a source of accidents such as a fission reactor!
and the other guy stating another problem is trying to make a burning stable plasma... The fact is what scientists are trying to do is achieve Lawson's calculations which state that a certain amount of energy has to be produced, and there are two ways of doing it: a plasma that lasts over time, or concentrate an enormous amount of energy over a little time (such as Laser Megajoule project)
The latter seems more "exlosive" and dangerous to me...
The sad state of American science
by
yog
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The U.S. was once the mecca of science in the world. Students flocked here from many other countries to learn from the best teachers and to work in the best facilities. Great experiments were conducted into the nature of matter at places like the Berkeley physics lab, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Pioneering visionaries planned, funded, and executed great projects like the manned landings on the Moon. Nuclear energy was exploited, with all its pros and cons.
Today, the U.S. has retreated from its leadership role and now tries to participate in science on the cheap, by roping in questionable allies such as France and China to help pay for experiments such as ITER that once would have been a purely American sandbox. The already meagre space budget has been sapped by an irrelevant and compromised space station and the oversold space shuttle. The president has barred the funding of promising biological research using embryonic stem cells, thus driving stem cell researchers to other countries to continue their work, and communities across the country are forcing schools to teach "creationism" in biology courses. School kids avoid hard subjects like science and foreign graduate students in the sciences are now the majority--and will they want to stay after they graduate?
In my opinion, the U.S. should turn its attention to science once again and realize that it is in a race with Europe and east Asia to regain and retain the critical lead in science and technological development. The nationstates and alliances of nations which stay focused on scientific achievement will be the economic leaders of the 21st century, while the lazy others will fall behind and become irrelevant.
--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Re:The sad state of American science
by
B_SharpC
·
· Score: 1
Leftist Communist Professors in US Universities are the cause of the "sad state of American science".
University Professors are illiterate; technically, scientifically, economically and politically illiterate. Knock Professors off their pedistal. A white coat Professor is clueless on the difference between FUZZY and CERTAINTY disciplines of science.
A Professor could not find a fact if was in their mailbox.:-)
Re:The sad state of American science
by
geomon
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what university you attended, but the professors I studied under spanned the polical spectrum. Most were libertarian in their approach to government, but were more pragmatic than the Libertarian Party in that they realize that governments do not operate without revenue.
Nice attempt at a troll, though. The particular political rhetoric you apply, however, is getting rather stale and threadbare.
-- "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You sir, are a fucking idiot. I work as a researcher at one of those Ivy's you mentioned. People STILL flock to the US becuase of the HUGE amounts of resources we devote to research here. Europe, China, South America, etc.. do not even come close to the overall quality of research.
Embryonic stem cell research may be one area where the funding is lacking somewhat, but the US leads in adult stem cell research and it is adult stem cells which will likely be more biomedically significant, particularly at the clincial level.
Forcing school to teach give equal footing to creationisn? I challenge you to come up with more than a handfull of schools that are doing this, and furthermore show me that this same students are not at some point also taught evolution.
Foreign students are NOT the majority at top US schools. There is, and always will be thankfully, a large number of foreing students at the graduate level. We take the best and the brightest. AND a lot of these students choose to stay in the US due to the vast number of opportunities that exist here. (And besides you fucking retard, you contradict yourself - how can you say that the US used to be the mecca that foreign students flocked to, WHILE at the same time saying that foreign students now dominate our graduate programs. Pick one of the two, dipshit.)
Great experiment are being performed at MIT, Stanford, and Princetown daily, and at countless other universities. (The amazing thing about the US is the depth we have in the number of top-rate research programs.) The US is still vastly in the lead in literature cited rankings. The US is still the world leader in research, and will likely be for some time until possibly China and other Asian nations start to economically develop and democratize in about 50 years hence.
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Alaska+Jack
·
· Score: 1
Just two observations:
One, I think your statement about stem cell research is a bit overheated (I am cautious on this point, because I admittedly don't know a lot about the issue.) My impression is that Bush sought a compromise, and settled on banning the creation of any new fetal stem cell lines, NOT that he "barred the funding of promising biological research." I could be wrong on this though.
Two: The bit about "communities across the country... forcing schools to teach 'creationism' in biology courses" is WAY overheated. I mean, come on, you're talking about less than a handful of crackpot communities across the nation. Don't let your alarmism get in the way of accurately perceiving reality.
Alaska Jack
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you were really a researcher at "one of those Ivy's" he mentioned, you'd probably know that only one of the institutions mentioned is an Ivy League college, and it ain't spelled "Princetown."
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Jodka
·
· Score: 1
The president has barred the funding of promising biological research using embryonic stem cells...
President Bush is the only president ever to authorize federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
Under Bush, NIH has increased spending on embyonic on human ebryonic stem cell research from $0.00 in 2001 to $24.8 million in 2003. In the same period NIH spending for all types of stem cell research, human and non-human, embryonic and non-embryonic has increased from $306.0 millon to $521.1 million.
Look here for a detailed breakdown. (Link could require free registration.)
-- Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Re:The sad state of American science
by
yog
·
· Score: 1
Re embryo research:
I saw a panel discussion on this topic by some of the Harvard folks involved in setting up the Harvard stem cell research center. Bush's initial decision was to bar all federal spending on embryo related work. A panel of experts from Harvard and other institutions went there to negotiate a compromise with him, and he then agreed to allow continued work with existing cell cultures but not to allow any new ones. There were 60 stem cell lines available at the time, but only 18 of these were actually available for various reasons.
This was not much of a compromise because new cultures are needed, and researchers who do develop their own cultures must keep all their lab equipment separate and make sure they are not using any federally-funded test tubes or whatever to do this work. Kind of like keeping a kosher kitchen. It's a bit ridiculous from the researcher's point of view, and of course this way Bush can claim to be "pro science".
Regarding creationism, there have been some pretty big school systems that have either adopted or are considering adopting creationism. Google for "teaching creationism in school" and you will learn that the Cobb county school system in Georgia, the state's second largest, mandated creationism be taught a couple of years ago, and the Kansas State Board of Education in 1999 also did so, though I believe both systems have since modified their stance under the pressure of lawsuits from civil liberties groups. Similar things have occurred in Ohio and Colorado. It would be funny if it weren't so serious; evolutionary theory is the basis of modern biology, and to mandate some loony alternative theory is to undermine science education.
Basically I'm worried that American science is today simply drifting along on its own momentum with no national leadership. Some could argue that's a good thing. Let the researchers seek private funding and just do what they damn well please. The free market rules. But without the billions of dollars of federal funding to jump start major projects such as Fermilab and the space program, some of the great achievements that lie ahead will probably take place elsewhere. Of course it doesn't help that students today shun science and that there's a shortage of good science teachers in public schools. America has turned away from science.
--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The term "Ivy League" refers strictly to the original eight schools. However, the term is sometimes used to refer to the eight plus Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University for purposes of alumni associations and university gatherings.
If you have to resort to criticizing spelling error in hastily written posts, it shows hows little of subbstance you have to say.
(And I work at MIT and went school there, so go piss up a rope.)
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Kiryat+Malachi
·
· Score: 1
The thing is, all those pinko profs work in English, languages, poli sci, and other soft disciplines. Engineering and hard science professors are still, and always have been, generally moderate to right-wing in their politics.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:The sad state of American science
by
Alaska+Jack
·
· Score: 1
Well, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that it all means we are turning away from science.
For example, I oppose the idea of destroying human embryos in the name of science. You might not agree with this, but it doesn't make me anti-science -- if someone proposed killing jews, blacks, or SlashDot readers in the name of science, I would oppose that too, even if there were possibly huge advancements to be made.
Also, despite a few events you note, the whole creationism-in-schools thing isn't exactly sweeping the country. The instances you note are notable precisely because they are anomalies.
But like I said, I agree with most of what you wrote.
But now we need a study on whether to use english or metric units. Or we could use both.
On second thought, let's just throw it into the sun now.
--
I'm not a doctor, but I play one in bed.
the ironry? president's support?
by
RevAaron
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
on the page it reads: The President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term energy priority for our Nation. DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan February, 2004
Heh. Any one else amused by that? That 2 mil/year really shows how important the program is. And cancelling the program is even better.
--
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:the ironry? president's support?
by
pinopino
·
· Score: 1
Actually, this statement was made at the same time as the decision for the US to rejoin ITER. THE DOESSP lists ITER as the #1 'big science' project for the next 20 years, ahead of things like CERN. It does seem ironic, but Bush really is a supporter of fusion research. I don't venture a guess why.
-- "What the masochist doesn't know can't hurt him."
Princeton
by
Sam+Nitzberg
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There is a hot fusion research facility in Princeton, NJ. My understanding is that the facility has done good work since its inception.
I would hate to see such efforts scrubbed. Whatever happens with fusion research, I would like to see such teams and facilities continue to advance their work and contribute towards their research.
This is where FIRE is. So yes, it's set to be scrubbed, as the article describes.
Re:Princeton
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are mistaken... The facility he's referring to is the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, funded by the Department of Energy. It's one of the biggest in the world. - Justin
Perhaps I'm not being clear. FIRE is at the PPPL - I'm not suggesting that the PPPL is going to be shutdown, just that the FIRE is going to be shutdown (as described in the article).
You'd be talking about the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). PPPL is home to several fusion experiemnts, both current and future. In fact, I used some data from PPPL's National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) during a summer internship a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the tokomak shape for ITER is based on some of the results that the NSTX produced. I really don't think you have to worry about PPPL being shut down anytime soon. According to the website, they're starting work on a new test reactor to be built in the next few years.
Think of Bush administration motivations
by
kc01
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Of COURSE we're abandoning our fusion research!
1. Producing cheap, reliable energy would take all the profits away from big oil, who have Bush in their pocket.
2. Diverting money from this program will help defray the costs of the war.
3. Saying we'll "rely on the global effort" is brilliant- It shows that we're a "global player," yet they probably believe that it won't happen without U.S. effort. (whether or not it's true)
They should build it in...
by
arakon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Canada, or the Sahara Desert.
WAY out in the middle of the sticks.
That way if it goes boom, not as many people need to translocate. If they get it working, Canada could definately benefit from the power sales.
It just wouldn't work that well here in the US. Too many shady businesses and Unions to ever even get the project off the ground.
-- "If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
Re:They should build it in...
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That way if it goes boom, not as many people need to translocate.
Fusion reactors don't explode. The fusion reaction itself is extremely delicate. If anything goes wrong, it simply stops. Sure you now have some hot plasma/gas, but not very much, and it'll cool by itself if left alone. Remember that your reactor is wrapped in cooling systems anyway, since that's how you get the power out of it (at least until we recover sufficient He3 that the power can be extracted magnetically).
Re:They should build it in...
by
iwadasn
·
· Score: 1
Do you actually have any data to support this hypothesis? Fusion reactions have positive feedback (reaction goes faster -> more heat -> reaction speeds up), so why couldn't it lose control and go boom? I'm not talking megatons here, as that takes very careful planning and lots of high density fuel. However, I think it's foolish to dismiss offhand the risk of a significant explosion, a blast sufficient to destroy the reactor and scatter some material merits some thought.
Fission reactors can't really explode (like nuclear weapons) either, because they are never critical on prompt neutrons alone (look it up if you don't know what that means), but Cherenobyl did surge to 100x it rated power and let loose a substantial explosion. Western reactors are much safer than that design, and are designed to contain explosions of any plausible magnitude, but it's not wise to just say "that can't happen" beause that's what you read in the clueless newspapers.
A classical (fission based) nuclear explosion happens in microseconds (less than 10 if I remember correctly), are you certain that an overly dense area of plasma would dissipate faster than that? I'm not saying that fusion would be bad, but a substantial (say, 1 ton of TNT worth) explosion caused by some sort of magnetic field glitch supercompressing a sector of plasma could probably release essentially all of the reactor's radioactive inventory. Fusion reactors produce short lived isotopes, so they have less waste issues, but he inventory of a large GW sized reactor could be sufficient to cause serious problems for a few years (Half life of Tritium, probably most of the inventory is 12 years) until the radioactivity dies down.
Clearly this would be better than coal, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt to have some good containment vessels, and give some real thought to this issue.
Re:They should build it in...
by
Jodka
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"Fusion reactors don't explode. The fusion reaction itself is extremely delicate. If anything goes wrong, it simply stops."
Actually, there is a small likelihood that the fusion reactor goes out of control and creates a growing magnetic vortex which becomes powerful enough to consume an entire city. However, I expect it would be possible to prevent the reaction from going out of control by using an eight-armed non-ferrous mechanical exoskeleton.
-- Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Re:They should build it in...
by
Kiryat+Malachi
·
· Score: 1
Fusion reactions have positive feedback in the single instance you mention - increasing heat increases reaction rate increasing heat. Your instance, however, assumes that the reaction is self-sustaining. Which, for the class of fusion reactions we can create, is not true. More important, they are inherently unstable. And even more important, an unstable fusion reaction uncontrolled trends toward zero output.
Thus, if a reaction goes out of control and, e.g., destroys the control systems, the reactor will cease operation. You won't get an explosion, because the reaction will cease very quickly when it loses pressure and heat containment. If you lose containment, your problem becomes a mass of hot dense gas. Which, while nasty, is relatively easy to contain in an outer pressure vessel.... exactly like fission explosions.
Yes, we will need to produce containment vessels for these, but they are extremely unlikely to need to be any stronger (and can probably be weaker) than the vessels used to contain modern fission reactors.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:They should build it in...
by
iwadasn
·
· Score: 1
Well, I have a problem with this statement.....
"Your instance, however, assumes that the reaction is self-sustaining."
It doesn't have to be self sustaining, it just has to be delayed from going out long enough to develop lots of energy, not hard when you consider the rate at which nuclear reactions can take place. The exact same thing is true of virtually any reaction, if dissipated it will be extinguished. Explosives do work however because they are able to liberate lots of energy before being dissipated.
Furthermore, magnetic fields and plasmas have lots of strange interplay that is not nearly as obvious as "make the reactor depend on water, then if the water boils the reaction stops" sort of calculations that go into fission reactors. Just look at a solar flare for instance. A magnetic field gets twisted, storing energy, then it can spontaniously "snap" and reconnect, releasing the energy in a small locallized spot. If that were to happen in a fusion reactor it's not hard to imagine it could cause a substantial explosion as it instantly fusions 2% of the reactor's fuel inventory. It's also a lot harder to convince yourself that things like this can't happen than in the fission case where it relies on the fundamental properties of mater, like specific heat and inertia. Magnetic fields have VERY little inertia, and they can catastrophically realign with very little warning. If you rely on something chaotic like that to run a 1 GW system, how can you really be sure it won't spike up to 50 TW for a split second as something jumps back into alignment.
Re:They should build it in...
by
Kiryat+Malachi
·
· Score: 1
The fuel inventory is not going to be inside of the containment vessel. That's a *stupid* design. You feed in only enough fuel to keep the reaction going; otherwise, you can have runaways. Storage is external.
Also, think about what you just said - storing, and then releasing, energy. It's conservation of energy - knowing your fuel supply, you have a pretty good idea what your energy output should be. If your energy output diverges from planned, you have a pretty good idea your reactor is malfunctioning and can be brought offline, or can have fuel input reduced, or any number of things.
And yes, it does have to be self-sustaining for it to matter. The minimal amount of additional fusion that could happen before reaction ceases should be something easily containable by current containment systems. You're not talking about something suddenly becoming a fusion warhead. You're talking about, at worst, a few nanoseconds of significantly higher output. 50 TW is easy to contain, if you only have to contain a femtosecond pulse - even a nanosecond pulse at 50 TW output is only 50 kilojoules of energy.
50 kilojoules is 12 calories. Not exactly worrying.
50 TW for a full second, far longer than a reaction is likely to continue in absence of control and containment, is 50 terajoules. This energy, for the record, is equivalent to the detonation of 216 tons of TNT. Which, while a sizable explosion by any measure, isn't even comparable to a tactical nuclear weapon.
I think you're being a bit paranoid. Do the math and see if I'm not right.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
mwood
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh, "too cheap to meter" never happens. We build better meters faster than we overtake them with falling commodity prices.
I remember when comm. satellites were going to make long-distance telephony too cheap to meter. Look around: lots of telcos meter every call you make, across the globe or over the fence.
What *does* happen is "costs us less to make the same amount of profit."
The worst threat to the oil companies is a new source of near-free power. Kinda predictable that the oil president is in power when this is cancelled.
They must have been getting close to success with the project, big oil had no choice but to kill it.
Re:Figures...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
-1: Foil hat inside-out.
Perfect location
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The perfect location would be just outside Chernobyl. I mean, as a species, we've already f'ed that up more than any other place. If anything goes wrong, short of an out-of-control blackhole, who would notice?
Or there's always New Jersey.:)
Build your own!
by
david.given
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Magnetic containment fusion isn't the only way of doing it. Electrostatic containment fusion works very nicely indeed, and you can build one in your garage quite easily (for given values of easily; a skilled TV repairman could do it). Alas, the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor can't really be scaled up and would appear to have theoretical problems that prevent it reaching break-even, but hot damn, you can fuse hydrogen on your kitchen table. Watch out for those neutrons.
More information, including plans, is available at Fusor.net.
Solar and wind power are half an energy system. If you're going to use them you either need the same capacity in other power systems just sitting round in case (in which case, from a financial standpoint you may as well not build the solar/wind system), or you need some way to store surplus energy.
Now, there are a number of technologies that you could potentially use to do this, from the mundane pumped hydropower, through a whole variety of steadily more exotic technologies like flow batteries, fuel cells, and superconducting current rings, but until they get cheap you can only use intermittent energy sources as a small fraction of your grid.
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The lunar surface is not a vacuum.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While thin, the moon does have an atmosphere. I'm sure that it would still be easier and cheaper to achieve near vacuum conditions there. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9826.h tml
good
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ITER kinda sound safer than FIRE..
Re:How long...VERY LONG
by
spectrokid
·
· Score: 1
Please get real. Fusion is not going to pay off in the next quarter you know. You want to find private billions for something which MAYBE will pay off 50 years from now? Good luck searching, but I'm not holding my breath.
Give any scientist who is willing to devote their life to any project as much funding as they need. There should be X-Prizes for everything.
Coal Fire Is Worse
by
ink
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.
Regardless, even accounting for all the tragic deaths from CHernobyl, EUrope (FRance, in particular) still has cleaner power than the primary power source in AMerica. I would gladly trade the coal fire plant nearby for a nuclear plant; the waste is much easier to contain, even if it is more dangerous. Fusion reactors would be much better, of course -- but many malign nuclear power and install designs that are much more harmful to the environment. Also, "clean" natural gas power plants don't seem so clean when we have to go to war to fuel them.
Summary: Many, many, many more people have died for non-nuclear power supplies, than in nuclear disasters. The environment has been much more damaged by non-nuclear power supplies as well.
-- The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Unfortunately, there's no reason to do this
by
59Bassman
·
· Score: 1
Much of America's science was driven by our huge manufacturing infrastructure. Students went into science and engineering because there were actual jobs for them when they got out. Companies were building new factories on a continual basis, and were therefore hungry for advances in technology.
Now the manufacturing jobs are flying overseas as American consumers line up for ever-cheaper disposable gadgets at Wal-Mart. There's no real drive to be a technological powerhouse because the technology wouldn't be used here anyway. We've been told for years that we're going to become a service-sector company, and apparently I'm in the minority of folks that are scared crapless by that particular notion.
I'm one of a dying breed - an American manufacturing engineer. Within my lifetime I expect to see that particular job class go the way of the dodo. There will still be thousands of manufacturing engineers - it's just that they'll all be in Taiwan, China, and India.
Until that trend stops, there will be no reason for America to focus on technological advancement.
Re:Unfortunately, there's no reason to do this
by
mrchaotica
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a manufacturing engineer, and I'm concerned about it too, for this reason: If our entire economy is based on selling services to each other, where do we get our manufactured goods? Answer: other countries. Services aren't easy to export, so how are we going to recover all the money we're spending on goods?
I imagine a future where (e.g. in your case) you'd have to work in Taiwan as a manufacturing engineer and send your earnings back home to the US, just like Mexican construction workers do here now. Sad, isn't it?
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Unfortunately, there's no reason to do this
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Services can't be exported? Says who?
World electricity consumption vs solar
by
Morgaine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A few relevant ballpark figures might help the discussion:
World electricity consumption circa 2001: under 14 trillion KWh (14 x 10^12)
Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh
Minimum area of land needed to supply world demand at 100% conversion: 14 million Km^2, or 14 solar farms of 1,000 x 1,000 Km each.
Before anyone gets carried away, this doesn't lead directly to a plan for converting the world to solar by siting 14 farms in the world's deserts.:-) [For a start, 100% conversion efficiency isn't even theoretically possible.] However, on a smaller national scale, there's no doubt that there is a lot of energy available in sunlight.
-- "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Re:World electricity consumption vs solar
by
ChrisMaple
·
· Score: 1
Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh... PER HOUR
Last time I checked, there was more than 1 hour of sunlight a year in most places.
-- Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:World electricity consumption vs solar
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The world consumption was also given in KWh.
You could use horsepower-months or calorie-seconds per martian year if you wanted, but as long as your world consumption and your solar energy are both given in the same units, the result is still the same.
Personally, I prefer these sorts of discussions in peak watts since it's only delivery rate that really matters. You can't store electrical power at these sorts of levels, not even with widescale deployment of reverse-pumped reservoirs.
Re:World electricity consumption vs solar
by
enslaved_robot_boy
·
· Score: 1
Ummm that is the total world consumption over one year... divide by 365.
A single 1000^2 km solar power plant could supply the world 2-5 times over.
Re:World electricity consumption vs solar
by
Morgaine
·
· Score: 1
Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh... PER HOUR
Yes indeed! And turning the question on its head, what does the "14 trillion KWh" represent, ie. has it been averaged back to KWh per hour as I assumed (which is just a power), or it it the total energy in KWh consumed over that year (2001 presumably, not circa at all). That should be easy to confirm either way since there's a huge difference between the two.
If 14 x 10^12 KWh is the actual total electrical energy consumed over the year 2001 then the ballpark figures look even better for solar devotees. Dividing it down by (24 x 365) = 8760 yields an average power requirement of 1.6 x 10^9 KW, so if our perfect square meter yields 1 KW, we need only 1,600 square Km to satisfy the world demand.
It can't be too hard to find a 40Km x 40Km empty space in Arizona.:-)
-- "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
your are a troll
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That this fairy tail it told so often does not make it true.
What about the fusion wastes?
by
PGillingwater
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'm shocked and surprised that no-one has even begun to consider the effects of fusion waste products, specifically Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. This substance has killed millions of people in the last hundred or so years, yet no one seems to DO anything about it.
According to the DHMO FAQ, this lethal substance is responsible for:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Please do your part in warning your friends of this dangerous substance.
--
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
Re:What about the fusion wastes?
by
dave420
·
· Score: 1
That's hilarious:) nice one
Re:What about the fusion wastes?
by
juhaz
·
· Score: 1
It's be much more funny if fusion actually produced water as a waste product.
Fuel Cells do however, maybe you could post your old joke there next time the matter comes up, which should be every few weeks.
Re:What about the fusion wastes?
by
Thrymm
·
· Score: 1
You had me there for a second, good joke:)
I'll be modded pedantic, but geothermal...
by
antispam_ben
·
· Score: 1
... is NOT from solar radiation, it comes from within the Earth. I forget the exact source, and there may be several (nuclear fission of raw radioactive materials, tidal forces of the Moon and Sun (and again to be pedantic, tidal forces have only to do with the masses and distanced involved, not that the Sun is sending fusion-powered radiation to the Earth).
Otherwise, point well taken for many reasons, furthermore, there may be a much stonger emphasis on "clean" (non-burning/non-CO2-producing) energy in the future: http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b38 96001_mz001.htm Even if global warming is eventualy proven not to exist, or it ends up that man-mande emissions don't contrubute to it, I think a form of Pascal's Wager applies: It's better to do something about it and find out we didn't need to, than to not do anything then find out we should have done something.
But this is still a short-term solution: the Sun's energy is constant, our ability to convert and use it on Earth is limited, and the energy consumption of Humanity is growing exponentially.
To provide more energy than the Sun give the Earth, there's the idea of the Solar Power Satellite, that I recall was widely discussed 25 years ago (one fear was that the Soviet Union would shoot it down!).
-- Tag lost or not installed.
break-even "around the corner" since 1960s
by
peter303
·
· Score: 1
The claims that workable fusion is just around the corner have been made for the past 40 years. The experiements have become multi-billion dollars- too expension for any individual country. Lasers were supposed to be the breakthough technology.
Re:break-even "around the corner" since 1960s
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Breakeven occurred in japan a couple of years ago. The problem is cost.
The cost of producing electricity the way that the Japanese did was about 10 times higher than what the average price of electricity was in Japan.
The reason it was so expensive was because the reactor used tritium + dueterium. Tritium is fairly rare, but was necessary for their reaction to start. Once they started, they could only get pulsed power for one or two pulses before having to reload, which meant that you had to wait several milliseconds for the magnetic field to die off. By the time the magnetic field died off, they had to basically restart the whole reaction.
During my graduate studies, I took part in the design of a fusion reactor for a spacecraft engine. Two major conclusions were drawn: 1) The technology is here to make fusion propulsion real... some stuff is pretty exotic (liquid lithium coolant, magnetic scrubbers on your exhaust that are at least 500 meters in length), but the idea of a fusion engine for interplanetary travel is feasible. 2) The specific impulse we used to derive our fuel requirements was for a direct mission to Europa and we used a Hohmann transfer as our baseline (absolute min), added 20% for maneuvering, and redid the fuel usage for more direct transfer orbits. We also ran a calculation on the side for a trip to Mars. We got a round trip travel time of 44 days, using the same amount of fuel as would be needed to go to Europa and burning at a higher rate.
Personally, I think no one has proposed a fusion reactor for a spacecraft engine because of cost. Once people can say that a fusion reactor powered a spacecraft, they could seriously look at making a power plant on earth (after engineering for the toxic chemicals and radioactive shells that would arise from a fusion plant). Yes, those fast neutrons both make the reactor conductive shells brittle and radioactive. Fortunately the half life is 30 years... just a bit longer than the time it takes for copper shells to become unusable.
Lodragan Draoidh The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Gee, And I thought fusion produced helium
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am sure your post was right on topic though.
You've figured it out!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great! Just slap a title page on that and submit it to the ITER folks.
how clean is fusion power?
by
peter303
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is some debate about potential fusion accidents and radiactive byproducts in a fairly balanced article here.
I remember similar claims about "cheap and clean" fission energy in the 1950s which turned out to be neither in practice. I'm not a Luddite, but we do have to anticipate problems.
Re:how clean is fusion power?
by
Strontium-90
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, there is the potential for accidents at a fusion power plant, but the scale of the damage/danger is much less than you're probably thinking. The article you linked mentions tritium leaks, lithium fires, and release of "magnetic energy". Tritium leaks can easily be contained if the building is properly designed. Lithium fires would damage the reactor, but not result in danger to the surrounding community. As for the "accidental release of magnetic energy," I can only assume they're talking about what happens when a plasma dies abruptly. If I remember correctly, the sudden absence of the plasma's magnetic field causes the tokomak to "jump" and can potentially cause electrical damage. So this would also only affect the reactor and not the surrounding community.
Basically, the difference (safety-wise) between fission and fusion is that fission is a runaway process, whereas fusion requires a large amount of energy/control/effort to keep it going. The easiest way to stop a fusion reaction is to cut off its fuel. A fusion reactor requires constant addition of deuterium/tritium to keep the reaction going. By simply cutting off the source of fuel, the reaction would naturally stop. You don't have to worry about the power plant exploding or having a nuclear meltdown when dealing with fusion.
studies
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Which studies do you cite for the reactor > replacement schedule?
I suggest you visit the pre-fusion plasma test reactors here in Germany and take one of the courses over the area here or read one of the many research projects. Searching for materials of the walls that will survive getting heavily radioactive long enough that the whole thing at least has a chance to get economic. (Even including all the state's money for reasearch and later while running, having to replace the reactor chamber too often is just not ecconomic.)
The government fusion program was from the start a badly managed program-as even its founder admits
IMHO there is a valid role for the government in technology, but it should be manily providing an incentive structure via prizes and intellectual property law. These big socialistic programs have simply not provided a lot of benefit for the money expended on them.
There will be no fusion power
by
b-baggins
·
· Score: 2, Funny
What makes you think we'll ever have fusion power? Do you honestly think that environmentalists will EVER approve the construction of a power plant that produces high-energy neutrons as a byproduct and can turn into a nuclear bomb in a runaway reaction?
The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
fusion doesn't have the risk of meltdown fission does. Break the containment and the reaction won't be able to continue.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you, but that "social hurdle" is one that shouldn't even be there. People have to realize that it is completely impossible for a fusion power plant to blow up in a runaway reaction. If the containment field goes down (if it didn't, there can't be an explosion), then the reaction ends. It cannot be sustained without the containment field. There is no such thing as a runaway fusion reaction.
And it should also be mentioned that proper plant construction (which would be necessary to ensure that the employees of the plant are not killed) can block all those high energy neutrons. No pollution. Whereas the current crop, the best power plant retrofitted with all the most expensive pollution control devices simply cannot block everything that gets into the atmosphere. So make your public choose between absolutely zero pollution with a radiation shield around the reactor core, and everyone in the country dying a slow death while the environment is destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. I think you'll notice that the social hurdles will all disappear with the administration of a few facts.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
b-baggins
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, and pebble bed fission reactors can't melt down either. Do you see any of them being built?
Um, you are aware that high-energy neutrons CREATE radioactive isotopes, right? You block them by letting them slam into stuff (usually water, where they make Deuterium and Tritium and lots of other fun isotopes from the dissolved salts and organics in the water).
ANY time you're dealing with nuclear reactions, you're going to get nuclear isotopes and radioactive waste. It's the nature of the beast, and environmentalists will be quick to point this out, and the nuclear hysteria that runs rampant in our society will ensure that no fusion reactor ever gets built in the U.S.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 1
Yes, those neutrons are blocked by the shield. And yes, they turn into deuterium and tritium. But wait! Deuterium and tritium are used as the fuel for the reaction. So that "waste" you're talking about as dangerous can be reused. In the reactor itself.
A fusion reactor cannot blow up. It's simply physically impossible. The isotopes that are output by the neutrons slamming into the shield can then be used to fuel the reactor. Compared to any other source of power, fusion is cleaner, safer, more efficient, and more stable.
People just have to be shown that fusion power is fundamentally different from fission. Fission power is basically a controlled nuclear explosion. You have to slow down the reaction to the point where it doesn't explode, and then you can extract the energy at the rate you wanted. If you screw up, it explodes. Fusion does not use the same mechanism. Plasma is heated up in a magnetic containment field until high energy particles exit their atoms and energy is extracted. It leaves negligible waste. And the reaction cannot sustain itself. It's not the same as a fusion bomb but slowed down. If you screw up, you just have to start the reaction over again. There is no danger to the surrounding area.
Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people in the media stop showing a picture of a nuclear bomb exploding when the talk about a nuclear power plant. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when people start talking about fact instead of spreading FUD without actually knowing what fusion power is. Watch that nuclear hysteria evaporate when someone manages to build one somewhere and the city it powers suddenly has no more blackouts, no brownouts, pollution goes down, and their bills are lower. If you point out to the American people that something is good, cheap, and generally kicks a lot of ass (which resonates with the populace), they'll accept it. If you keep reminding them that there's a nuclear hysteria in this nation and they should all oppose fusion power and technological advancement because they're supposed to... well, sir, that's a self fulfilling prophecy.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
b-baggins
·
· Score: 1
And tritium is radioactive.
And fission is cleaner and safer than coal, so all we have to do is SHOW people that.
You are experiencing a total disconnect from reality. You keep prattling on about the facts of fusion power. I keep telling you what the environmentalists will cause the PERCEPTIONS of fusion power to be.
They'll talk about radioactive water. They'll talk about tritium being used in fusion bombs, which are way more powerful than fission bombs. They'll talk about the million degree plasma and how it will vaporize anything in site if magnetic containment fails and how all that radioactive water will turn to steam and rain down on us from the clouds. They'll talk about how deuterium looks identical to regular water and how it would be impossible to separate from rivers and streams in case of a containment failure. Then they'll go on to state how deuterium is toxic and what it does to the human body when children drink it.
As long as environmentalists have the political power they do, you will NEVER see fusion power.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 1
No, I don't think it is I who has the problem with being disconnected from reality. You seem to really have it in for the environmentalists, which is rather strange to me. If they're not idiots, they'll love fusion power. And, regardless of your or anyone else's opinion, they are not idiots. Just because environmentalists have opposed something you wanted before does not mean they will always oppose everything. They want what's best for the environment. (Thus the title 'environmentalist.') So, instead of whining about how they always oppose everything and whining about their political clout, why not show them something? Why not give them reasons they should be supporting this? Why not try to get all that political clout on your side?
Basically, bury the hatchet with "environmentalists" and do something right.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:There will be no fusion power
by
b-baggins
·
· Score: 1
When Fusion Power becomes possible, we'll see who's right.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Cold fusion works fine
by
rlglende
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The high-energy guys don't want to admit this, and very little mainstream academic research has been done.
However, a lot of professor emeritii have been working on it. The papers don't report affiliations.
There are good reviews available via Google, convincing to all but the seriously ideological.
Lew
-- "The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
no chance for private money
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I daubt anyone would be so stupid to use private money on this. Look at fission technology: The main reason for no new reactors worldwide is not so much the environmentalists been against it, but this just beeing inevective from monatary point. The states have been pumping in money in amouts beyond good and bad, for research, in subventions for building, by tax reductions. And you still have problems getting money from it. A good example is France: the national energy company is owned by the state (otherwise it wouldn't have done the stupidity of so much atomic energy) and has debts that you could pile up and climb easily up to the mars.
What companies want is to build theese plant and sell to states or state owned/directed companies. That gives money.
(And when they already have a plant running, it is currently so old, that it is already expensed totally, so they want to keep it running.)
Of course there is still another reason, and I think that is why USA and North Korea (and perhaps also France, Israel and all the others) wanted fission technology: to get the material for bombs.
Who's the pettiest?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The real problem is that the Cadarache site HAD been voted to be the place, but after France decided not to send any troops in Irak, the US suddenly changed their mind in favor of the japanese site (oh, just after japan sent troops...)
I was interested in fusion power for a school work with a friend, and I know that because this friend of mine has a relative who is project leader on tore-supra, in cadarache, and they were quite angry with such petty behavior...
Re:Who's the pettiest?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can you back that up? I've been following this for awhile, and I've only ever read about the US supporting Japan, with the usual suspects supporting France. It is petty though, it's the same line between the same countries. Obviously for technical reasons.
Re:Who's the pettiest?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, I was pretty sure that out of all of the countries involved, and in all the time this has been going on now, the US was to blame somehow. Whew, was worried there for a sec.
-- "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Cold Fusion
by
absurdist
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Interesting that the DOE is cancelling the FIRE program only a couple of months after finally deciding a review of the substantial research in the past decade into cold fusion. (And yes, before you flame me or accuse me of hitting the crack pipe, look it up - there's been some very interesting research going on outside of the US.) And for the tinfoil hat brigade, the fact that the editor/publisher of Infinite Energy magazine was recently found murdered adds just the right dash of conspiracy.
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
Paul+Crowley
·
· Score: 1
Actually, with current design the estimated cost of fusion electricity is about double of current price. All due to huge construction costs.
Why do we need fusion, when Papa Cheney's mafia buddies keep us rolling in cheap oil and fission power too cheap to measure, that produces no pollution?
--
--
make install -not war
It is stalled because of the US
by
johannesg
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They disagreed with France as the location because of Frances opposition to the Iraq war. Of course now Europe has dug its heels into the sand and won't agree to any choice the US finds acceptable.
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
Re:It is stalled because of the US
by
Opie812
·
· Score: 0, Funny
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
If we could just figure out how to harness the hot air spewing from politicans we'd all be able to drive electric Hum-vees!
-- I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Re:It is stalled because of the US
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So we've just got to get our diplomats to strongly support anything we actually oppose, and vice-versa.
Re:It is stalled because of the US
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
we'd all be able to drive electric Hum-vees
Hum-vees? Come on..Hum-vees are for those without any style. You might as well drive a wheely-bin. I'd rather have an Aston Martin DB9. Now that's a stylish car.
Fusion? Still got the Horse and Oxen !
by
B_SharpC
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Fusion free energy will just make you more fat and lazy.
The horse and oxen will keep you fit and trim.:-)
There are not exclusively political motivations here. (And for fuck's sake, how did this get modded +4 Insightful?)
FIRE is *one* fusion research program of dozens of federally funded fusion research programs of all sorts in the US.
As for point 2, "Huh??" FIRE had a $2M/year annual budget. Again, this is but ONE of many, many, many fusion programs in the US. This isn't going to defray anything.
For point 3, now you're just getting wacko. You're implying that it's some huge trick to make people think we're cooperating internationally, but that secretly, the elitist Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Illuminati conspiracy believes that fusion will only succeed with US involvement, therefore the motivation is CLEARLY to *prevent* it from succeeded, certainly to line their pockets with money from the oil industry.
To you folks who believe this shit routinely: are you fucking serious?
To review: there are MANY fusion research programs in the US, some larger than FIRE. FIRE was just ONE program. We are NOT "abandoning" fusion research. Sheesh. Take off your fucking tinfoil bodysuit.
A different Hobbes, sort of...
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...given that Hobbes the tiger was named for Thomas Hobbes, in the same way that Calvin was named for John Calvin.
I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!
Here's a sure-fire way (no pun intended) of getting fusion power on-line quicker. Create the He Prize: $1.0 billion to the first group that can sustain a fusion reaction for a year, and have a net positive yield in energy (current reactors run at breakeven net energy yield IIRC). Startup of the reactor has to be in 9 years.
-- ****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
Just cover the Moon with photovoltaics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While you're building your lunar fusion research center, you'll need power. Cover a few dozen kilometers of lunar wasteland with photovoltaic cells and you'll have umpteen megawatts at your disposal even if you use extremely inefficient and cheap solar cell technology.
Which of course begs the question of why we're bothering with the fusion in the first place...
Re:Just cover the Moon with photovoltaics
by
Rei
·
· Score: 1
> umpteen megawatts at your disposal... during the day.
Oh, and if you're willing to foot the bill for shipping several dozen square kilometers of solar cells to the moon, be my guest. You'll want to invest in some pretty darn huge batteries, too - they'll need to last for two weeks!
Lets just assume that your solar cells average the same density as aluminum (2700kg/m^3). Lets also say that they average being 1 cm thick. And lets say that a "few dozen" is 2 dozen (oh, lets just say 25 km^2). 25 square kilometers = 25,000,000 square meters. 1 cm thick, that's 250,000 cubic meters. 675,000,000 kg. At lunar launch/landing/deployment costs of, say, 90,000$/kg, you're looking at a cool 60 trillion dollars.
Pony up!
-- Rock Us, Dukakis.
Re:Just cover the Moon with photovoltaics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You'll want to invest in some pretty darn huge batteries, too - they'll need to last for two weeks!
You need only 3 solar farms equispaced around the moon for enough power to be available around the clock. The problem lies in hooking them up into a grid. Beaming megawatts up at interconnecting satellites is probably more difficult than the first problem we're trying to solve.
At lunar launch/landing/deployment costs of, say, 90,000$/kg, you're looking at a cool 60 trillion dollars.
From your figures, clearly nobody would ever consider importing materials for such a scheme, maybe not even if a space elevator brings down the cost of getting out of Earth's gravity well by orders of magnitude. The solar energy conversion technology would have to be made from lunar materials, or not at all. While that is obviously not currently feasible, both the acquisition of materials and the construction of panels is easily within the hypothetical capabilities of hypothetical molecular nanotechnology, hypothetically speaking.:-)
Re:Just cover the Moon with photovoltaics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, I don't know how realistic that is (the cost)... shuttle is about $20000/lb. Now, that's only to low orbits, but the US shuttle is by far the most expensive cargo launch vehicle operating (well, operatED).
Re:Just cover the Moon with photovoltaics
by
Rei
·
· Score: 1
Wrong on just about everything.
The shuttle is about 20,000$/kg, not 20,000$/lb
That is to low orbits, and lunar orbits are a lot more expensive, plus you need retro-rockets and either people to deploy them or a good network of autonomous robots.
The shuttle is not the most expensive cargo launch vehicle operating, it's just not the best. There's many a thing not to like about the shuttle, but lets be realistic about our demonizations here... the shuttle only costs twice as much as our cheapest launch systems per kg, and is capable of far more versitle operations, and has a relatively good safety record (as far as space safety records go...). Now, the Russians and Chinese have some cheaper systems than our best, but their labor costs are also rather minimal - if you could get the shuttle maintained in China, it'd cost almost nothing;)
Part of the problem with the shuttle was that it was hyped so much, and cost such a fortune to develop, and then turned out to be a somewhat worse than average vehicle. That doesn't make it the Spacecraft From Hell or anything, though. And the development of the shuttle really pushed forward materials science for spacecraft.
-- Rock Us, Dukakis.
FIRE is not the US's sole fusion program
by
daveschroeder
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Huge misconceptions seem to abound here. FIRE does not represent the whole of US fusion research. There are dozens of other projects and laboratories around the country, most in academia and the national labs.
$2M/year is just for this ONE project.
The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) alone (only to be crucified by the Left...I guess you can't win).
Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.
Only on slashdot...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...is that modded +5 insightful. Say that about any other country and it's a flamebait. Love that groupthink kids.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
meadowsp
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 1
No. It's "costs us less to make the same amount of revenue." They're making a killing.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
ITAR Is More One World BLASPHEMY
by
geomon
·
· Score: 1
We don't need no stinken' FIRE from false prophets.
It is well ESTABLISHED that the WORLD will be CONSUMED by a CORONAL MASS EJECTION. This was PROPHESIZED to Charles Cagle by our LORD.
Just buy one of these handy SKYBOLT Singularity KatalYsiert Beam Output Low Temperature Fusion power devices.
Amen.
-- "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Keeping it to ourselves...
by
GuruDino
·
· Score: 1
I see it like this. We (USA) claim that we're scraping our program as we continue the research we've already started but in secret. Then we always keep that edge to hold over the rest of the world so we can get our way.
*sigh
Oh and to make it look good we join an international effort so we look good in the eyes of the science world.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Ha! I told you so...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I knew that lead tinfoil hat would come handy some day.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
mwood
·
· Score: 1
Depends on how you want to balance the equation. If your cost is less, you can take a little more profit and still undercut the competitor who hasn't got your advantage (eventually taking his customers and raking in still more profit). Or you can take it all as profit now if you're in a hurry. Or you could plow it all into temporary price cuts to drive the other guy into bankruptcy, buy his assets for cheap, then decide all over again how you want to play the next round (as a bigger player).
You *could* even decide you are earning enough on your investment and just cut prices because you are such a nice person, if you don't mind being turned out at the next annual stockholders' meeting.
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, seeing as how I'm not in charge of any "energy" (oil) companies, it is not my responsibility to make the decision. But I can point out that in the last year Exxon Mobil's profits increased by 39-40% due to decreasing gas prices. "Decreasing gas prices?" I hear you asking. Well, they're not decreasing in price at the pump, just at the barrel. These companies are now paying what they used to pay for oil, a couple of years ago, but those decreased prices have not led to consumer gas prices returning to normal levels....
Let me reiterate. Their profits went up 40% in a year. They're making a killing.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Haven't been reading your Hawking...
by
wowbagger
·
· Score: 1
A black hole the mass of the moon would not be stable - it would radiate its mass away as Hawking radiation.
Smaller black holes would radiate away faster.
Therefor, according to current theory, it would not be possible to create a black hole that would eat the moon.
Re:Haven't been reading your Hawking...
by
liamoohay
·
· Score: 1
A black hole the mass of the moon would not be stable - it would radiate its mass away as Hawking radiation.
In fact, a black hole weighing 1 million kilograms would only last about 100 seconds.
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
mwood
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Point that out to your representatives in Congress. Last time gas prices started zooming up, they zoomed right back down again, as if by magic, when Congress started making noises about finding out why.
For thoroughness, I should point out that "profits are up 40%" needs some context. If ExxonMobil earned $100 last year and $140 this year (out of umpty-ump billion dollars of revenue) then profits are up 40% but they only made enough more to throw a pizza party for the Directors. They *could* have been taking unusually low profits to hold pump prices down and prevent massive interest in (say) hydrogen, thinking they'd make it up again when their costs decreased.
If your grocer was making 1% of sales last year (and he'd be thrilled to get that much) and this year is making a killing at 1.4% of sales, his profit is up 40% too, but in context, some days it must be hard for him to remember why he opens the doors at all.
The new Halting problem
by
danratherfan
·
· Score: 1
How much good can come from a government science program before it will be terminated?
Of course, ITER should be located near JET to leverage all the existing nuclear fusion expertise... That way, fusion experts don't have to waste time travelling around the world and the money can be better spent on actually building a fully functional and profitable fusion power plant. It would also be best as they can still quickly use JET as a prototyping tool when fine-tuning the design of ITER.
Once the first one has been built, then they can argue about where to build the 2nd... 3rd... 4th etc.
footnote: AFAIK, JET (Joint European Torus) is the only reactor to achieve fusion. However, it was deliberately built too small to be useful as a power source. It is a 'technology trial'.
-- -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
You mean you haven't heard the old joke in fusion research?:
Fusion is the power supply of the future, and always will be!
(I heard that joke early in my first decade of fusion research)
Quite the opposite
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The United States still dominates high tech engineering. So Taiwanese engineers are designing new vibrating shower heads? Well so what? American engineers are working on state-of-the art computer systems and software design, flexure designs and automated manufacturing facilities, biomedical devices, etc....
Things change. I get the feeling you just work in some backwater area of engineering and you can't see the past the trees at the forest.
Re:Quite the opposite
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
unfortunately you need the experience to build the vibrating shower head before you can build the high tech version. you dont jump from one to the other instantly. it takes time and effort to develop your skillsets.
Fundemental Constant
by
tsotha
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Awhile back the Economist said 50 years and billions of dollars of fusion research has produced the fundemental constant 30. This is the number of years before we'll have commercial fusion power.
As Long as i get to be a Bounty Hunter.
by
jameskojiro
·
· Score: 1
Roaming the wast interplanetary distances looking for fugitives on Europa and Gandymede and Mars. I just wanna steer clear of Titan and Callisto.
Maybe get me a Dog and a Sidekick with an artificial arm.
Yeah that will be the life, singin them old folk blues while i am at it.
I hope someone gets this reference...
--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Re:As Long as i get to be a Bounty Hunter.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"...singin them old folk blues while i am at it."
Real Folk Blues, actually.
I hope someone gets this reference...
Not a clue...
See you space cowboy!
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
rosie_bhjp
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
well remember when Japan bombed pearl harbor in 1941?
It was clearly Mexico's fault and we should have declared war on THEM. Yeah, so they didn't fund the Japanese or give them training or intelligence or even really talk to them but that doesn't matter it was obviously their fault anyway. But instead! That liberal pissant Roosevelt decided to attack the country that ACTUALLY attacked us!? can you believe such a thing!?
Now the grand parent poster is MUCH more in line with current, and I have to say, much more advanced thinking and rationalization. That is, since the World Trade Center attacks were carried out by mostly Saudi Citizens, who were financed and supported by Al Qaeda, who get the majority of their funding from Yemeni, Iranian, and Saudi origins, who had set up rather nice camps in Afghanistan as a base of operations, it is very obvious and if you don't see this you are an ABSOLUTE MORON, that we MUST attack Iraq!
In addition! Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. No? Oh Wait. Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs! Not that either? Hmmm Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Still no dice? Oh, Iraq has Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Yeah thats it!
You still don't understand? It has NOTHING to do with oil! Its all because of Iraq's (non)involvement in 9/11 and their hideous Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs. You know they can deploy them(I don't care if they don't exist! they can still deploy them!) in 45 minutes right? Doesn't that scare you? Doesn't that SCARE you? It has nothing to do with oil. Be afraid. They have a jet fighter with a range of 450 miles. That can reach the United States! The United States is further than 450 miles from Iraq? Puh-lease! They are SNEAKY! Did you ever think they could land at Heathrow and refuel? Hmmm? HMMM?
You know he gassed his own people right? I don't care if Iraq and Iran were engaged in tit-for-tat biological attacks against each other for several months prior. I don't care if we actually helped him build the stuff. We thought he was going to make cupcakes out of it! Egg on our face for that one! I told you they were SNEAKY! It has nothing to do with oil.
I for one am glad we are protected each day and night by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I for one am glad that our president is a puppet for their interests. I for one am especially glad we have a good upstanding citizen like Bill O'Reilly to explain this all to us because this advanced thinking is beyond most of us and he makes it easy to understand!
This Demonstrates The US Energy Priorities
by
Long-EZ
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Energy is such a fundamentally important aspect of the US economy, yet the solutions seem restricted to digging up coal and drilling oil wells. Burning carbon based fuel was OK for the short haul, but there are a lot of bad consequences in the long term that are being ignored. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if anyone has a better theory than, "powerful oil companies don't want better energy sources", I'd sure like to hear it. I think the problem is, technology based solutions, especially renewable energy solutions, are difficult to monopolize and therefore difficult to control for profit. Anyone up for an open source energy solution?
Energy is so important that the US should richly fund a US fusion initiative AND the international initiative. As it is, the basic science looks promising, and attainable in 20-50 years if we were serious, but all we have now is the international fusion project, and they've been arguing for YEARS over where to build it. All politics, no science.
The US should also be promoting solar power. Yeah, it's diffuse, but it can make a HUGE difference in US energy imports and balance of trade. And solar power could greatly benefit from much larger scale. Imagine highly automated factories cranking out cheap and easy-to-use click-together solar panels for every roof surface. Every structure needs a roof, why not generate power at the same time?
And what about electric cars? The GM EV1 (aka Impact) was VERY popular with the people who leased them, but they were withdrawn by GM when they announced their long term hydrogen powered car initiative. To those who want cleaner and more efficient cars that don't require foreign oil, this looks like a decision to pacify people while cozying up to Big Oil, when a very good solution exists now.
The planet is going to run out of oil someday, and fairly soon given the rapid increase in consumption. We should be planning for that, and doing the research now, but we aren't. The US is in a position to lead in this initiative, but chooses to wait until the oil crisis is upon us, and then try to act. It's going to get very ugly within a decade or two. And that's frustrating when we could have solar power and very good electric cars today, and fusion power in 30 years.
I'm still trying to decide how much of the planet's energy problems are caused by plain old human short sightedness, and how much is Enron-style corporate greed and manipulation.
-- >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:This Demonstrates The US Energy Priorities
by
Goeland86
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad you already mentioned all this, because I was about to re-iterate most of your arguments.
What I'd like to add to it though is that there is currently NO, and I mean absolutely NO effort whatsoever to try and tell people that oil will run out one day. And it's not only the oil companies trying to slow down the effort as much as possible, it's the oil countries, and they have a really big political lever: oil price. That's why the price is rising, and I doubt it'll ever go down, the people that run those countries such as Saudi Arabia, the future government of Iraq, and all the others are trying to get as much money in their pockets as they can while they still can.
Lets be realistic, could the world be ready to work without oil in the next 5 years if there was a major global effort? Maybe not without oil, but with 95% less. We've got the technology. It's just politics preventing us from getting ready.
For the/. crowd, try getting solar panels to power your computers during the day, and then look at how much you'll save on your electricity bills... Most of the US electricity still comes from oil plants, when Switzerland produces almost 80% from turbines installed on dams. Why doesn't the US move to more nuclear to avoid immediate pollution? Politics. Why are solar panels in the US so expensive? Oil companies levering them that way, whereas Germany helps privates finance the installation of whole roofs of panels. If you want to know how to live without oil, look at European countries, nuclear plants, dams, solar panels, solar ovens, solar water heaters... All those efficient tools that save oil costs exist, but where do you look for them in the US?
Once again, this shows as you said that the US priorities are not saving on the oil bills. At least not on the political agenda, even while everyone's bitching about it, nobody buys hybrid or electric cars, going instead for the monstruous (and more dangerous) SUVs with 5,6,7 or even 8 liter engines to just drive around town. I say it's time the US admitted they were below the rest of the world and got their act together to attainable standards.
-- ----
I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
The big oil companies, those that really operate on a global basis, are "energy companies" per se but in reallity they are still mainly oil companies..
Then why is one of the largest manufacturers (and promotors) of industrial and consumer photovoltaic solar panels a division of British Petroleum?
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
ITER is stalled? HA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Fascinating how USians dont know shit about things going on in international affairs once again. It was well over a year ago when i read reports about the US suddenly pushing the Japan site after the French site had almost been agreed upon by all parties. The reason, obviously, was that France had to be punished, pfft. Apparently people take only that much of this kind of shit. It was mentioned at that time already some (euro) countries might prefer doing a smaller project on their own than give way to the US. Seems to me the US announced retreating from ITER expecting everyone to fall over, now they are coming back? Ooh, it's soo great watching the 'worlds only hyperpower' doing international politics. Up yours.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Iraq was required by the international community to prove that they no longer possessed WMD or WMD programs. According to UN resolution, Iraq's refusal to prove that they were no longer pursuing WMD is all that was required for action.
The question is should we have acted at all? If we didn't act, then Iraq and the rest of the world would have correctly assumed that the UN is an ineffectual body unable to back words with actions. Why not pursue WMD programs if no one would do anything about it?
A number of things went wrong. Iraq didn't cooperate with the UN. Our intelligence was bad. The world community didn't have the balls to force Iraq to own up to their WMD programs.
A number of things went well. Iraq no longer has the ability to produce WMD, ever. The people of Iraq can participate in their own political process with Hussein gone. We proved that our word was enforcable, with measureable results. A message was sent to "rogue" nations. Even Libya has turned over a new leaf.
Could things have gone better for the US? Yes. Could things have gone better for Iraq? Yes. Were we after the oil? No. Is the world better off now than it was before? Only time will tell.
The dream of fusion power is getting no closer. What do you mean "no closer"? The beauty of being an observer is that everything is constantly getting closer - one moment at a time.
If you had to built fusion plant yourself, every moment you spent idle would be yet another delay and the result indeed won't be getting any close. But if other people are expected to build it and you have no say in the matter, then them being idle is already factored in the expected completion date and every day indeed brings you closer to it, if you follow me...
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Public enemy #1 indeed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so you need to use your moderation points to advance your political prejudice that George Bush is public enemy number one.
Huh? There's no need for prejudice; there are enough FACTS (his track record) to state that as a fact. He is the public enemy number one for the whole planet; ahead of Osama and hilks... they are cockroaches, leeches, mosquitoes: Dubya is the warthog.
I do agree, however, that it's pointless to device unlikely conspiracy schemes WRT fusion research versus oil. Bush's actions in all areas (from bible-thumping double-standard mockery of christianity to big fuck-you notes for Kyoto protocol and beyond) are plenty to prove the point.
Re:Public enemy #1 indeed
by
Alaska+Jack
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the number one FACT you won't generally get from the general media is a simple one: Under the last few presidents nearly every environmental metric (in the U.S. at least) has improved, and under the current president, they have... continued to improve.
Kyoto is a great example. Sure, Bush has rejected the Kyoto protocols, as written. So did the Clinton Administration, and so did the entire U.S. Senate -- Democrats included.
Here's a suggestion. Do a web search for articles by Jonathan Adler (quite of few will be found on National Review's web site). Here's a good one for starters: The Erosion That Isn't.
Money quote: The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, among others, have published lengthy reports purporting to document the anti-environmental record of the current administration. Yet the charges do not hold up under scrutiny. Despite the heated rhetoric, the administration has made no significant changes to the basic environmental laws. The federal standards governing air quality, water pollution, and endangered species remain in place, and there is no proposal to do otherwise.
Another good source is The New Republic's Gregg Easterbrook. A moderate Dem and Bush critic, he nevertheless produces pretty balanced articles on the Bush administration's environmental efforts. He is harshly critical about some things, but also points out a lot of the lies the environmental lobby likes to recycle (no pun intended) about Bush.
I trust the National Review the way I believe opinions become facts if you CAPITALIZE them. I don't know what sort of "environmental metric" you're talking about, whether measuring laws, executive actions, or physical attributes of the environment. If the latter, note that the environment is an extreme lagging indicator. Changes in behavior today might not take effect for decades. (This is, of course, the reason we tend to mismanage the environment in the first place.)
If the former, perhaps you could provide a better citation? "The Erosion That Isn't" talks mostly of laws, while Bush's most egregious actions have been mostly internal to the Executive Branch, where the only observable problem is waves of professionals resigning in protest. From the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the Flathead National Forest, the erosion that *is* appears in the Bureau of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and so on.
It's barely a caricature to watch Experienced Scientist take the podium to say "Project X is bad", only to be fired and a few days later Executive Spokesperson takes over to say "Project X is good. We have sound science."
Here's some free advice. Don't read what you like, read what you hate. You'll learn more.
Re:Public enemy #1 indeed
by
Alaska+Jack
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the advice. I guess I have a few thoughts on the matter:
1. I trust the National Review the way I believe opinions become facts if you CAPITALIZE them.
Well, I don't know how much you have to trust National Review. But their website publishes a wide range of authors, and it seems to me that what really matters in this case is any individual author's command of the facts.
As it is, Adler's pieces are quite well informed and generally insightful. I don't know that it's necessary to "trust" him as much as it is to counter his facts with more relevant, pertinent facts of your own.
In fact, you might like to read a fascinating exchange Alder has with current environmental media-darling Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy had a hyperbolic, hyperventilating piece about Bush in Rolling Stone. Adler wrote a piece pointing out that many things in Kennedy's article were misleading or flat-out wrong. In response, Kennedy wrote a letter about it to National Review. Adler responded by noting that, in his letter, Kennedy didn't actually refute a single one of his (Adler's) points.
2. I don't know what sort of "environmental metric" you're talking about, whether measuring laws, executive actions, or physical attributes of the environment.
I was talking about the latter, but while we're on the subject, let's note the former as well. As Adler (and Easterbrook, FTM) note, Bush has made some decisions some environmentalists don't like. But as they also note, Bush is in a no-win situation, because he gets absolutely NO credit for other decisions that one would normally expect an environmentalist to applaud. Easterbrook, himself an environmentalist, has noted that this indiscriminate Bush-bashing is not only dishonorable, but an extremely unwise political strategy.
3. If the latter, note that the environment is an extreme lagging indicator.
I don't disagree with this. But then again, a few thoughts:
a) Does the "lagging indicator" theory get Bush any credit when applied to his pro-environment decisions? I mean, surely it works both ways?
b) On problem with this theory is that you can apply it to *anything*. All sorts of nonsensical enviromental predictions were made in the 1970s and 80s, for example (Paul Weyrich, I'm looking your way); can the now-discredit authors just say the environment is lagging, and is sure to catch up to their theories any day now?
4. If the former, perhaps you could provide a better citation?... Bush's most egregious actions have been mostly internal to the Executive Branch...
Sorry, but I don't see any of these actions -- even waves of bureaucrats "resigning in protest" -- crippling the environment. As Adler notes, federal laws governing clean air, water and so on remain in effect. The trends all continue to be positive; it just defies belief to think Bush could undermine that by reshuffling a few bureaucrats -- even if those bureaucrats are dedicated environmentalists.
And I actually provided a pretty good example of an issue constantly used to bash Bush -- the Kyoto accords. Bush has done the exact same thing Clinton did -- declined to submit it for ratfication -- but the difference is, Bush gets piloried for it.
5. Don't read what you like, read what you hate. You'll learn more.
a) First, assuming you know anything about my reading habits from a single Slashdot post is kid-level stuff. Come on.
b) Your last thought is a little hard to square with your first.
c) I would no doubt read The Nation and Mother Jones more often if they would stick to *legitimate* Bush-bashing, and not make me filter out all the *stupid* Bush-bashing.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter...
- Alaska Jack
Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources.
By concentrating only on the current uses of energy, you're making the same mistake as the early IBM executives who thought only ten computers would ever be needed - because that's how many it would take to do as much arithmetic as all the accountants in the world.
Completely missing the fact that this was all the arithmetic that was done because it was SO EXPENSIVE to do arithmetic, making other useful applications impractical. Cutting the cost of computation enabled an amazing range of additional, useful (or fun) things. (It now takes more arithmetic than the annual computation of that world full of accountants just to refresh my screen. Now think about DOOM III. B-) )
The same is true for energy.
For stareters, there's a WHOLE LOT of old trash stored in landfills and other disposal sites. Some if it is way toxic. Some is radioactive, and some of that is burning its way out of its containers and contaminating the ground water. Meanwhile, though recycling is making some progress, we're mining more minerals to make new materials - because it's often much less expensive to do it that way.
With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.
In the extreme limit, with abundant nearly-free energy, you can vaporize the entrire trash stream and run it through a mass spectrometer, separating it by element and isotope. Use the carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, plus still more energy, to feed your hydroponic farm. Use the purified metals and other elements in lieu of mining and refining more, for manufacturing feedstocks. Sort out the useful radioactives for devices that need them (i.e. smoke detectors), feed the NON-useful ones into nuclear processes that convert them to something more useful or less dangerous. Or just contain them (which you can do better when they're pure rather than a witches-brew) until they change to something more useful on their own, then separate it out again.
Abundant cheap energy is enormously enabling.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.
by
n8_f
·
· Score: 1
With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.
Why? Won't extracting new resources get the same benefit? Although I don't agree with the parent post, I think there are some very salient points in it. Our current model of resource consumption is not sustainable. That is, not only is our production of energy unsustainable, but what we do with that energy is as well. Moving to greener, more sustainable energy sources that produce more energy helps solve our problems with energy production, but we are still going to be using it to smother our crops in petroleum products, produce disposable electronics, and strip-mine our planet's resources.
I think we need to change some of our consumption patterns as well as our production methods. We need to take issues like environmental impact seriously, we can't take shortcuts, sacrificing our environment for cheaper products (like we seem to be doing with the electronics industry; some of the articles I've read on IT industrial pollution are scary). Cheaper, greener energy could make those changes easier. But without those changes, more energy is just speeding us up down the path to exhausting the planet's resources. In which case, the human race may be better off riding the fossil fuel train to the end of the line and forcing ourselves to change our consumption of natural resources.
Re:Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.
Why? Won't extracting new resources get the same benefit?
They will receive some benefit. But a lesser one. Even an unlimited amount of free energy won't get you a mineral if the ore supply is actually all used up, or pay other costs such as having to move cities, strip-mine parks, or go fifty miles deep to reach the reserves that are still there.
Then there's the disposal costs - both of the mine tailings and other unwanted products of purification, and the material that you didn't recycle. Both those costs go away (replaced by the cost of the recycling technology) when you recycle old materials rather than digging up new.
Make the cost of recycling lower and more raw materials achieve crossover, where it's cheaper to recycle than mine (at least for some major fraction of the demand). Given that energy is the main cost of automated recycling and a disproportionately smaller fraction of the cost of primary resource production, I expect that progressively cheaper energy will mean progressively more materials reach crossover.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.
by
n8_f
·
· Score: 1
They will receive some benefit. But a lesser one. Even an unlimited amount of free energy won't get you a mineral if the ore supply is actually all used up.
Yes, recycling is probably more energy dependent (although if you highly automate anything, it is going to be highly energy dependent). And that is a weakness in my contrarian argument, but the last sentence above is exactly the problem: we are rapidly going through our natural resources and pretty soon they will be all used up (or at least the easily accessible ones). Then we will have to sort through our trash to find what we need. My point is that getting closer to unlimited, free energy isn't going to cause the necessary change.
Why? Because continuing to plow through our natural resources is the easiest path. It is known tech, there are already distribution paths, it is a relatively low-risk venture. Cheaper energy isn't going to change that.
Regarding disposal costs, companies have never fully paid their disposal costs. They have gotten closer, but I still don't think they are close. We simply can't measure the full impact of the changes they have wrought. How do you put the leveling of a mountain top into dollar terms?
My point is simply that we need some serious policy changes along with greener, more abundant energy. We need to artificially lower the crossover point, we need to fund research into recycling techniques and we need to set some goals. Like recycling 30% of our waste by 2010 and 80% by 2020 (I have no idea if those are feasible). We need to fully fund the EPA, reinstate Superfund and start fully accounting for the costs of resource extraction instead of indirectly levying them on families who wind up with lead in their drinking water.
Cheaper energy can help, but it is only a better tool. We have to decide how to use it.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
so your logic is that the US action was justified because the world community didn't have the balls to force Iraq to own up to their WMD programs that did not exist since before the Gulf War? do you honestly believe that your government, your state, acts as some humanities agent in the world? please, pull your head out of your ass and look at the history of your nation.. the US supports brutal dictators when it is _in their own best interest to_.. wake the fuck up and challenge a little bit of what you are told
Time to put on the tin foil hat...
by
boy_afraid
·
· Score: 0
It could be that the government, or the people really in charge that stand in the shadows behind the government pulling the strings, want to silence this and other alternative power sources to they may continue to leverage thier pressure and hold on to power and money. We all know that Tesla could have changed the world if they government didn't crashing into his lab and stole all his documents.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican, we all lose. They aren't in charge anyways.
Personally, I think it is time...
by
fyngyrz
·
· Score: 1
...to cancel our political program.
It's been long running, but the results have been poor, and are clearly getting poorer, especially in areas that require foresight longer than the next election.
Maybe we could set up a situation where we (meaning, citizens, not politicians) can make suggestions and vote them into being instead. Think of what we'd save on politicians salaries, and on those incredible golden parachute retirements they voted themselves "in your best interests."
Why would anyone be interested in fusion energy, anyway? It's only the most important scientific pursuit outside of DNA/health research ever done by the human race.
Oh, wait... politicians. That explains it.
-- I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Funding is limited
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ITER is a big shiny toy, not a research vehicle but a demo... a very expensive demo. Id rather they would spend that money on researching other types of fusion with a greater potential pay off.
We could built a reactor today...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If we treat it as a simple engineering problem. Collect a cubic km of parafin or so and a kick as confinement building. Drop an h-bomb in the hatch and detonate; boil water; repeat.
First we need to perfect the Flux Capacitor. *Then* we need Mr. Fusion to power it.
France!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
where to put it, Japan or France? c'mon, that's easy! The Japanese devote too much of their time making really cool stuff to risk their entire nation by putting an experimental technology in their back yard, put it in France, so if something goes wrong, no one has to care too much! Japan may sulk for a little while, but they'd soon realize it's for the best.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good going!!!
Now, we should turn both left and right and eliminate the problem from Iran and Syria. These two countries are threatening America's interests and are the source of the major problems in the Middle East!!!.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This man is a troll, so we cant show his face on TV. Instead, we shall ream him with the Giver.
If there's one thing I dotn like, it's a dumb troll. Put some effort into your trollign and dont make so obvious, fucknut!
We need more oil!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fusion would be too expensive to develop. Iraq is already delivering millions of barrels a day. Iran can supply millions more. Why develop energey technology when military technology will do?
Quick Update, from Duane Chapman's Enviromental Economics; 2000, p132.
Source:Cost per kWg
Solar Photo-Cell$.50
Solar Thermal$.33*
Wood$.12
Wind$.09**
Nuclear$.09
Coal$.06
Hydro$.06***
* author notes that cost estimates are as low as $.08 from some sources, and that at any rate, should decline around $.07 annually.
** I think this has gone down since 2000
*** By this I believe he means dams, not newer tidal systems.
Finally, these rates do not include government incentives for alternative fuel.
Quick Update, from Duane Chapman's Enviromental Economics; 2000, p132. Source / Cost per kWh Solar Photo-Cell / $.50 Solar Thermal / $.33* Wood / $.12 Wind / $.09** Nuclear / $.09 Coal / $.06 Hydro / $.06*** * author notes that cost estimates are as low as $.08 from some sources, and that at any rate, should decline around $.07 annually. ** I think this has gone down since 2000 *** By this I believe he means dams, not newer tidal systems. Finally, these rates do not include government incentives for alternative fuel.
Research is good, but not fusion research
by
jopet
·
· Score: 0
We really had enough of it already. For more than 50 years these people keep telling us that the breakthrough is just around the corner. They still have got nothing except a lot of hitech-waste and many many articles in popular science magazines. This has cost billions of dollars. Invest the same money into researching renewable energies and feasable alternatives to oil and you will be more successful. The "dream" of fusion energy is an now an anachronism from the times where people thought everything was solvable by hightech and big machines. Stop the madness - it already had been going on for too long.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Agreed.
Good.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let's make us more dependent on Arab oil. I heard they really need some money to fund more [religious] schools and poor families [of suicide bombers] and scientific research [to make nukes].
It's not the end of Nuclear Fusion
by
NCFlipper
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know, ITER isn't the only other fusion programme going on. ITER follows on from, in particular, the JET programme based at Culham (near Oxford, England). IIRC the technology is based around a toroidal confinement (tokomak?) design.
ITER was proposed years ago. The problem, for a long time, has been that America didn't want to be involved, especially if ITER was not built in the States. Hence the FIRE programme is partly a case of America going it alone, and in that sense its cancellation is a good thing. ITER needs the involvement of all of the science community, inclusive of Japan, Europe, Canada and the States (forgive me if I've forgotten other major players, these were the ones I remembered without consulting a reference). Such expensive projects will suffer from dividing the funding into separate efforts: look at Fermilab which competes with CERN, and there is evidence that if both continue to go it alone, the next (much larger) accelerators may never be built.
And don't go thinking that that's the end of American innovation in nuclear fusion. There is other research being carried out into alternatives to the toroidal confinement design. At the very least there is the work on Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) being carried out at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL - sorry about all the acronyms). This project involves the compression of tritium pellets using several high-energy lasers. The approach is radically different from the work at ITER/FIRE. Funding of such a project makes a lot more sense than funding FIRE; instead of spending money duplicating research, the money goes towards funding a diversity of research. Evolution of the best technology happens faster that way.
So to me the future still looks promising. Nuclear fusion is a technology that needs to be shared worldwide, and before more countries decide that burning yet more fossil fuels is a more accessible way of generating electricity. More prudent use of the financial resources available to develop Fusion can only be a good thing.
Your math/units are all wrong!
by
enkidu
·
· Score: 1
Max solar energy falling on 1m^2 = 1KW
14x10^12 KWh / 365 days / 24 hours = 1.6x10^10^9 KW average consumption rate.
1 km^2 = 10^6 m^2 which generates 10^6KW
1.6 x 10^3 km^2 required for world energy needs at 100% or a plot of land, 40km x 40 km constantly operating at max solar energy (obviously not reasonable). Make it 16% efficient and operate only 1/4 of the day you need an area about 25 times bigger or 200km x 200km. Plenty of those around, especially in New Mexico and thereabouts.
--
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Antarctica needs power. What better place to build an international facility than in international territory? It's either Antarctica or one of the major oceans...
-- Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL, FUNNY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ah... Maybe anti-matter IS the answer.
Cost of infrastructure vs. Fuel
by
HornWumpus
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about gasoline refinerys.
But for power (an industry I worked in for years) the costs of new non-nuclear plants is largely lost vs the cost of fuel. Obviously this is a generalization, less true for cheap fuel.
Over anything other then the short term they have to think of refinery costs as ongoing. I guarantee they can come up with the capital to build oil-shale plants if that remains economical. I've heard figures of Alberta Oil shale producing at a cost of around $18/barrel. What was oils last close? ($45 or thereabouts) How much oil shale is there? Guess I should have splurged on the V-10 truck.
My point is at current costs alternative fuels are already coming. Watch for the Saudis to drive prices down to cut off the competition (as has been there past pattern). Of course they are (cue cheesy evil music) fossil fuels. Good stuff that.
-- John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
since it is the home of both SCO group AND Sen. Orin Hatch. A completely dry Salt Lake can remind Utahians about the "pillars of salt" left after destruction of Soddom & Gomorrah.
(Oh, wait... must give Novell a chance to move away from "ground zero"... )
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
imaginate
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.
More power for the world means quicker resource consumption.
Not necessarily. Recycling most resources takes energy. It seems to me that electricity spent on cleaning waste water is well spent. Etc.
Recycling resources means using them more efficiently. This sounds a lot like "increase the entropy of the universe" to me, but if we bring on the heat death of the universe a couple of year earlier, I think that is acceptable.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
vandan
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
'These people', eh? Which people? The Iraqis?
'You Americans' seem to have a difficulty in fathoming that there is more to the world than 'everything that is not American'.
Just because some Saudi terrorists ( with the full backing of the Bush family ) decided to blow up on of your buildings, you don't have the right to invade whatever frigging country you choose, claiming that it was 'them' who did it. It was NOT 'them' ( Iraqis ), it was 'them' ( Saudis ).
Clear?
How daft do they come in your parts, anyway?
Depends on how you define "a few".
by
Chmcginn
·
· Score: 1
This site seems to say that "However, the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be 10^71 M^3 seconds".So it would depend on the size of the initial black hole - A black hole of mass of about 3*10^6kg (or a little more than 10^-24 the sun - say, the space shuttle) would last about a second. One a hundred times that size would last for a week - more than enough time to swallow the whole moon. The moon, at about 10^-9 of the mass of the sun, would take about 10^44 seconds to radiate away.
-- Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The National Ignition Facility is a bomb program
by
Animats
·
· Score: 1
Inertial fusion, as funded by DOE, is a bomb program. It's aimed at studying pulsed fusion events for bombs, not the continuous reactions needed for a power plant. DOE admits this:
"Currently, much of our research plays a key role in the DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the U.S. nuclear deterrent without performing underground nuclear testing."
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How the hell can this be considered 'insightful'? Saudi Arabia declared war on the US you muppet! Virtually all the hijackers were Saudi's! Not one of them, or any of the organizers were Iraqi.
Slashdot Mirror
That way, we get two programs in one.
...
Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.
Or something
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I think that this may get fusion closer becouse now the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own. One good project instead of two half good projects.
Unfortunatly, many brilliant plasma physists are now out of work and have no income in Russia. Here is a link to one of the institutes that previously was funded laviously by the Soviet Union, but since its dissolvement, it now is a shadow of its former self.
A shame.
--sig fault--
Fusion, pfft. I wanna see dark matter power reactors.
Clarington,Canada; Vandellòs, Spain; Cadarache, France; and Rokkasho-mura, Japan.
Clarington and Vandellòs were withdrawn. But by the rate they're going, Japan and France might be blown off as well.
More info from ITER's site.
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
I believe one of the options was France, which I would assume is also good for the Americans, for the same reasons as the countries above. ....
But theyre getting upset about it
I dont know, no consistency these Americans.
Give it to the Axis of Cheese Eaters (TM).
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Which is a great shame, because it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
and/or
b) the world running out of fuels before finding adequate replacement and reverting to a state of pre-industrial, Mad-Max-style savagery.
So, in conclusion, I reckon that if our respective governments aren't willing to fund proper fusion research, then they should at least get working on the Thunderdome.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
The US has put its fusion program on ice and has created a new form of Cold Fusion!
ba da dum
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Sadly, I see the same same type of international jockying over the site selection for this project as I do when I watch the UN in action. International cooperation sounds good, but seldom is very efficient. Just look at the International Space Station for another example. In my mind, this project has unlimited potential. However, it will most likely never be realized do to such squabbling.
*Yawn.
How long has this project been around now, 3 years? I don't see very much cooperation, and it doesnt look good if they havent been able to even agree on a site placement. I believe that any international cooperation should be tempered by a large dose of realism. Sad but true.....
Peace, Dusty
Considering Tokamak based fusion plants will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the near future ITER seems like a waste of money, wasting time talking is a very good alternative to actually building the thing IMO. As they say, they basically have the science needed to build it. It is just about engineering and acquiring knowhow, not fundamental research.
... but it is comparitively cheap at least, it will be interesting to see how MTF turns out).
Personally I find spending that much money to acquire the knowhow to build something you wouldnt want to build commercially a waste of good money. Give more money to La Sandia instead for their pulsed fusion research (yeah yeah, I know it hasnt produced anything worthwhile either
This smells like it has the beginings of another ISS type fiasco.
With almost all things 'International' being done for the sake of individual national glory while shifting costs to others, one would wonder if it is wise to depend solely on such an international effort.
The world needs to break free from fossle feuls as a source of energy, and i think competition would drive the effort faster then arguing over stupid things like where to put a building.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Yet Another Pissing Match?
It seems these days there is a battle of EU vs US (and others). One side wants France. One Japan. Science waits.
I say, pick a desolate area in Asiatic Russia. Land will be cheap (if not already polluted), and the scientists will have less outside distractions. And the EU faction can claim victory even though it will be geographically closer to the Japan land area.
The goal is to get clean, enconomically viable fusion WORKING. Not to see who has the facility.
Both camps (Japan and France) have offered to take up half the costs to build in their locale. Answer is obvious. Take the original planned investment, and give half to each camp, and build 2. We'd probably learn alot more from having them both, and we could explore different options in the building process. And we could finally get to work and start seeing news on slashdot about the progess instead of the squabbling
Until ventures such as these are privately funded? A private company with a LOT of monetary resources could stand to make a LOT more if you ask me.
Oh. It's already there. Time for lunch.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Look at projects where only one dominates, or there is only one branch.
Money gets spent well, but inovation is lacking.
On the other hand look at some of the projects that have multiple incarntions, some would say people should have reuesed code and not wasted so much time, but the projects combined would be more advanced than a loan project.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility
This reminds me of a passage from of a Woody Allen book I read. Two professors chasing and hitting each other with umbrellas over the campus area in order to settle the dispute on whether the bell marks college end or break begin.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Hey, maybe this has something to do with the DOE's current re-evaluation of cold fusion...or the much-discussed sonofusion results...
You guys sound like there is terrible risk with fusion plant... and argue where far away you should put it (moon, North Korea, Iran... "if not already polluted" and so on). You do not seem to understand what you are talking about!
What is the waste that comes from fusion plant? Can it blow up with chain reaction?
The walls of the plant will in time get active. And the problem with fusion is that we can not have a sustainable raction going on - if it gets out of hand it'll just die.
Sad to see USA close their project. I just hope this makes to remaining project that much better with more resources... at least in theory.
...that a black hole would consume the sun as well, right? The best thing you could do with a black hole, is to stay the hell away from it. Of course, if you can compress the moon to an object less than 0.05455mm (yes, millimeters) in radius , I think there's some wierd shit going on already...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Put it on the Moon.
It's worth examining this proposition at face value for pros and cons, rather than immediately discounting it.
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?
Questions like those are probably more likely to be of interest than any handwaving about danger from black holes.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I see this possibly as the DOE saying to Congress, "Okay, you neoluddite twits, go ahead and deny funding to ITER. I dare ya. Then the US will be the only country save freaking TOGO that doesn't have fusion reactors and plentiful, cheap power in 2040."
Probably won't work, Congress is too short-term-focused, as elected officials tend to be. But it's a spirited attempt.
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
What a big fat waste of time fusion research is, what a white elephant, what a dead end road.
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously, and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Cold Fusion's another one with bad press but proven real world results (go and actually check it out rather than believing the big-media stories).
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
AlexK
But we can't build anything there, they're soverign countries and we don't have any bases inside... oh, I see where you're going with this.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
I know this is US-centric slashdot. But why has
fusion to be called clean? It will generate large
amounts of radioactive waste. (Show me a single
concept that will not need the reactor chamber
get replaced every dozen years because the radioactivity has weakened the material too much,
the concepts currently in planing seem to even
shorten that as they get energy out of neutrons)
It is a nice concept to finally have when mankind does extrastellar travels or on far away planats when the sun is too far away. Nothing to actually
use on out planet.
and we're never going to get around to exploiting solar energy as long as we remain terrestrial - there's simply not enough energy hitting the earth to supply our needs. We need to get that space elevator built and get those orbital solar satellites running pronto!
-BbT
... but is anyone here actually aware of the fact that fusion, should it ever work, is not going to solve any of our problems?
Please everybody stop dreaming of fusion and use your resources (intellectual and monetary) on techonlogies like solar power, ....
My 2 cents.
The story was the other way around.
;)
The US stopped cooperating in the ITER project and directed all the money to FIRE.
What a world
Privacy is terrorism.
From the article, it'd seem US is not abandoning its own fusion program, just its try at magnetically confined fusion.
Actually, main target for US fusion research has been inertially confined fusion, while the rest of the world has been studying mostly magnetic confinement (Tokamak et al). The big deal with inertia confinement is the fact it's actually a bit like exploding a series of miniature fusion bombs to produce energy, whereas magnetical confinement doesn't have any resemblance to weapons.
Now, ask yourselves: which technology you'd rather see made available to most industrialized countries when fusion becomes feasible?
While it is sad to see this program closed, the USA has at least 1 other fusion project active.
NIF, National Ignition Facility
http://www.llnl.gov/nif/
Check it out!
Yes, but Congress is the same way. So is any democratic political structure. The squabbling is useful to get all opinions aired. Sometimes it's not very productive. But the ability to air different views is always very important.
The day the UN/Congress/et al starts unanimously agreeing to everything will be a very sad (and suspicious) day indeed.
Lies about crimes
"Energy companies" that own a lot of oil wells tend to be "energy companies" that are quite keen on protecting the value of their investments.
And if fusion delivered what fission failed to - energy too cheap to meter - you can bet it wouldn't be long before significantly less oil was going into automobiles of one sort or another.
Xenu loves you!
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources. The assumption being that Fusion power won't so much replace oil, coal, and nuclear but rather just become a new way to generate power.
We already generate enough power world-wide. The reason we worry about power needs is because, (1) development perpetually accelerates industry's demands, and (2) we don't take energy conservation seriously.
The clue that something is wrong is in the words "perpetually accelerates". How can one earth, a closed system, sustain ever-increasing amounts of wastes produced by industrial throughputs? This is obviously not a sustainable practice. In other words it's not the lack of energy that's going to kill us, but rather the byproducts of what we process using that energy.
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
It's amazing how people keep thinking that fusion will somehow be clean, because AFAIK all the current processes being considered produce a lot of radiation. I think the real problem is that politicians and civil servants want centralised power generation because it puts them in control. Fully distributed power generation would actually greatly weaken central government, as would a mobile population.
The fact that distributed power is more resilient to external attack (it's very hard to destroy all of a wind farm or a significant fraction of small solar plants with conventional weapons, whereas it is all too easy to destroy any feasible form of nuclear or oil based plant) ought to make it attractive to governments, but their military planners want to be able to take out the opposition too.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
In an ideal world, research like this would be done by an internationally funded, politically independant organisation. When the research was done the technology should be public domain - free for all to use. No patents, no licensing.
But unfortunately politics and economic interests again gets in the way and science suffers yet again.
There will never be fusion as long as oil sits in the presidential chair..
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
TOGO considered harmful ?
Follow the money, people. Who is going to be hurt if fusion becomes viable?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
Why isn't private enterprise operating massive solar farms in the many extremely sunny desert areas of the US, and selling power to the national grid? It's not as if the US had an excess of power currently, quite the opposite.
You'd think that solar power would have great earning potential, since like hydroelectric there is no fuel cost, and the lack of continuous output must have been solved already or there would be no wind farms. Unlike either of those two though, it has extreme potential for growth. Why no takeup?
there's simply not enough energy hitting the earth to supply our needs
... sigh.
OMG, you don't know just how wrong you are, by umpteen orders of magnitude!
It would barely take the energy falling on a few hundred square miles of desert to supply the entire electricity requirement of the planet. It's one of the incongruous aspects of mankind's approach to technology and power than nobody is trying to harness it in a big way.
No doubt this is related to oil and big fortunes
Look up in the sky, during the hours of about 8a.m. to 8p.m. (shorter in some lattitudes, YMMV). Solar energy capture, including photovoltaic, photothermal, geothermal, tidal and wind are all very clean, very economical means to harness this. Chemical stores such as petroleum, are not so good.
Harness the sun. It's free. It's dependable. It's not owned by evildoers (Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc.).
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
1.) RTFA: FIRE is one of many fusion research projects in the U.S. This article gives the impression that we just 'gave up' on this whole crazy fusion thing. This is far from true...
2.) Fusion is NOT LIKE IN SPIDERMAN 2. Go read this: Fusion Basics at PPPL
3.) ITER is the next step towards a steady state or 'burning' plasma. This is (obviously) a critical part of building a production-class fusion reactor.
- Justin
Also there'll be a cool biker chick to document the results, and we'll be able to see the images here on slashdot =)
OK Bad joke I know. Sorry to all you Russians out there.... But.... probably there are lots of areas in Russia that don't have anyone living there. It's a big country!!
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Silly fools. How soon they forget the lessons of Mars and how
never mind. you didn't read this. I wasn't here.
CERN, Red Cross, NATO...
Actually, with current design the estimated cost of fusion electricity is about double of current price. All due to huge construction costs.
This is bound to change, not by fusion getting cheaper but by other energy becoming more expensive as supply can't keep up with the demand.
I think the reality of fusion power is not getting any closer, whereas the dream would seem to have already arrived, taken off it's shoes and asked whats for dinner.
I just hope fusion engineers/scientists are not like computer programmers (me included).
*Boom*
Aaah I see, yep, yep, yep, thought so, no no problem, can we schedule a test for next week? Yep, gimme a minute i'll check the calculations...
*Bigger Boom*
Ooooh, mmmm mmm, yep, no - that's good, we are doing something right, that was definately different, lets hope we don't get a BlackHoleException, yeah, I'd throw a try/catch around that whole nasty business there... *vague pointing*
*fading image of old tv screen switching off*
*smacks head* d'oh! Oh well at least the moon base survived...
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
The U.S. was once the mecca of science in the world. Students flocked here from many other countries to learn from the best teachers and to work in the best facilities. Great experiments were conducted into the nature of matter at places like the Berkeley physics lab, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Pioneering visionaries planned, funded, and executed great projects like the manned landings on the Moon. Nuclear energy was exploited, with all its pros and cons.
Today, the U.S. has retreated from its leadership role and now tries to participate in science on the cheap, by roping in questionable allies such as France and China to help pay for experiments such as ITER that once would have been a purely American sandbox. The already meagre space budget has been sapped by an irrelevant and compromised space station and the oversold space shuttle. The president has barred the funding of promising biological research using embryonic stem cells, thus driving stem cell researchers to other countries to continue their work, and communities across the country are forcing schools to teach "creationism" in biology courses. School kids avoid hard subjects like science and foreign graduate students in the sciences are now the majority--and will they want to stay after they graduate?
In my opinion, the U.S. should turn its attention to science once again and realize that it is in a race with Europe and east Asia to regain and retain the critical lead in science and technological development. The nationstates and alliances of nations which stay focused on scientific achievement will be the economic leaders of the 21st century, while the lazy others will fall behind and become irrelevant.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
But now we need a study on whether to use english or metric units. Or we could use both. On second thought, let's just throw it into the sun now.
I'm not a doctor, but I play one in bed.
on the page it reads:
The President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term energy priority for our Nation.
DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan February, 2004
Heh. Any one else amused by that? That 2 mil/year really shows how important the program is. And cancelling the program is even better.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
There is a hot fusion research facility in Princeton, NJ. My understanding is that the facility has done good work since its inception.
I would hate to see such efforts scrubbed. Whatever happens with fusion research, I would like to see such teams and facilities continue to advance their work and contribute towards their research.
Sam Nitzberg
1. Producing cheap, reliable energy would take all the profits away from big oil, who have Bush in their pocket.
2. Diverting money from this program will help defray the costs of the war.
3. Saying we'll "rely on the global effort" is brilliant- It shows that we're a "global player," yet they probably believe that it won't happen without U.S. effort. (whether or not it's true)
Canada, or the Sahara Desert.
WAY out in the middle of the sticks.
That way if it goes boom, not as many people need to translocate. If they get it working, Canada could definately benefit from the power sales.
It just wouldn't work that well here in the US. Too many shady businesses and Unions to ever even get the project off the ground.
"If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
Oh, "too cheap to meter" never happens. We build better meters faster than we overtake them with falling commodity prices.
I remember when comm. satellites were going to make long-distance telephony too cheap to meter. Look around: lots of telcos meter every call you make, across the globe or over the fence.
What *does* happen is "costs us less to make the same amount of profit."
The worst threat to the oil companies is a new source of near-free power. Kinda predictable that the oil president is in power when this is cancelled.
They must have been getting close to success with the project, big oil had no choice but to kill it.
The perfect location would be just outside Chernobyl. I mean, as a species, we've already f'ed that up more than any other place. If anything goes wrong, short of an out-of-control blackhole, who would notice?
:)
Or there's always New Jersey.
More information, including plans, is available at Fusor.net.
Now, there are a number of technologies that you could potentially use to do this, from the mundane pumped hydropower, through a whole variety of steadily more exotic technologies like flow batteries, fuel cells, and superconducting current rings, but until they get cheap you can only use intermittent energy sources as a small fraction of your grid.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
While thin, the moon does have an atmosphere. I'm sure that it would still be easier and cheaper to achieve near vacuum conditions there.h tml
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9826.
ITER kinda sound safer than FIRE..
Please get real. Fusion is not going to pay off in the next quarter you know. You want to find private billions for something which MAYBE will pay off 50 years from now? Good luck searching, but I'm not holding my breath.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Give any scientist who is willing to devote their life to any project as much funding as they need. There should be X-Prizes for everything.
Regardless, even accounting for all the tragic deaths from CHernobyl, EUrope (FRance, in particular) still has cleaner power than the primary power source in AMerica. I would gladly trade the coal fire plant nearby for a nuclear plant; the waste is much easier to contain, even if it is more dangerous. Fusion reactors would be much better, of course -- but many malign nuclear power and install designs that are much more harmful to the environment. Also, "clean" natural gas power plants don't seem so clean when we have to go to war to fuel them.
Summary: Many, many, many more people have died for non-nuclear power supplies, than in nuclear disasters. The environment has been much more damaged by non-nuclear power supplies as well.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Now the manufacturing jobs are flying overseas as American consumers line up for ever-cheaper disposable gadgets at Wal-Mart. There's no real drive to be a technological powerhouse because the technology wouldn't be used here anyway. We've been told for years that we're going to become a service-sector company, and apparently I'm in the minority of folks that are scared crapless by that particular notion.
I'm one of a dying breed - an American manufacturing engineer. Within my lifetime I expect to see that particular job class go the way of the dodo. There will still be thousands of manufacturing engineers - it's just that they'll all be in Taiwan, China, and India.
Until that trend stops, there will be no reason for America to focus on technological advancement.
A few relevant ballpark figures might help the discussion:
:-) [For a start, 100% conversion efficiency isn't even theoretically possible.] However, on a smaller national scale, there's no doubt that there is a lot of energy available in sunlight.
World electricity consumption circa 2001: under 14 trillion KWh (14 x 10^12)
Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh
Minimum area of land needed to supply world demand at 100% conversion: 14 million Km^2, or 14 solar farms of 1,000 x 1,000 Km each.
Before anyone gets carried away, this doesn't lead directly to a plan for converting the world to solar by siting 14 farms in the world's deserts.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
That this fairy tail it told so often does not make it true.
According to the DHMO FAQ, this lethal substance is responsible for:
Please do your part in warning your friends of this dangerous substance.
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
... is NOT from solar radiation, it comes from within the Earth. I forget the exact source, and there may be several (nuclear fission of raw radioactive materials, tidal forces of the Moon and Sun (and again to be pedantic, tidal forces have only to do with the masses and distanced involved, not that the Sun is sending fusion-powered radiation to the Earth).
8 96001_mz001.htm
Otherwise, point well taken for many reasons, furthermore, there may be a much stonger emphasis on "clean" (non-burning/non-CO2-producing) energy in the future: http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3
Even if global warming is eventualy proven not to exist, or it ends up that man-mande emissions don't contrubute to it, I think a form of Pascal's Wager applies: It's better to do something about it and find out we didn't need to, than to not do anything then find out we should have done something.
But this is still a short-term solution: the Sun's energy is constant, our ability to convert and use it on Earth is limited, and the energy consumption of Humanity is growing exponentially.
To provide more energy than the Sun give the Earth, there's the idea of the Solar Power Satellite, that I recall was widely discussed 25 years ago (one fear was that the Soviet Union would shoot it down!).
Tag lost or not installed.
The claims that workable fusion is just around the corner have been made for the past 40 years. The experiements have become multi-billion dollars- too expension for any individual country. Lasers were supposed to be the breakthough technology.
I am still waiting for my Mr Fusion equipped DeLorean...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I am sure your post was right on topic though.
Great! Just slap a title page on that and submit it to the ITER folks.
There is some debate about potential fusion accidents and radiactive byproducts in a fairly balanced article here. I remember similar claims about "cheap and clean" fission energy in the 1950s which turned out to be neither in practice. I'm not a Luddite, but we do have to anticipate problems.
> Which studies do you cite for the reactor
> replacement schedule?
I suggest you visit the pre-fusion plasma test
reactors here in Germany and take one of the courses over the area here or read one of the
many research projects. Searching for materials
of the walls that will survive getting heavily
radioactive long enough that the whole thing
at least has a chance to get economic. (Even including all the state's money for reasearch and
later while running, having to replace the reactor chamber too often is just not ecconomic.)
IMHO there is a valid role for the government in technology, but it should be manily providing an incentive structure via prizes and intellectual property law. These big socialistic programs have simply not provided a lot of benefit for the money expended on them.
What makes you think we'll ever have fusion power? Do you honestly think that environmentalists will EVER approve the construction of a power plant that produces high-energy neutrons as a byproduct and can turn into a nuclear bomb in a runaway reaction?
The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The high-energy guys don't want to admit this, and very little mainstream academic research has been done.
However, a lot of professor emeritii have been working on it. The papers don't report affiliations.
There are good reviews available via Google, convincing to all but the seriously ideological.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
...from the Legal lunar landowners when you destroy their property.
I daubt anyone would be so stupid to use private money on this. Look at fission technology: The main reason for no new reactors worldwide is not so much the environmentalists been against it, but this just beeing inevective from monatary point. The states have been pumping in money in amouts beyond good and bad, for research, in subventions
for building, by tax reductions. And you still have problems getting money from it. A good example is France: the national energy company is owned by the state (otherwise it wouldn't have done the stupidity of so much atomic energy) and has debts that you could pile up and climb easily up to the mars.
What companies want is to build theese plant and sell to states or state owned/directed companies. That gives money.
(And when they already have a plant running, it is currently so old, that it is already expensed totally, so they want to keep it running.)
Of course there is still another reason, and I think that is why USA and North Korea (and perhaps also France, Israel and all the others) wanted fission technology: to get the material for bombs.
The real problem is that the Cadarache site HAD been voted to be the place, but after France decided not to send any troops in Irak, the US suddenly changed their mind in favor of the japanese site (oh, just after japan sent troops...)
I was interested in fusion power for a school work with a friend, and I know that because this friend of mine has a relative who is project leader on tore-supra, in cadarache, and they were quite angry with such petty behavior...
Did any of you mods see the movie?
It's a joke, laugh.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Interesting that the DOE is cancelling the FIRE program only a couple of months after finally deciding a review of the substantial research in the past decade into cold fusion. (And yes, before you flame me or accuse me of hitting the crack pipe, look it up - there's been some very interesting research going on outside of the US.) And for the tinfoil hat brigade, the fact that the editor/publisher of Infinite Energy magazine was recently found murdered adds just the right dash of conspiracy.
Actually, with current design the estimated cost of fusion electricity is about double of current price. All due to huge construction costs.
Cite?
Xenu loves you!
Why do we need fusion, when Papa Cheney's mafia buddies keep us rolling in cheap oil and fission power too cheap to measure, that produces no pollution?
--
make install -not war
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
Fusion free energy will just make you more fat and lazy. The horse and oxen will keep you fit and trim. :-)
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
How can you get mod points for government policy? I could really use a few right now.
There are not exclusively political motivations here. (And for fuck's sake, how did this get modded +4 Insightful?)
FIRE is *one* fusion research program of dozens of federally funded fusion research programs of all sorts in the US.
As for point 2, "Huh??" FIRE had a $2M/year annual budget. Again, this is but ONE of many, many, many fusion programs in the US. This isn't going to defray anything.
For point 3, now you're just getting wacko. You're implying that it's some huge trick to make people think we're cooperating internationally, but that secretly, the elitist Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Illuminati conspiracy believes that fusion will only succeed with US involvement, therefore the motivation is CLEARLY to *prevent* it from succeeded, certainly to line their pockets with money from the oil industry.
To you folks who believe this shit routinely: are you fucking serious?
To review: there are MANY fusion research programs in the US, some larger than FIRE. FIRE was just ONE program. We are NOT "abandoning" fusion research. Sheesh. Take off your fucking tinfoil bodysuit.
...given that Hobbes the tiger was named for Thomas Hobbes, in the same way that Calvin was named for John Calvin.
I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Here's a sure-fire way (no pun intended) of getting fusion power on-line quicker. Create the He Prize: $1.0 billion to the first group that can sustain a fusion reaction for a year, and have a net positive yield in energy (current reactors run at breakeven net energy yield IIRC). Startup of the reactor has to be in 9 years.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
While you're building your lunar fusion research center, you'll need power. Cover a few dozen kilometers of lunar wasteland with photovoltaic cells and you'll have umpteen megawatts at your disposal even if you use extremely inefficient and cheap solar cell technology.
...
Which of course begs the question of why we're bothering with the fusion in the first place
Huge misconceptions seem to abound here. FIRE does not represent the whole of US fusion research. There are dozens of other projects and laboratories around the country, most in academia and the national labs.
$2M/year is just for this ONE project.
The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) alone (only to be crucified by the Left...I guess you can't win).
Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.
...is that modded +5 insightful. Say that about any other country and it's a flamebait. Love that groupthink kids.
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
No. It's "costs us less to make the same amount of revenue." They're making a killing.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
We don't need no stinken' FIRE from false prophets.
It is well ESTABLISHED that the WORLD will be CONSUMED by a CORONAL MASS EJECTION. This was PROPHESIZED to Charles Cagle by our LORD.
Just buy one of these handy SKYBOLT Singularity KatalYsiert Beam Output Low Temperature Fusion power devices.
Amen.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I see it like this. We (USA) claim that we're scraping our program as we continue the research we've already started but in secret. Then we always keep that edge to hold over the rest of the world so we can get our way. *sigh Oh and to make it look good we join an international effort so we look good in the eyes of the science world. Of course, I could be wrong.
I knew that lead tinfoil hat would come handy some day.
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Depends on how you want to balance the equation. If your cost is less, you can take a little more profit and still undercut the competitor who hasn't got your advantage (eventually taking his customers and raking in still more profit). Or you can take it all as profit now if you're in a hurry. Or you could plow it all into temporary price cuts to drive the other guy into bankruptcy, buy his assets for cheap, then decide all over again how you want to play the next round (as a bigger player).
You *could* even decide you are earning enough on your investment and just cut prices because you are such a nice person, if you don't mind being turned out at the next annual stockholders' meeting.
Well, seeing as how I'm not in charge of any "energy" (oil) companies, it is not my responsibility to make the decision. But I can point out that in the last year Exxon Mobil's profits increased by 39-40% due to decreasing gas prices. "Decreasing gas prices?" I hear you asking. Well, they're not decreasing in price at the pump, just at the barrel. These companies are now paying what they used to pay for oil, a couple of years ago, but those decreased prices have not led to consumer gas prices returning to normal levels. ...
Let me reiterate. Their profits went up 40% in a year. They're making a killing.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
A black hole the mass of the moon would not be stable - it would radiate its mass away as Hawking radiation.
Smaller black holes would radiate away faster.
Therefor, according to current theory, it would not be possible to create a black hole that would eat the moon.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Point that out to your representatives in Congress. Last time gas prices started zooming up, they zoomed right back down again, as if by magic, when Congress started making noises about finding out why.
For thoroughness, I should point out that "profits are up 40%" needs some context. If ExxonMobil earned $100 last year and $140 this year (out of umpty-ump billion dollars of revenue) then profits are up 40% but they only made enough more to throw a pizza party for the Directors. They *could* have been taking unusually low profits to hold pump prices down and prevent massive interest in (say) hydrogen, thinking they'd make it up again when their costs decreased.
If your grocer was making 1% of sales last year (and he'd be thrilled to get that much) and this year is making a killing at 1.4% of sales, his profit is up 40% too, but in context, some days it must be hard for him to remember why he opens the doors at all.
How much good can come from a government science program before it will be terminated?
Of course, ITER should be located near JET to leverage all the existing nuclear fusion expertise... That way, fusion experts don't have to waste time travelling around the world and the money can be better spent on actually building a fully functional and profitable fusion power plant. It would also be best as they can still quickly use JET as a prototyping tool when fine-tuning the design of ITER.
Once the first one has been built, then they can argue about where to build the 2nd... 3rd... 4th etc.
footnote: AFAIK, JET (Joint European Torus) is the only reactor to achieve fusion. However, it was deliberately built too small to be useful as a power source. It is a 'technology trial'.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
You mean you haven't heard the old joke in fusion research?:
Fusion is the power supply of the future, and always will be!
(I heard that joke early in my first decade of fusion research)
The United States still dominates high tech engineering. So Taiwanese engineers are designing new vibrating shower heads? Well so what? American engineers are working on state-of-the art computer systems and software design, flexure designs and automated manufacturing facilities, biomedical devices, etc....
Things change. I get the feeling you just work in some backwater area of engineering and you can't see the past the trees at the forest.
Awhile back the Economist said 50 years and billions of dollars of fusion research has produced the fundemental constant 30. This is the number of years before we'll have commercial fusion power.
Roaming the wast interplanetary distances looking for fugitives on Europa and Gandymede and Mars. I just wanna steer clear of Titan and Callisto.
Maybe get me a Dog and a Sidekick with an artificial arm.
Yeah that will be the life, singin them old folk blues while i am at it.
I hope someone gets this reference...
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
well remember when Japan bombed pearl harbor in 1941?
It was clearly Mexico's fault and we should have declared war on THEM. Yeah, so they didn't fund the Japanese or give them training or intelligence or even really talk to them but that doesn't matter it was obviously their fault anyway. But instead! That liberal pissant Roosevelt decided to attack the country that ACTUALLY attacked us!? can you believe such a thing!?
Now the grand parent poster is MUCH more in line with current, and I have to say, much more advanced thinking and rationalization. That is, since the World Trade Center attacks were carried out by mostly Saudi Citizens, who were financed and supported by Al Qaeda, who get the majority of their funding from Yemeni, Iranian, and Saudi origins, who had set up rather nice camps in Afghanistan as a base of operations, it is very obvious and if you don't see this you are an ABSOLUTE MORON, that we MUST attack Iraq!
In addition! Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. No? Oh Wait.
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs! Not that either? Hmmm
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Still no dice?
Oh, Iraq has Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs! Yeah thats it!
You still don't understand? It has NOTHING to do with oil! Its all because of Iraq's (non)involvement in 9/11 and their hideous Interest in Future Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs. You know they can deploy them(I don't care if they don't exist! they can still deploy them!) in 45 minutes right? Doesn't that scare you? Doesn't that SCARE you? It has nothing to do with oil. Be afraid. They have a jet fighter with a range of 450 miles. That can reach the United States! The United States is further than 450 miles from Iraq? Puh-lease! They are SNEAKY! Did you ever think they could land at Heathrow and refuel? Hmmm? HMMM?
You know he gassed his own people right? I don't care if Iraq and Iran were engaged in tit-for-tat biological attacks against each other for several months prior. I don't care if we actually helped him build the stuff. We thought he was going to make cupcakes out of it! Egg on our face for that one! I told you they were SNEAKY! It has nothing to do with oil.
I for one am glad we are protected each day and night by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. I for one am glad that our president is a puppet for their interests. I for one am especially glad we have a good upstanding citizen like Bill O'Reilly to explain this all to us because this advanced thinking is beyond most of us and he makes it easy to understand!
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
Energy is so important that the US should richly fund a US fusion initiative AND the international initiative. As it is, the basic science looks promising, and attainable in 20-50 years if we were serious, but all we have now is the international fusion project, and they've been arguing for YEARS over where to build it. All politics, no science.
The US should also be promoting solar power. Yeah, it's diffuse, but it can make a HUGE difference in US energy imports and balance of trade. And solar power could greatly benefit from much larger scale. Imagine highly automated factories cranking out cheap and easy-to-use click-together solar panels for every roof surface. Every structure needs a roof, why not generate power at the same time?
And what about electric cars? The GM EV1 (aka Impact) was VERY popular with the people who leased them, but they were withdrawn by GM when they announced their long term hydrogen powered car initiative. To those who want cleaner and more efficient cars that don't require foreign oil, this looks like a decision to pacify people while cozying up to Big Oil, when a very good solution exists now.
The planet is going to run out of oil someday, and fairly soon given the rapid increase in consumption. We should be planning for that, and doing the research now, but we aren't. The US is in a position to lead in this initiative, but chooses to wait until the oil crisis is upon us, and then try to act. It's going to get very ugly within a decade or two. And that's frustrating when we could have solar power and very good electric cars today, and fusion power in 30 years.
I'm still trying to decide how much of the planet's energy problems are caused by plain old human short sightedness, and how much is Enron-style corporate greed and manipulation.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
The big oil companies, those that really operate on a global basis, are "energy companies" per se but in reallity they are still mainly oil companies..
Then why is one of the largest manufacturers (and promotors) of industrial and consumer photovoltaic solar panels a division of British Petroleum?
BP Solar, to be specific.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Fascinating how USians dont know shit about things going on in international affairs once again. It was well over a year ago when i read reports about the US suddenly pushing the Japan site after the French site had almost been agreed upon by all parties. The reason, obviously, was that France had to be punished, pfft. Apparently people take only that much of this kind of shit. It was mentioned at that time already some (euro) countries might prefer doing a smaller project on their own than give way to the US. Seems to me the US announced retreating from ITER expecting everyone to fall over, now they are coming back? Ooh, it's soo great watching the 'worlds only hyperpower' doing international politics. Up yours.
Iraq was required by the international community to prove that they no longer possessed WMD or WMD programs. According to UN resolution, Iraq's refusal to prove that they were no longer pursuing WMD is all that was required for action.
The question is should we have acted at all? If we didn't act, then Iraq and the rest of the world would have correctly assumed that the UN is an ineffectual body unable to back words with actions. Why not pursue WMD programs if no one would do anything about it?
A number of things went wrong. Iraq didn't cooperate with the UN. Our intelligence was bad. The world community didn't have the balls to force Iraq to own up to their WMD programs.
A number of things went well. Iraq no longer has the ability to produce WMD, ever. The people of Iraq can participate in their own political process with Hussein gone. We proved that our word was enforcable, with measureable results. A message was sent to "rogue" nations. Even Libya has turned over a new leaf.
Could things have gone better for the US? Yes. Could things have gone better for Iraq? Yes. Were we after the oil? No. Is the world better off now than it was before? Only time will tell.
The dream of fusion power is getting no closer.
What do you mean "no closer"? The beauty of being an observer is that everything is constantly getting closer - one moment at a time.
If you had to built fusion plant yourself, every moment you spent idle would be yet another delay and the result indeed won't be getting any close. But if other people are expected to build it and you have no say in the matter, then them being idle is already factored in the expected completion date and every day indeed brings you closer to it, if you follow me...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Huh? There's no need for prejudice; there are enough FACTS (his track record) to state that as a fact. He is the public enemy number one for the whole planet; ahead of Osama and hilks... they are cockroaches, leeches, mosquitoes: Dubya is the warthog.
I do agree, however, that it's pointless to device unlikely conspiracy schemes WRT fusion research versus oil. Bush's actions in all areas (from bible-thumping double-standard mockery of christianity to big fuck-you notes for Kyoto protocol and beyond) are plenty to prove the point.
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources.
By concentrating only on the current uses of energy, you're making the same mistake as the early IBM executives who thought only ten computers would ever be needed - because that's how many it would take to do as much arithmetic as all the accountants in the world.
Completely missing the fact that this was all the arithmetic that was done because it was SO EXPENSIVE to do arithmetic, making other useful applications impractical. Cutting the cost of computation enabled an amazing range of additional, useful (or fun) things. (It now takes more arithmetic than the annual computation of that world full of accountants just to refresh my screen. Now think about DOOM III. B-) )
The same is true for energy.
For stareters, there's a WHOLE LOT of old trash stored in landfills and other disposal sites. Some if it is way toxic. Some is radioactive, and some of that is burning its way out of its containers and contaminating the ground water. Meanwhile, though recycling is making some progress, we're mining more minerals to make new materials - because it's often much less expensive to do it that way.
With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.
In the extreme limit, with abundant nearly-free energy, you can vaporize the entrire trash stream and run it through a mass spectrometer, separating it by element and isotope. Use the carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, plus still more energy, to feed your hydroponic farm. Use the purified metals and other elements in lieu of mining and refining more, for manufacturing feedstocks. Sort out the useful radioactives for devices that need them (i.e. smoke detectors), feed the NON-useful ones into nuclear processes that convert them to something more useful or less dangerous. Or just contain them (which you can do better when they're pure rather than a witches-brew) until they change to something more useful on their own, then separate it out again.
Abundant cheap energy is enormously enabling.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
so your logic is that the US action was justified because the world community didn't have the balls to force Iraq to own up to their WMD programs that did not exist since before the Gulf War? do you honestly believe that your government, your state, acts as some humanities agent in the world? please, pull your head out of your ass and look at the history of your nation.. the US supports brutal dictators when it is _in their own best interest to_.. wake the fuck up and challenge a little bit of what you are told
It could be that the government, or the people really in charge that stand in the shadows behind the government pulling the strings, want to silence this and other alternative power sources to they may continue to leverage thier pressure and hold on to power and money. We all know that Tesla could have changed the world if they government didn't crashing into his lab and stole all his documents.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican, we all lose. They aren't in charge anyways.
It's been long running, but the results have been poor, and are clearly getting poorer, especially in areas that require foresight longer than the next election.
Maybe we could set up a situation where we (meaning, citizens, not politicians) can make suggestions and vote them into being instead. Think of what we'd save on politicians salaries, and on those incredible golden parachute retirements they voted themselves "in your best interests."
Why would anyone be interested in fusion energy, anyway? It's only the most important scientific pursuit outside of DNA/health research ever done by the human race.
Oh, wait... politicians. That explains it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
ITER is a big shiny toy, not a research vehicle but a demo ... a very expensive demo. Id rather they would spend that money on researching other types of fusion with a greater potential pay off.
If we treat it as a simple engineering problem. Collect a cubic km of parafin or so and a kick as confinement building. Drop an h-bomb in the hatch and detonate; boil water; repeat.
First we need to perfect the Flux Capacitor. *Then* we need Mr. Fusion to power it.
where to put it, Japan or France? c'mon, that's easy!
The Japanese devote too much of their time making really cool stuff to risk their entire nation by putting an experimental technology in their back yard, put it in France, so if something goes wrong, no one has to care too much! Japan may sulk for a little while, but they'd soon realize it's for the best.
Good going!!!
Now, we should turn both left and right and eliminate the problem from Iran and Syria. These two countries are threatening America's interests and are the source of the major problems in the Middle East!!!.
This man is a troll, so we cant show his face on TV. Instead, we shall ream him with the Giver.
If there's one thing I dotn like, it's a dumb troll. Put some effort into your trollign and dont make so obvious, fucknut!
Fusion would be too expensive to develop. Iraq is already delivering millions of barrels a day. Iran can supply millions more. Why develop energey technology when military technology will do?
Quick Update, from Duane Chapman's Enviromental Economics; 2000, p132. Source:Cost per kWg Solar Photo-Cell$.50 Solar Thermal$.33* Wood$.12 Wind$.09** Nuclear$.09 Coal$.06 Hydro$.06*** * author notes that cost estimates are as low as $.08 from some sources, and that at any rate, should decline around $.07 annually. ** I think this has gone down since 2000 *** By this I believe he means dams, not newer tidal systems. Finally, these rates do not include government incentives for alternative fuel.
Quick Update, from Duane Chapman's Enviromental Economics; 2000, p132.
Source / Cost per kWh
Solar Photo-Cell / $.50
Solar Thermal / $.33*
Wood / $.12
Wind / $.09**
Nuclear / $.09
Coal / $.06
Hydro / $.06***
* author notes that cost estimates are as low as $.08 from some sources, and that at any rate, should decline around $.07 annually.
** I think this has gone down since 2000
*** By this I believe he means dams, not newer tidal systems. Finally, these rates do not include government incentives for alternative fuel.
We really had enough of it already. For more than 50 years these people keep telling us that the breakthrough is just around the corner. They still have got nothing except a lot of hitech-waste and many many articles in popular science magazines. This has cost billions of dollars. Invest the same money into researching renewable energies and feasable alternatives to oil and you will be more successful. The "dream" of fusion energy is an now an anachronism from the times where people thought everything was solvable by hightech and big machines. Stop the madness - it already had been going on for too long.
Agreed.
Let's make us more dependent on Arab oil. I heard they really need some money to fund more [religious] schools and poor families [of suicide bombers] and scientific research [to make nukes].
You know, ITER isn't the only other fusion programme going on. ITER follows on from, in particular, the JET programme based at Culham (near Oxford, England). IIRC the technology is based around a toroidal confinement (tokomak?) design.
ITER was proposed years ago. The problem, for a long time, has been that America didn't want to be involved, especially if ITER was not built in the States. Hence the FIRE programme is partly a case of America going it alone, and in that sense its cancellation is a good thing. ITER needs the involvement of all of the science community, inclusive of Japan, Europe, Canada and the States (forgive me if I've forgotten other major players, these were the ones I remembered without consulting a reference). Such expensive projects will suffer from dividing the funding into separate efforts: look at Fermilab which competes with CERN, and there is evidence that if both continue to go it alone, the next (much larger) accelerators may never be built.
And don't go thinking that that's the end of American innovation in nuclear fusion. There is other research being carried out into alternatives to the toroidal confinement design. At the very least there is the work on Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) being carried out at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL - sorry about all the acronyms). This project involves the compression of tritium pellets using several high-energy lasers. The approach is radically different from the work at ITER/FIRE. Funding of such a project makes a lot more sense than funding FIRE; instead of spending money duplicating research, the money goes towards funding a diversity of research. Evolution of the best technology happens faster that way.
So to me the future still looks promising. Nuclear fusion is a technology that needs to be shared worldwide, and before more countries decide that burning yet more fossil fuels is a more accessible way of generating electricity. More prudent use of the financial resources available to develop Fusion can only be a good thing.
Max solar energy falling on 1m^2 = 1KW
14x10^12 KWh / 365 days / 24 hours = 1.6x10^10^9 KW average consumption rate.
1 km^2 = 10^6 m^2 which generates 10^6KW
1.6 x 10^3 km^2 required for world energy needs at 100% or a plot of land, 40km x 40 km constantly operating at max solar energy (obviously not reasonable). Make it 16% efficient and operate only 1/4 of the day you need an area about 25 times bigger or 200km x 200km. Plenty of those around, especially in New Mexico and thereabouts.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Antarctica needs power. What better place to build an international facility than in international territory? It's either Antarctica or one of the major oceans...
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Ah... Maybe anti-matter IS the answer.
But for power (an industry I worked in for years) the costs of new non-nuclear plants is largely lost vs the cost of fuel. Obviously this is a generalization, less true for cheap fuel.
Over anything other then the short term they have to think of refinery costs as ongoing. I guarantee they can come up with the capital to build oil-shale plants if that remains economical. I've heard figures of Alberta Oil shale producing at a cost of around $18/barrel. What was oils last close? ($45 or thereabouts) How much oil shale is there? Guess I should have splurged on the V-10 truck.
My point is at current costs alternative fuels are already coming. Watch for the Saudis to drive prices down to cut off the competition (as has been there past pattern). Of course they are (cue cheesy evil music) fossil fuels. Good stuff that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
since it is the home of both SCO group
... must give Novell a chance ... )
AND Sen. Orin Hatch. A completely dry
Salt Lake can remind Utahians about the
"pillars of salt" left after destruction
of Soddom & Gomorrah.
(Oh, wait
to move away from "ground zero"
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.
More power for the world means quicker resource consumption.
Not necessarily. Recycling most resources takes energy. It seems to me that electricity spent on cleaning waste water is well spent. Etc.
Recycling resources means using them more efficiently. This sounds a lot like "increase the entropy of the universe" to me, but if we bring on the heat death of the universe a couple of year earlier, I think that is acceptable.
'These people', eh?
Which people?
The Iraqis?
'You Americans' seem to have a difficulty in fathoming that there is more to the world than 'everything that is not American'.
Just because some Saudi terrorists ( with the full backing of the Bush family ) decided to blow up on of your buildings, you don't have the right to invade whatever frigging country you choose, claiming that it was 'them' who did it. It was NOT 'them' ( Iraqis ), it was 'them' ( Saudis ).
Clear?
How daft do they come in your parts, anyway?
This site seems to say that "However, the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be 10^71 M^3 seconds".So it would depend on the size of the initial black hole - A black hole of mass of about 3*10^6kg (or a little more than 10^-24 the sun - say, the space shuttle) would last about a second. One a hundred times that size would last for a week - more than enough time to swallow the whole moon. The moon, at about 10^-9 of the mass of the sun, would take about 10^44 seconds to radiate away.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"Currently, much of our research plays a key role in the DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the U.S. nuclear deterrent without performing underground nuclear testing."
How the hell can this be considered 'insightful'? Saudi Arabia declared war on the US you muppet! Virtually all the hijackers were Saudi's! Not one of them, or any of the organizers were Iraqi.
Bam!
Two Birds...
One stone.
Sleep is futile.