Oh yeah, right. Basically you're saying that since new reactor technology that doesn't cause nuclear weapons proliferation does not exist yet, we should not research new reactor technology.
No, he's saying that since it doesn't actually exist today, you can't claim it solves today's problems.
The problem with CO2 buildup is happening *today*. To solve it, we need to use *today's* technology. We can't wait 35 years for the first of these designs to be built to see if it works and then start building them. Too late.
If you want to offer nuclear as a solution to the problem, it has to happen *now*. And for that to happen, you need to use proliferation-risky designs. If you're happy with that, fine, but at that point, why bother considering these other designs at all?
Yes there are limited reserves of uranium like everything else on the planet, but there is a lot more than 5 years... more like 200
Read the article and then *think*
The article states that known and unknown reserves will last about 230 years at *current* use rates.
First off, that includes *undiscovered* reserves of about 2x known reserves. So if you focus just on known reserves, you're already down to about 75 years.
Further, we don't care about current rates. If we started building reactors today they wouldn't be coming online for about 20 years, at the earliest. By that time we're looking at 50% to 100% higher use than today. So now we're down to maybe 40 years.
And finally, this thread is talking about a scenario where nuclear is used to moderate CO2 production. The current 13.5% use rate won't do that, we'd need to get it into the 50 to 60% range. So now we're down to maybe 15 years.
That is *not* enough to make this a silver bullet. No matter what happens with nuclear, which is increasingly looking like "not much", we would need to aggressively deploy lots of other sources too. And since almost every one of them goes in much more rapidly, like months, their contribution to CO2 moderation over the time frame's we're talking about would be much greater than nuclear.
You have to admit there is a certain amount of Schadenfreude when watching the environmentalists trying to reconcile the fact that nuclear is the only practical solution to AGW and power needs and their distaste for nuclear.
Did you actually read the article?
I ask, because it says the exact opposite.
And then there's this to consider: http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/grid-parity-new-mexico-style/
> If teleportation of protons (ionized hydrogen, not photons) becomes practical, it may achieve break-even
It is extremely unlikely that any non-equilibrum reactor will ever reach break even. This includes the fusor, Forward's design, focus fusion, and many other designs. The bremsstrahlung is simply too great for any realistically sized reactor to stop thermal transport out of the core more rapidly than the reaction rate can replace it.
"All of them are pretty open about NIF being primarily a stewardship project"
From the NIF About page: "... significant contributions to national and global security, could lead to practical fusion energy, and will help the nation maintain its leadership in basic science and technology"
Oh they mention stewardship, these days, but energy production is always close behind. And always this sort of nebulous "could". But therein is the rub. No one has any idea how to make "practical" fusion energy from IFE, and the research at NIF will not lead to it.
It's very very simple, the cost of the hohlraum is more than the value of the energy it produces. Even in the most wild-eyed scenarios, each target would cost about 50 cents to make, yet deliver about 5 cents worth of electricity. We'd be way better off burning wood (which is, BTW, carbon neutral).
And then you get statements like this:
"the only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next century"
*sigh* It's the perpetual motion crowd all over again. The seduction of saying you're saving the world is just too much for the nerds of the world.
"And there are other ICF projects, some coming up that will be much more inline with what is expected of a power plant to start addressing some of the issues being ignored by NIF."
Really? Can you name any of these? I mean ones that don't exist entirely and completely on paper, like LIFE.
Or, much more likely, that they're simply measuring the current incorrectly.
The paper clearly states that power was delivered to the system in surges, or pulses. Clamp-on ammeters *deliberately* smooth out measurements. Small pulses of power are simply not reported by the device, so if their is a shorter-duty-cycle delivery to the E-Cat, then this will disappear from the measurement. I believe this can explain 100% of the phenomenon being reported.
This problem with power measurement is extremely well known, and is the same basis of "proof" that many similar devices have put forth in the past. Newmann's machine was perhaps the most celebrated example, where simply hooking it up to an oscilloscope demonstrated the total area under the curve was less on the output than the input. The same is true of Naudin's version of the MEG, but in this case Naudin *did* capture the pulses on an oscilloscope, but then applied incorrect math to extract the resulting power figure. Once again, simply applying the correct formula demonstrated that the output was less than the input.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's razor
I love articles like this one, where the author sits down and clearly shows how science is supposed to work and what to look for if the topic isn't really science.
But the problem is that the big lab's claims about fusion are just as bogus. The science isn't, that's all real, but the reactors don't work, and likely never will.
So when the press fawns over one bogus project that's bogus from end to end, why aren't we as upset when the fawn over another that's only half bogus?
I mean, they're still reporting that NIF is some sort of power source. It's not, and likely can't be developed into one:
> If those panels cost more than $82 / mo extra in the mortgage, then it doesn't fly
I just ran a calculator on my 20-yr mortgage. For $55 a month I can get $10000 in cash. At current prices, that would buy me about 5 to 6 kW of panels with microinverters, or as much as 8 kW if I go with strings.
I currently have 2.6 kW and that supplies about 1/3rd of my total yearly power use. So that $10000 would definitely be enough to turn it to zero.
So, I guess (A) you'll be rushing out to do this now, right? Or, more likely, (B) just come up with another excuse not to? Let's see
> there is maintenance for the stuff you own > going to get toasted > bolt of lightning > just too much available to go wrong with the system > Just too big a hassle > I'd have to chop down 4 really, really large oak trees
"The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms)."
Ahh, the famous DOE report. The numbers in question were from the 2008 time frame. Prices since then have fallen 4-fold.
I bought my SolarWorld 230W panels in 2010 for $2.30 a watt. Today I can buy 270W versions for $1 a watt. I can get Chinese A-brands, like Trina, for about $0.75.
The price of power from PV is directly related to system cost and pretty much nothing else. Total installed costs have fallen from about $8 a watt to about $3 a watt. Factor that in, and the fact that the numbers in the DoE report are from even earlier, and you're looking at a 4 to 5-fold decrease in system prices.
When you factor that in, power from PV is about 12 to 25 cents, which is *extremely* competitive with other peaking sources like NG.
"This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)"
You know, for someone that's declaiming people who work with math, you seem afraid to, you know, run the numbers.
I just quoted out a PV system for a customer who's tired of his ever-rising electricity bill. His current price, all in, is 13.2 cents for a kWh. That the price today, if you factor in historical price increases, you add 3% per year. I should point out that that is *below* the price of inflation - energy, like most commodities, is getting cheaper and cheaper. Anyway, when you add that in the cost over 20 years averages out to 17.6 cents/kWh.
I sized out his system so his net yearly consumption would be just a little over zero. That came to $1.15 a watt. If we add $1/W for installation, which is about the going rate, then you're looking at total installed costs under $2.50 a watt.
If you plug that number into NREL's LCOE calculation (Google "LCOE calculator") that comes to about 16 cents/kWh. So in other words, it's cheaper for him to buy solar panels than buy power from the grid.
Don't believe me? Run the numbers yourself. Here's a step-by-step guide:
Systems costs in Ontario are higher due to "local content" rules and some specifics of the metering we're forced to use, and the systems are limited to only 10 kW (instead of 50 as in the example above) so the scaling factors don't work out as well. But even then, systems are going in right now for $3.20, end-to-end.
"But if you compare the first couple of season of both shows to recent episodes there really is no comparison as it was MUCH funnier and written better in those first seasons than it is now"
Proof in pudding; a few smart one-liners from the originals:
"French!?" "First one, then the other" "Que?" "These balls are making me testy"
If you're ever looking for a demonstration that the original writers are smarter than you, consider the last few seconds of Parabox.
I watched some of the new seasons when they appeared on NetFlix. I made it through a few episodes before I gave up. Everything that made the originals funny was missing.
"If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened"
But that is precisely what is happening. I don't see Apple suing Nokia over the Lumia 520, yet that phone has all of the same features being discussed - rounded corners, smoothed back, etc.
No one could claim with a straight face that anyone would ever confuse a Lumia for an iPhone. Could you make the same claim for the original Galaxy S?
It seems to me that everyone that's actually involved in the case has no problem understanding what "distinctive" means, and conversely, when there is the suspicion of design infringement. The only comprehension issues appear to be here in the peanut galleries. Yet the accusations of known-nothingness are always pointed in the opposite direction.
We *sell* panels with cells over 20%. You can buy them anywhere. *Panel* efficiency is lower, typically 16 to 16.5%. That's because of the space between the cells, reflection off the glass, wiring losses, etc.
Panels are widely selling for about 70 cents a watt. Racking, inverter and wiring adds about the same amount. So even if we reduce the price of the panel by half, that will have an increasingly small effect on the installed cost. However, wiring and racking varies with the area of the system, so any decrease in arial efficiency increases the cost of these items.
It is going to be *very very* difficult for any low-effiency product to make any headway in the current market unless it eliminates racking and wiring. Solar shingles may be able to do this, but I have yet to see them get anywhere near the price points of conventional systems.
"She basically shut down the UK's manufacturing industry and moved us over to a service industry economy"
Why do people imply this is a bad thing?
Imagine I make a widget that costs me $100 to build and I sell for $120. Now imagine I charge people $120 to ride a roller coaster for a day, which costs me $100 to run.
Economically, the effect of these two is identical.
But wait, you say, someone has to build *something*, right? Why? It is entirely possible to run a complete economy without any physical goods. Ask the tourism business. And it is clear that we will gladly pay for virtual goods as much as physical - ask the cable TV business.
So I'm all for a switch to services and virtual goods.
"Then tell me how the capacity factor of nuclear power compares on those days."
Capacity factor of nuclear: ~ 85% Capacity factor of PV: ~ 20%
Price of peak power in the summer: ~ 35 cents Price of base load: ~ 3 cents
35 / 3 ~= 12 85/20 ~= 4
12 >> 4
But don't believe me, do the math yourself. Here: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html
Vogel is $7.25/Watt, discount is about 6.5, capacity is about 85 Large PV is about $3/Watt, discount is about 4.5, capacity is about 20, fuel and heating is both zero
"although some good research still comes out of it"
What? A little stellar astrophysics and dense matter stuff, but we could get that same data other ways. Everything else is weapons related, and as NIF has demonstrated pretty clearly, wrong.
"Programs more directed at specifically producing fusion power concepts, like HiPER,"
I wrote the Wiki article on HiPER so I'm pretty familiar with it. It has no possibility of ever being an economical power producing device. The fast ignition process improves Q by about an order of magnitude, and so would solid-state lasers. So that's two orders of magnitude. We are five orders away from a practical Q. No one has any idea how to bridge that gap.
Note that Mike Dunne, who almost single-handedly ran HiPER (and a cool guy generally) left the project and is now at NIF. I believe HiPER is basically dead, but I haven't heard much one way or the other recently.
It's been out for almost two decades and no one's come up with an answer. He had a follow-up paper that expanded the same principles to a much wider set of potential designs. Almost all of them won't work - not "it will be hard", WON'T.
Ok, be lazy and don't look it up. Here, I'll do it for you:
The IEA's BLUE Map for 2050 suggests that in order for nuclear to become the force it was predicted to during the nuclear renaissance talks, 20 large reactors would have to be commissioned every year. The current worldwide rate is negative 7 per year. That means nuclear will play an ever shrinking role in the total worldwide energy mix.
More recently, the SAGE report suggests that new reactors will not replace end-of-life systems in the US. "Absent an extremely large injection of government funding or further life extensions, the reactors currently operating are going to end their licensed lifetimes between now and the late 2050s,” Bradford concludes. “They will become part of an economics-driven US nuclear phase-out a couple of decades behind the government-led nuclear exit in Germany.”
Consider the example of Duke. It's all you need to know, right there.
"That assumes no reprocessing. The whole point of breeders is that they make more fuel than they consume."
Breeder reactors have a 100% economic failure rate. Every study on the economics of a breeder economy is quick to point this out, and outline why they are extremely unlikely to be able to fix this problem.
"You are right that there is currently a flood of fossil fuel that crowds out nuclear,"
2/3rds of all new generation installed in the last year is renewable. Spin that any way you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, right. Basically you're saying that since new reactor technology that doesn't cause nuclear weapons proliferation does not exist yet, we should not research new reactor technology.
No, he's saying that since it doesn't actually exist today, you can't claim it solves today's problems.
The problem with CO2 buildup is happening *today*. To solve it, we need to use *today's* technology. We can't wait 35 years for the first of these designs to be built to see if it works and then start building them. Too late.
If you want to offer nuclear as a solution to the problem, it has to happen *now*. And for that to happen, you need to use proliferation-risky designs. If you're happy with that, fine, but at that point, why bother considering these other designs at all?
Mines will open before the shortage occurs. Markets are pretty going at this.
So we should trust the market? Ok, sure, so what's the market saying? Let's see, in the last year the planet installed
45 GW of wind
32 GW of solar PV
25 GW of natural gas
negative 15 GW of nuclear
Looks like the market isn't quite as bullish on nuclear as you are.
Yes there are limited reserves of uranium like everything else on the planet, but there is a lot more than 5 years... more like 200
Read the article and then *think*
The article states that known and unknown reserves will last about 230 years at *current* use rates.
First off, that includes *undiscovered* reserves of about 2x known reserves. So if you focus just on known reserves, you're already down to about 75 years.
Further, we don't care about current rates. If we started building reactors today they wouldn't be coming online for about 20 years, at the earliest. By that time we're looking at 50% to 100% higher use than today. So now we're down to maybe 40 years.
And finally, this thread is talking about a scenario where nuclear is used to moderate CO2 production. The current 13.5% use rate won't do that, we'd need to get it into the 50 to 60% range. So now we're down to maybe 15 years.
That is *not* enough to make this a silver bullet. No matter what happens with nuclear, which is increasingly looking like "not much", we would need to aggressively deploy lots of other sources too. And since almost every one of them goes in much more rapidly, like months, their contribution to CO2 moderation over the time frame's we're talking about would be much greater than nuclear.
You have to admit there is a certain amount of Schadenfreude when watching the environmentalists trying to reconcile the fact that nuclear is the only practical solution to AGW and power needs and their distaste for nuclear.
Did you actually read the article?
I ask, because it says the exact opposite.
And then there's this to consider: http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/grid-parity-new-mexico-style/
> If teleportation of protons (ionized hydrogen, not photons) becomes practical, it may achieve break-even
It is extremely unlikely that any non-equilibrum reactor will ever reach break even. This includes the fusor, Forward's design, focus fusion, and many other designs. The bremsstrahlung is simply too great for any realistically sized reactor to stop thermal transport out of the core more rapidly than the reaction rate can replace it.
"All of them are pretty open about NIF being primarily a stewardship project"
From the NIF About page: "... significant contributions to national and global security, could lead to practical fusion energy, and will help the nation maintain its leadership in basic science and technology"
Oh they mention stewardship, these days, but energy production is always close behind. And always this sort of nebulous "could". But therein is the rub. No one has any idea how to make "practical" fusion energy from IFE, and the research at NIF will not lead to it.
It's very very simple, the cost of the hohlraum is more than the value of the energy it produces. Even in the most wild-eyed scenarios, each target would cost about 50 cents to make, yet deliver about 5 cents worth of electricity. We'd be way better off burning wood (which is, BTW, carbon neutral).
And then you get statements like this:
"the only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next century"
*sigh* It's the perpetual motion crowd all over again. The seduction of saying you're saving the world is just too much for the nerds of the world.
"And there are other ICF projects, some coming up that will be much more inline with what is expected of a power plant to start addressing some of the issues being ignored by NIF."
Really? Can you name any of these? I mean ones that don't exist entirely and completely on paper, like LIFE.
Or, much more likely, that they're simply measuring the current incorrectly.
The paper clearly states that power was delivered to the system in surges, or pulses. Clamp-on ammeters *deliberately* smooth out measurements. Small pulses of power are simply not reported by the device, so if their is a shorter-duty-cycle delivery to the E-Cat, then this will disappear from the measurement. I believe this can explain 100% of the phenomenon being reported.
This problem with power measurement is extremely well known, and is the same basis of "proof" that many similar devices have put forth in the past. Newmann's machine was perhaps the most celebrated example, where simply hooking it up to an oscilloscope demonstrated the total area under the curve was less on the output than the input. The same is true of Naudin's version of the MEG, but in this case Naudin *did* capture the pulses on an oscilloscope, but then applied incorrect math to extract the resulting power figure. Once again, simply applying the correct formula demonstrated that the output was less than the input.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's razor
I love articles like this one, where the author sits down and clearly shows how science is supposed to work and what to look for if the topic isn't really science.
But the problem is that the big lab's claims about fusion are just as bogus. The science isn't, that's all real, but the reactors don't work, and likely never will.
So when the press fawns over one bogus project that's bogus from end to end, why aren't we as upset when the fawn over another that's only half bogus?
I mean, they're still reporting that NIF is some sort of power source. It's not, and likely can't be developed into one:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/fusion-the-power-of-wishful-thinking/
> Neither side actually cites a court case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser
> If those panels cost more than $82 / mo extra in the mortgage, then it doesn't fly
I just ran a calculator on my 20-yr mortgage. For $55 a month I can get $10000 in cash. At current prices, that would buy me about 5 to 6 kW of panels with microinverters, or as much as 8 kW if I go with strings.
I currently have 2.6 kW and that supplies about 1/3rd of my total yearly power use. So that $10000 would definitely be enough to turn it to zero.
So, I guess (A) you'll be rushing out to do this now, right? Or, more likely, (B) just come up with another excuse not to? Let's see
> there is maintenance for the stuff you own
> going to get toasted
> bolt of lightning
> just too much available to go wrong with the system
> Just too big a hassle
> I'd have to chop down 4 really, really large oak trees
Yeah, plan B it is
> which is why I have been saying for years we need a "people's car/truck" that runs on diesel
So the thing is, when you refine a barrel of oil you're still going to get the same amount of gas and diesel out of it.
So if we all switch to diesel in order to improve things, the price of diesel skyrockets while the price of gas plummets.
So we wouldn't buy the diesel.
> Gasoline is actually about the same price adjusted for inflation. A little higher but only about 50%
Wut?
50% is "about the same price" and "a little higher"?
I think the common man would call that "a lot higher" and "not the same price at all"
"The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms)."
Ahh, the famous DOE report. The numbers in question were from the 2008 time frame. Prices since then have fallen 4-fold.
I bought my SolarWorld 230W panels in 2010 for $2.30 a watt. Today I can buy 270W versions for $1 a watt. I can get Chinese A-brands, like Trina, for about $0.75.
The price of power from PV is directly related to system cost and pretty much nothing else. Total installed costs have fallen from about $8 a watt to about $3 a watt. Factor that in, and the fact that the numbers in the DoE report are from even earlier, and you're looking at a 4 to 5-fold decrease in system prices.
When you factor that in, power from PV is about 12 to 25 cents, which is *extremely* competitive with other peaking sources like NG.
> Why do you deserve it more than your grandchildren
This is the real issue, IMHO.
We're demanding faster, faster, FASTER, cheaper, cheaper, CHEAPER. So now *we* have all the cheap fuel and metals, and they won't 50 years from now.
The good news is that our kids are smarter than we are (Fitt's Law), so I'm not really that worried.
"This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)"
You know, for someone that's declaiming people who work with math, you seem afraid to, you know, run the numbers.
I just quoted out a PV system for a customer who's tired of his ever-rising electricity bill. His current price, all in, is 13.2 cents for a kWh. That the price today, if you factor in historical price increases, you add 3% per year. I should point out that that is *below* the price of inflation - energy, like most commodities, is getting cheaper and cheaper. Anyway, when you add that in the cost over 20 years averages out to 17.6 cents/kWh.
I sized out his system so his net yearly consumption would be just a little over zero. That came to $1.15 a watt. If we add $1/W for installation, which is about the going rate, then you're looking at total installed costs under $2.50 a watt.
If you plug that number into NREL's LCOE calculation (Google "LCOE calculator") that comes to about 16 cents/kWh. So in other words, it's cheaper for him to buy solar panels than buy power from the grid.
Don't believe me? Run the numbers yourself. Here's a step-by-step guide:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/grid-parity-in-ontario/
Systems costs in Ontario are higher due to "local content" rules and some specifics of the metering we're forced to use, and the systems are limited to only 10 kW (instead of 50 as in the example above) so the scaling factors don't work out as well. But even then, systems are going in right now for $3.20, end-to-end.
"But if you compare the first couple of season of both shows to recent episodes there really is no comparison as it was MUCH funnier and written better in those first seasons than it is now"
Proof in pudding; a few smart one-liners from the originals:
"French!?"
"First one, then the other"
"Que?"
"These balls are making me testy"
If you're ever looking for a demonstration that the original writers are smarter than you, consider the last few seconds of Parabox.
I watched some of the new seasons when they appeared on NetFlix. I made it through a few episodes before I gave up. Everything that made the originals funny was missing.
"If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened"
But that is precisely what is happening. I don't see Apple suing Nokia over the Lumia 520, yet that phone has all of the same features being discussed - rounded corners, smoothed back, etc.
No one could claim with a straight face that anyone would ever confuse a Lumia for an iPhone. Could you make the same claim for the original Galaxy S?
It seems to me that everyone that's actually involved in the case has no problem understanding what "distinctive" means, and conversely, when there is the suspicion of design infringement. The only comprehension issues appear to be here in the peanut galleries. Yet the accusations of known-nothingness are always pointed in the opposite direction.
We *sell* panels with cells over 20%. You can buy them anywhere. *Panel* efficiency is lower, typically 16 to 16.5%. That's because of the space between the cells, reflection off the glass, wiring losses, etc.
Panels are widely selling for about 70 cents a watt. Racking, inverter and wiring adds about the same amount. So even if we reduce the price of the panel by half, that will have an increasingly small effect on the installed cost. However, wiring and racking varies with the area of the system, so any decrease in arial efficiency increases the cost of these items.
It is going to be *very very* difficult for any low-effiency product to make any headway in the current market unless it eliminates racking and wiring. Solar shingles may be able to do this, but I have yet to see them get anywhere near the price points of conventional systems.
"She basically shut down the UK's manufacturing industry and moved us over to a service industry economy"
Why do people imply this is a bad thing?
Imagine I make a widget that costs me $100 to build and I sell for $120.
Now imagine I charge people $120 to ride a roller coaster for a day, which costs me $100 to run.
Economically, the effect of these two is identical.
But wait, you say, someone has to build *something*, right?
Why? It is entirely possible to run a complete economy without any physical goods. Ask the tourism business.
And it is clear that we will gladly pay for virtual goods as much as physical - ask the cable TV business.
So I'm all for a switch to services and virtual goods.
"Then tell me how the capacity factor of nuclear power compares on those days."
Capacity factor of nuclear: ~ 85%
Capacity factor of PV: ~ 20%
Price of peak power in the summer: ~ 35 cents
Price of base load: ~ 3 cents
35 / 3 ~= 12
85/20 ~= 4
12 >> 4
But don't believe me, do the math yourself. Here: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html
Vogel is $7.25/Watt, discount is about 6.5, capacity is about 85
Large PV is about $3/Watt, discount is about 4.5, capacity is about 20, fuel and heating is both zero
"although some good research still comes out of it"
What? A little stellar astrophysics and dense matter stuff, but we could get that same data other ways. Everything else is weapons related, and as NIF has demonstrated pretty clearly, wrong.
"Programs more directed at specifically producing fusion power concepts, like HiPER,"
I wrote the Wiki article on HiPER so I'm pretty familiar with it. It has no possibility of ever being an economical power producing device. The fast ignition process improves Q by about an order of magnitude, and so would solid-state lasers. So that's two orders of magnitude. We are five orders away from a practical Q. No one has any idea how to bridge that gap.
Note that Mike Dunne, who almost single-handedly ran HiPER (and a cool guy generally) left the project and is now at NIF. I believe HiPER is basically dead, but I haven't heard much one way or the other recently.
"I find Focus Fusion or some other non-billion-budget projects much more appealing"
Certainly, except they don't work, and can't.
You *are* aware of Rider's work on non-equilibrium plasmas, right? Here, read the last sentence of this abstract
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v4/i4/p1039_s1?isAuthorized=no
It's been out for almost two decades and no one's come up with an answer. He had a follow-up paper that expanded the same principles to a much wider set of potential designs. Almost all of them won't work - not "it will be hard", WON'T.
"Nuclear-free by 2050? That's a laugh."
Ok, be lazy and don't look it up. Here, I'll do it for you:
The IEA's BLUE Map for 2050 suggests that in order for nuclear to become the force it was predicted to during the nuclear renaissance talks, 20 large reactors would have to be commissioned every year. The current worldwide rate is negative 7 per year. That means nuclear will play an ever shrinking role in the total worldwide energy mix.
More recently, the SAGE report suggests that new reactors will not replace end-of-life systems in the US. "Absent an extremely large injection of government funding or further life extensions, the reactors currently operating are going to end their licensed lifetimes between now and the late 2050s,” Bradford concludes. “They will become part of an economics-driven US nuclear phase-out a couple of decades behind the government-led nuclear exit in Germany.”
Consider the example of Duke. It's all you need to know, right there.
"That assumes no reprocessing. The whole point of breeders is that they make more fuel than they consume."
Breeder reactors have a 100% economic failure rate. Every study on the economics of a breeder economy is quick to point this out, and outline why they are extremely unlikely to be able to fix this problem.
"You are right that there is currently a flood of fossil fuel that crowds out nuclear,"
2/3rds of all new generation installed in the last year is renewable. Spin that any way you want.