[Pops]

Look at my original post I wasn't talking about nukes at all. Someone pushed me for a solution and the best possible solution is nukes. It was not the subject of the conversation.

Oh, sorry, I guess you meant Metropolis Street Racer & Insulating Concrete Forms when you said "Its just a shame that we did not enter the era with either MSR or ICF..."

[Tikib]

I am going to stop starting new threads, but I am just calling it how I see it, MSR's and ICF are theoertically cheaper than any other form of energy availible on earth. Once we develop them there will be no energy crisis.

[KingM]

You'd still have to electrify transportation. That would take more money than a full nuclear build out.

[Tikib]

If you have a high enough enegy density source of energy you can make expesnive synethic hydrocarbons until you electrify most forms of transportation.

[Pops]

Thanks Tikib

[Tikib]

having thought about it:

I do not beleive a net energy magnetic confinement fusion device is possible at all.

The D-D or D-T reaction does not behave like the slow burning H-H reaction in the sun.

if the density of D-T or D-D is sufficent to release net energy it will always cause an explosion.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I am going to stop starting new threads, but I am just calling it how I see it, MSR's and ICF are theoertically cheaper than any other form of energy availible on earth. Once we develop them there will be no energy crisis.

Just because something is "theoretically possible" does NOT mean it is (or will be) practical, and it most certainly does NOT mean it will be practical AND affordable on a commercial scale within the forseeable future.

So when you said it's too bad we don't have these (in your first post), well yes, and it's too bad I don't have that genetically engineered (and friendly and edible) herd of purple unicorns grazing in my back yard, since steak is expensive and I think purple is a nice color.

If you can't post about the even remotely practical, what is the point of posting about the same pet theories again and again?

[Tikib]

If you look at the energy thread i showed an ICF idea that would be competitive with coal within 5 years if you invested enough.

[Tikib]

D-D has a low octane number a continous burn method like magnetic confinement fusion will not work.

[StarvingLion]

You got it all backwards. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels aren't going to happen without very high temperature nukes. The MSR is no good for that. The mini-hbomb thing is politically impossible, why bother even considering it.

Electrification requires a better battery. If you can't build that, then why should I believe in something even more complicated and expensive like your MSR fairytale? Those nuke startups are all scams...hoping a big bag of money hits them on their head before running off to the tropical islands to retire.

However,full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility characteristics
require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to 5. This will not be possible with current cell chemistries. It all comes back to materials science and nanotechnology.

Who care if you have those big nukes if you can't electrify transport. Thats the current failure of France.

[Tikib]

MSR is more economical than any other plant design currently out there inclduing coal. Its complicated sure, but because so much energy is created it will be insanely cheap.

[ennui2]

full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility characteristics
require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to 5.

How did you come by that number?

Why are people now fawning over the new Model S ludicrous mode if energy densities of today's batteries are insufficient?

The more density, the better, sure, but I don't think we're as far off from the sweet spot as you do.

[Tikib]

The mini-Hbomb thing is entirely conceiable given the huge amounts of cheap energy we will need soon.

And if someone can produce ignition, its far more likely that we will get out energy from an ICF design than a tokamak one.

[Tikib]

full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility characteristics
require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to 5.

How did you come by that number?

Why are people now fawning over the new Model S ludicrous mode if energy densities of today's batteries are insufficient?

The more density, the better, sure, but I don't think we're as far off from the sweet spot as you do.

This maybe the only time I ever say this, I agree with starving lion.
Batteries need to get better. For me the energy density isn't as important as the cost, they need to be like half the price they are now.

[ennui2]

they need to be like half the price they are now.

Which is the objective of the gigafactory. Let's wait and see what economy of scale and cutting out the middle-man can achieve first before expecting there to need to be radically better battery chemistries.

[Tikib]

We need both in parrallel, there are better possible chemistries out there and they should be invested in as well as doing everything we can to make lithium ion cheaper.

[StarvingLion]

full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility characteristics
require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to 5.

How did you come by that number?

Why are people now fawning over the new Model S ludicrous mode if energy densities of today's batteries are insufficient?

The more density, the better, sure, but I don't think we're as far off from the sweet spot as you do.

I got it from the book "Nanotechnology and Energy: Science, Promises, and Limits" by Jochen Lambauer, Ulrich Fahl, and Alfred Voss, @ 2013

"In the materials discussed earlier, at most one lithium ion per
transition metal atom can be transferred, and therefore only gradual
improvements in energy density are to be expected"

"However, full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility
characteristics require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to
5. This will not be possible to realise with current cell chemistries.
Similar arguments hold for high-potential cathode materials with
open cell voltages>5 V (vs. Li metal) such as LiCoPO4 or LiMn1.5(Co,
Fe, Cr)0.5O4. The gain in energy density is directly related to the
higher cell voltage, while the number of transferred lithium ions
remains more or less constant."

For a significant increase of the energy density compared with
the currently available systems, new concepts are investigated
that enable multi-electron redox reactions. Among the investigated
systems are metallic alloys, conversion-based materials, and Lisulfur
or Li-air batteries. The challenges and opportunities of
the unconventional cell chemistries will be discussed later in
more detail. As for intercalation materials, the efficiency of the
electrochemical reaction crucially depends on the number of active
sites, the ion mobility, and the electronic contact. Nanotechnology
can provide the tools for the materials development of these nextgeneration
battery materials"

[Tanada]

The EBU is really about the world undergoing a paradigm shift, away from natural crude oil as our main energy and chemical feedstock to alternatives. We could have gone gracefully but I think we will now go kicking and screaming. Either way, things will be changing.

[StarvingLion]

Its real easy to predict whats going to happen. The nano guys are going to do a face plant as in "We are not ready yet for primetime" like the French Chemist predicts. The cross-subsidization scams will finally blow up in unison and then its back to BAU after the stock market crash and the Illuminati get their heads chopped off:

1. Venezuelan Oil Sands

2. By then, an even bigger addiction and dependence than oil will become apparent to the economy: robotics and robotics engineers. Where is the new landscape for robots to plunder the usual goodies?

Ans: Ocean floor with robots. Full civil engineering on the ocean floor built by remote controlled robots to get the methane, oil, and other minerals.

The Illuminati are the ones in for a surprise when they shut off the free shit (welfare state) and direct the cattle to go work at the local nanotech center.

Got Robotics Engineering Degree?

[ennui2]

"However, full electric vehicles compatible with today’s mobility
characteristics require a larger energy density by a factor of 4 to
5.

So you copied and pasted a quote from another source, but then don't explain why your source came up with that number either.