Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

FFS JUST GET ON WITH IT !!!

Unread postby Permanently_Baffled » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 10:30:21

link Doesn't this sort of 'lack of urgency' really get on your nerves? :x Even if you take the optimists view of PO being 2037(USGS) the introduction of commercial fusion reactors in 2050 is going to be too late (if the pessimists are right we would of eaten each other by then!!) :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
User avatar
Permanently_Baffled
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby khebab » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 11:09:46

Is this technology viable, I wonder what would be the energy efficiency.
khebab
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Canada

Unread postby frankthetank » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 12:48:49

I don't believe their even sure this is going to be successful. The amount of money spent on this could build a lot of wind turbines.

Don't count on fusion power from saving us.
User avatar
frankthetank
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Unread postby Permanently_Baffled » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 15:34:26

For the sake of 10 billion dollars this has got to be worth exploring, after all this is only the equivelant of 30 of those new Raptor jets the US has just invested in (Why ffs? the US airforce is miles ahead of anyone anyway!! How can you stop suicide bombers with a fighter jet?)

PB
User avatar
Permanently_Baffled
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby dhickerson » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 15:35:17

frankthetank wrote:Don't count on fusion power from saving us.

I agree... when considering that the only known place suitable for fusion that is even relativly local is the sun I find it particularly unlikely that we will control fusion reactions here on Earth that actually generate any net power gain.
User avatar
dhickerson
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ohio

Unread postby khebab » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 16:07:14

I think this graphic resumes the challenge ahead pretty well!

Image
khebab
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Canada

Unread postby Permanently_Baffled » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 16:08:15

Bah seems a piece of cake! :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Permanently_Baffled
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: England

Unread postby Kingcoal » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 16:31:22

I still think solar and geothermal is the way to go. Both are free energy by any definition. The sun has a big advantage over us when it comes to fusion - it has a lot of gravity, which is free also. When we try to make fusion reactors, we have to create that kind of pressure which has so far used significantly more energy than is created.
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Unread postby fred2 » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 20:45:01

We should be doing all these things - solar, wind, geothermal, fusion research etc. If the technical problems with fusion can be surmounted, the payback is such that it could eliminate the coming energy crunch. Such a glittering prize is worth the research, however long and arduous the road is.

In reality its likely to be several decades before fusion could ever come onstream, and by then we'll have had to address PO with existing solutions. Which means lots more electricity generation using all non-fossil fuel technologies, especially fission nuclear. Coupled with a major focus on conservation.

One benefit of PO is that its likely to give a big boost to efforts like the fusion projects, hopefully bringing them forward (a bit).
User avatar
fred2
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby backstop » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 20:59:55

Fred 2 - I have to differ with you over budgeting funds for alternative energy resources.

As I see it the problem is too urgent by orders of magnitude to be spending billions on technologies whose proponents claim they may, or may not, be feasible in two generations time.

Put it this way, if the tens of billions that have already gone into fusion research in the last few decades had instead gone into biofuels, wave energy and geothermal, how much lesser a crunch would we now be facing ?

The point is that every euro not going into accessible sustainable energy is that much less prospect of a society capable, say, of educating scientists.

regards,

Backstop
backstop
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Varies

Unread postby savethehumans » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 21:13:01

Baffled, I go to the BBC Online every day. The UK is slow on the uptake on some things, pleasantly surprising on others. Lots of wind farm plans, I see. Tidal and wave power, too. And today, I read how you're starting work on the world's largest biofuel plant.

Your industry is stubborn, true (though NONE can beat ours for Business As Usual Tactics! :roll: ), and your nuclear proponents are a nuisance, but you, and the EU as a whole, are light years away from the US in planning for an energy future! (Not that that's difficult, or anything. :( )

Europe is an encouragement to a lot of us here, even if they have a long way to go to be effective. Thank you for that--and try to cheer up, at least a little! :) We're all in the same boat here, and if ALL we try to do is worry about sharks, it won't be an existence worth surviving for....
User avatar
savethehumans
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby backstop » Tue 09 Nov 2004, 21:33:24

PB - Your cry echoes that of thinking people continuously since the sixties.

In the UK we've managed to reach the exalted position of gov.t spending on "Renewables" being only a bit less than on subsidies for rural bus services . . . .

And those "Renewables" include "BATTERY-CHICKEN-DUNG POWER" . . . .

The public has yet to realize that 'economics', which is the ruling code of values (religion) views scarcity as benign in generating profits for owners. From this perspective, it is entirely logical to continue mining out the planet's resources, be they mineral, climatic stability, soils, etc, on the grounds that those controlling the operations will continue to be hugely wealthy compared to those who don't.

In this light it is an amoral creed of materialism that has to be overthrown, not merely the fossil technologies that are its symptom.

So, I guess you could count yourself lucky not to have had more years of saying "For Fxxxx sake get on with it !

regards,

Backstop
backstop
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Varies

Unread postby Anjorni » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:10:33

Come on guys - Lighten up!

Doctor Octopus did it all by himself in Spiderman II - what makes you think a person with 8 tenticals [smilie=4robot.gif] couldn't unravel the fusion mystery all by himself in the next 2-3 years?

;)
User avatar
Anjorni
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Mon 11 Mar 2013, 20:41:32

I hear they purchased the rights to the Mr. Fusion model.


In the 1985 movie 'Back to the future', the Doc time travels thirty years ahead to the future. Ie to 2015; the people in the future have 3D movies, flying cars, wall mounted TV's, and Mr. Fusion.

2 out of four ain't bad. (3D movies & wall mounted TV's) :roll:
Rod_Cloutier
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 11 Mar 2013, 22:55:55

I have one of these
Image
from when I was a kid. It's WELL beyond its half life.

I wonder if the Skunk Works is giving out the 2013 fusion version?
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7279
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby SilentRunning » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 00:28:44

TheAntiDoomer wrote:http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years

Chase didn't give a whole lot more technical detail, but he seemed confident in predicting a 100mW prototype by 2017, with commercial 100mW systems available by 2022, implying that all global energy demands will be able to be met by fusion power by about 2045.


Am I the only one here who understands metric prefix conventions? A lower case 'm' means 'milli'. Therefore 100 mW is the same as .1W - enough for a small low intensity LED. :-D

No more oil, no more coal, no more nuclear, and not even any solar or wind or hydro will be necessary (unless you're into that sort of thing): fusion has the potential to produce as much affordable clean power as we'll ever need, for the entire world. That's wild, and we may see it happen in less than a decade. That is, if Lockheed Martin's plans come to fruition, which we certainly hope they do.


I have 1 ounce of pure gold that says that Lockmart will not have a fusion unit delivering a net energy of 100 MEGA watts of power by March 11, 2017. If they do, I will give you the gold. But if they don't, you will give me 1 ounce of gold. Do we have a deal?

Time for you to put up or shut up.
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby SilentRunning » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 00:31:42

seahorse3 wrote:Well, I hope they are right. I have three kids and enjoy my car and power as much as the next guy. So, whatever it takes we ought to pursue this at the highest levels of Federal spending, initiative, etc.

However, the lawyer in me asks, how enforceable is this promise? Of course, everyone knows that a promise is just a promise, but it's one we should collectively pursue.


It's too bad we can't fuel the planet with empty Corny promises. If we could, all of our energy needs would be secure in perpetuity.
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby SilentRunning » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 00:39:50

Windmills wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:Laugh all you want Pop's, but LM's Skunk Works has pumped out some huge technologies in the past including stealth technology. I'm sure this article strikes fear in doomer hearts.


If you're so sure this is going to work, then bet me. Put up or shut up. Given year after year after year after year after decade after decade after decade of failures and dashed predictions regarding fusion, I feel absolutely no fear regarding putting down a couple thousand dollars as a wager here.


I have no doubt that AD doesn't have the guts or the wherewithal to back up his words with cold hard cash.
I too would wager him one ounce of pure gold that Lockheed Martin will fail miserably to deliver a 100MEGA watt net fusion reactor by March 2017. It's currently worth ~$1600 - who knows what it will be worth in 2017 - $10,000?
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four yea

Unread postby Pops » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 07:27:10

TheAntiDoomer wrote:Laugh all you want Pop's, but LM's Skunk Works has pumped out some huge technologies in the past including stealth technology. I'm sure this article strikes fear in doomer hearts.

Fear?

Why would I be afraid of unlimited, non-polluting energy? My grandkids would have a helluva world!
As usual, if I'm wrong it's all good for me!

And, as usual, if you're wrong, it's all bad for you...

See how that works?


My Pop-psy opinion is you can't handle the idea of a lower energy world and come here to convince yourself only "doomers" entertain such ideas, throwing rocks is your way of "demonizing the enemy" sorta speak. Transferring your fear to me keeps you from being afraid.

I think you and OF and all the versions of SoS are afraid, otherwise you'd be off enjoying the world as we know it.

.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 12 Mar 2013, 07:54:56

TheAntiDoomer wrote:Laugh all you want Pop's, but LM's Skunk Works has pumped out some huge technologies in the past including stealth technology. I'm sure this article strikes fear in doomer hearts.

In the Kelly Johnstone era, they were very innovative. But no more so than someone like Kurt Tank. What they did do was aerodynamics, not particle physics.
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Next

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests