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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6190
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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Wood
Wood
 
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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Peat
Peat
 
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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Heavy Crude
Heavy 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
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby dissturbbed » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 18:51:39

what the hell is going on with fusion? why is the united states cutting the budget on the iter project, shouldn't it be the other way around? the united states spent billions on the development of the atom bomb back in the early 40's, why dont we have the same initiative to build and develop this technology, just think if this became a reality, peak oil wouldnt be a global nightmare anymore
User avatar
dissturbbed
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby keehah » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 19:08:28

The War Against Cold Fusion
Check out the 11-13 minute mark. The same Dr. that pumps disinfo to derail 911 investigations also derailed cold fusion!

As for hot fusion, are our tax dollars being spent trying to do what they think the sun does, except it is not primarily what the sun does? :)
Last edited by keehah on Wed 02 Jul 2008, 19:59:18, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
keehah
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Maple State

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 19:09:40

Cause fission works good enough and fusion is in all likelyhood far more expensive than fission.

Unless Bussard's polywell thing actually works. That'd be neat. I'm not betting on it though.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby Precipice » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 19:59:22

Okay, this is going to sound cynical even for this forum, but:

I believe that fusion isn't getting more funding because those who control the purse strings are starting to see that commercial fusion will never happen- it is the energy of the future and always will be- commercially viable fusion power always seems to be "40 years away" even after all the countless billions of dollars, yens, and euros that have been poured into it over the decades.

It's not just about the financial resources either- think of all the geniuses, boffins, and brainiacs who have been working together round the world and round the clock for so long to get this damned fusion thing off the ground. I honestly believe that commercial fusion power stands just on the other side of the upper limit of mankind's intellectual capabilities; all those cornucopians who believe that we have a limitless intelligence and capacity for problem solving as a species are going to be disproved in the end by the failure of commercial fusion (they are actually being disproved by it right now IMO).

Look at it this way: it took someone like Einstein to figure out the Theory of Relativity and that E=MC^2, and he would easily be in the top 1% of the human population intelligence wise- and keep in mind that was 100 years ago. The next set of scientific challenges are naturally more difficult than the last- eventually we reach a scientific/ technical problem that is beyond the capabilities of even the very smartest people in the world all working together. It doesn't matter if they've got supercomputers either because these are just tools in the end and like all tools they are only as useful as the person using them and the capabilities of the person who designed them.
User avatar
Precipice
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue 04 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 20:04:01

Precipice, cynical? Nah. I'd call what you said reality-based.

But you will take a serious drubbing around here if you don't tow the usual techtopian line. You know---nano, biotech, fusion, AI, robotics, black light, dark matter, free energy, perpetual motion, fairy dust :lol:
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27391
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby keehah » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 20:08:29

Precipice IMO that was hardly cynical at all. Now if one takes the view that Einstein was an effective disinfo agent, now that would be cynical.

BTW the rational being that confusing 'space-time relativity' was promoted because of its ability to cause complexity and confusion as well as avoid aether. Without 'einstein' scientists could have focused on frequency and wavelength and got on with things!

(useful idiots and useful brainiacs)
User avatar
keehah
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Maple State

Re: why isn't the world focusing on fusion

Unread postby Scenius » Wed 02 Jul 2008, 21:02:24

Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming

Wired wrote:CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts -- At an MIT lecture hall on Saturday, a convocation of 50 researchers and investors gathered to discuss a phenomenon that allegedly does not exist.

Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers, cold fusion is anything but a dead field of research. Presenters at the MIT event estimated that 3,000 published studies from scientists around the world have contributed to the growing canon of evidence suggesting that small but promising amounts of energy can be generated using the infamous tabletop apparatus.

How reproducible the experiments might be, however, and how the mysterious phenomenon works are still very much open to interpretation.

Demonstrating recent results of energetic radiation streaming from a running cold-fusion experiment, Lawrence Forsley of JWK Technologies in Annandale, Virginia, passed around samples of his group's experimental apparatus -- all of which could be packed into a shoebox with room to spare. The compact plastic and rubber tubing illustrate the intrinsic paradox of this field: Compared to the warehouses worth of billion-dollar gadgetry needed to run "hot fusion," cold fusion research is cheap to fund. And yet cash is the primary limiting factor holding the research back.


Robert Weber, managing director of the Watertown, Massachusetts-based consulting firm Strategy Kinetics, has worked with startup technologies and says cold fusion is in a bind in the United States today. Researchers need at least $50 to $100 million in seed money, he said, to fully test its viability and commercial applications, if any.

With research budgets around the world primarily funding "hot fusion" research, the burden falls to angel investors, corporations (such as Mitsubishi, which has funded cold fusion experiments) and a few countries (such as Japan, China, South Korea and Israel) willing to venture into cold fusion's murky waters.


Chump change. Tsk, tsk.
Last edited by Scenius on Wed 02 Jul 2008, 21:09:22, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Scenius
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 27 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Next

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron