Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 122 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5110
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    It didn’t turn black, it just got renamed, re-assigned, and more challenging to find. Rest assured, the D of D isn’t going to let Mattel build their phasor parts and power supplies.

    #5114
    Tulse
    Participant

    Axil, no offense, but I think you’re being a bit paranoid. First off, it is certainly not the case that all “greens” are against nukes (I would count myself among that number), and it is completely unjustified to claim that greens in general would be against a fusion technology that leaves no long-term radioactive waste and has no chance of catastrophic meltdown. In many ways, FF is an ideal green technology — it provides electricity with no CO2 or waste of any kind (helium is hardly a waste product); it is suitable not only for grid power but for large transport as well (ships and trains could be instantly zero-emission vehicles); it can be built very small and so does not require the investment of a huge utility (it is more “community-sized”); and it is suitable for remote locations, including Third World locales that don’t have a huge electrical grid and which might be tempted to use hugely polluting sources for power otherwise, such as coal.

    As for the issue of “control” on the part of the government, again, that seems excessively paranoid to me. As has been states several times, there is nothing that a FF reactor will produce that can’t already be generated through more conventional means — there are already commercial sources for ions, x-rays, and neutrons. Given that, FF is no more a target for “control” than hospital cyclotrons or industrial ion beam milling machines, and not any more threatening than wind power or solar thermal generation.

    And the notion that FF might go “black” seems silly to me, if for no other reason than the general approach is fairly straightforward and already very public, and there is nothing preventing other organizations or governments from pursuing the work if LPP’s work gets classified.

    #5116
    Brian H
    Participant

    Axil wrote:

    For example as follows:

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/darpas-handheld-nuclear-fusion-reactor/

    “ …the Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams project had a budget of just $3 million, and rather shorter timescales; the plans for fiscal year 2009 include: “Develop 0.5 MeV [mega electron-volt] proton beams and collide onto microscale B-11 target with a fusion Q (energy ratio) > 20, possibly leading to self-sustained fusion”

    I think this project has turned BLACK.

    If the Chip-Scale High Energy Atomic Beams project does not work out, FF could also turn black.

    Here’s the difference: FF is not sufficiently complex to blacken. By which I mean that an “existence proof” of Q>1 will give all the info needed to lots of researchers world-wide already involved with PF to replicate the results.

    And whoever produces generators first will have such an economic edge that the US will have to fall in line or get HAMMERED by that 20:1 energy cost discrepancy — NRC or NSA be damned.

    #5136
    Henning
    Participant

    Tulse wrote: And the notion that FF might go “black” seems silly to me, if for no other reason than the general approach is fairly straightforward and already very public, and there is nothing preventing other organizations or governments from pursuing the work if LPP’s work gets classified.

    Going “black” of FF is not too far fetched. That’s the reason why Eric and Rezwan are doing their best to go public for avoiding the big players silencing them. Even in LPP’s business plan it is encased, that no investor can control the technology. 51% stays in Eric’s realms of influence. And I trust him with that, being a revoluzzer as he is.

    #5141
    Rematog
    Participant

    As to the gas industry loving windpower, certainly they do.

    In general, for every MW of wind power installed, a MW of back-up power needs to be there, for when the wind does not blow. This back-up generation is, in the US at least, generally natural gas fired diesel or gas turbines.

    #5172
    Brian H
    Participant

    Rematog wrote: As to the gas industry loving windpower, certainly they do.

    In general, for every MW of wind power installed, a MW of back-up power needs to be there, for when the wind does not blow. This back-up generation is, in the US at least, generally natural gas fired diesel or gas turbines.

    Indeed. Quite a scam!

    #5177
    Axil
    Participant

    Axil, no offense, but I think you’re being a bit paranoid.

    ”A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what’s going on”.

    First off, it is certainly not the case that all “greens” are against nukes (I would count myself among that number), and it is completely unjustified to claim that greens in general would be against a fusion technology that leaves no long-term radioactive waste and has no chance of catastrophic meltdown.

    I was lazy and imprecise here. I painted with too broad a brush.

    I like you are environmentalists; like most of the other members of this forum. We don’t want to see our deserts paved over with solar panels and mirrors, or our prairies and mountain ridges tainted with the ugliness of the uncounted windmills. These green machines are not evil in themselves, but when their use is taken to extremes pushed by the profit motive characterized by the power industry in the interest of uncaring men they become destructive to the natural world.

    Men who assume the green mantel as a path to amazing profit are hypocrites and charlatans. The do not have the interest of mankind at heart.

    Here is and example that will expand on this point I am trying to make; A prime example of this kind of guy is T. Boon Pickens.

    From a recent interview as follows:

    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html


    You recently announced plans to build the world’s largest wind farm, in the panhandle. Is that about money or the environment?

    Money! First thing, it’s about money. Of course, I’m also a good environmentalist. I can pass the saliva test. But I’m not going to go do a 4,000-megawatt wind farm for the environment first and money second. I’d rather go give money someplace else. You’re talking about $10 billion.

    What kind of return do you expect?

    A minimum of 15%. It’ll probably be closer to 25%.

    Tell me about the project.

    It’s huge, the size of two nuclear plants in output, enough to power a million homes. More than 2,000 turbines, each between 2 and 3 megawatts. The first 1,000 megawatts will be ready by 2011, and 1,000 each year or two after that.

    And you’ll do all this on your beautiful 68,000-acre ranch?

    I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly. The hub of each turbine is up 280 feet, and then you have a 120-foot radius on the blade. It’s the size of a 40-story building.

    So whose land is it going on?

    My neighbors’, mainly south of my ranch. They’ll get royalties of 4% to 7% on the energy produced, an average per turbine of $10,000 to $20,000 per year. They still can run cattle or farm on the land with the turbines there too. We’ll put in only five per square mile. And unlike oil, this is not a declining situation. Let’s say a guy has a 3 megawatt turbine, and it does $20,000 per year. It’s going to be out there for, say, 100 years. You’re talking about $2 million. It’s not like having an oil well that’s a real pisser for a few years, and then it starts to decline.

    What about when the wind doesn’t blow?

    [Pickens purses his lips and starts puffing.] That’s the problem with wind generation. You’ve got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation.

    So you’re going to build that?

    Either we will or someone else, like TXU.

    What happens if Congress doesn’t extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind — set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that’s an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity.

    Then you’ve got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy. But they’ll probably pass it.

    The frankness and audacity of this guy is so extreme that it is amusing.

    #5181
    Brian H
    Participant

    Axil wrote:

    What happens if Congress doesn’t extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind — set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that’s an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity.

    Then you’ve got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy. But they’ll probably pass it.

    [/i]

    The frankness and audacity of this guy is so extreme that it is amusing.

    What will be even more amusing when the duck takes flight and then croaks in midair because FF has rendered it beyond the help of even the most generous possible subsidy.

    Anybody want to prepare by setting up a turbine scrap dealership? :coolgrin:

    #5184
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:

    What happens if Congress doesn’t extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind — set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that’s an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity.

    Then you’ve got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy. But they’ll probably pass it.

    [/i]

    The frankness and audacity of this guy is so extreme that it is amusing.

    What will be even more amusing when the duck takes flight and then croaks in midair because FF has rendered it beyond the help of even the most generous possible subsidy.

    Anybody want to prepare by setting up a turbine scrap dealership? :coolgrin:

    I don’t see it as being anything to gloat about. When you think about how to integrate a brand new technology into the grid, we would have to build a track record of reliability by shadowing more and more of a gas-fired peak-load plant. The utility would likely see it as reducing their exposure to supply fluctuations.

    Turbines are politically attractive because of the high maintenance and replacement parts industry that they are building. Lots of jobs.

    #5186
    Brian H
    Participant

    Aeronaut wrote:

    I don’t see it as being anything to gloat about. When you think about how to integrate a brand new technology into the grid, we would have to build a track record of reliability by shadowing more and more of a gas-fired peak-load plant. The utility would likely see it as reducing their exposure to supply fluctuations.

    Turbines are politically attractive because of the high maintenance and replacement parts industry that they are building. Lots of jobs.

    I was talking about wind turbines (see the quoted material, Pickens etc.)

    Reliability is not an option for them.

    #5201
    Rematog
    Participant

    I believe Aeronaut was talking about wind turbines as well. The politicians pushing them are always using words like “green jobs”. The maintenance and repair of these big wind turbines will be a multi-billion dollar per year industry. Heck, you need a multi million dollar crane just to work on one.

    Unless they are subsidized to a ridiculous level, the owners will have to keep them running. I like the fact Congress is at least considering basing the subsidy on the power actually generated.

    In the first great wind boom in the 80’s, California offered so great a subsidy that windmills generated tax benefits of over 100% of there installed cost. I clearly remember driving over the Altamont pass and seeing almost every windmill shut down. It cost more to fix them then the power was worth, so the owners just let them sit. They made their money installing them, not running them.

    Notice, T. Boone isn’t interested in serving the power needs of customers, only in generating subsidized wind power. When the wind doen’t blow, “..or someone else…” will have to generate the power. As he didn’t mention any plans for the stand-by generation, he’s not building it. Think about it, that would be natural gas based generation, no subsidy, and subject to the risk of gas price increases. T. Boone is no fool, he won’t take on the risks without rewards… so he’ll leave reliability to TXU or others to build, and charge to rate payers.

    #5209
    Brian H
    Participant

    Rematog wrote: I believe Aeronaut was talking about wind turbines as well. The politicians pushing them are always using words like “green jobs”. The maintenance and repair of these big wind turbines will be a multi-billion dollar per year industry. Heck, you need a multi million dollar crane just to work on one.

    Unless they are subsidized to a ridiculous level, the owners will have to keep them running. I like the fact Congress is at least considering basing the subsidy on the power actually generated.

    In the first great wind boom in the 80’s, California offered so great a subsidy that windmills generated tax benefits of over 100% of there installed cost. I clearly remember driving over the Altamont pass and seeing almost every windmill shut down. It cost more to fix them then the power was worth, so the owners just let them sit. They made their money installing them, not running them.

    Notice, T. Boone isn’t interested in serving the power needs of customers, only in generating subsidized wind power. When the wind doen’t blow, “..or someone else…” will have to generate the power. As he didn’t mention any plans for the stand-by generation, he’s not building it. Think about it, that would be natural gas based generation, no subsidy, and subject to the risk of gas price increases. T. Boone is no fool, he won’t take on the risks without rewards… so he’ll leave reliability to TXU or others to build, and charge to rate payers.

    Yeah, I don’t see FF needing any subsidies. Ideally and logically, this should be of immense interest and appeal to politicians. But no subsidies means no dependents, no strings. So unless they’re up against the wall like California may now be, they are likely to prefer to accumulate petitioners.

    #5272
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    Gloating makes us sound like arrogant bastards.

    #5274
    Brian H
    Participant

    Aeronaut wrote: Gloating makes us sound like arrogant bastards.

    So, what’s wrong with being a justified arrogant bastard, you snivelling twerp?!? :coolgrin:

    #5276
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    Easy does it Mr H. :cheese:

    We all want the same outcome but until Mr Lerner and his team have Q>1 there really is nothing to gloat about. :zip:

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 122 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.