The Focus Fusion Society Forums Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Experiment (LPPX) would nuclear energy really be accessible to all?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #363

    I may just be sceptical but if countries aren’t allowed to do nuclear research (and I am NOT in support of weapons manufacturing) than how would nuclear energy be universally available (which is in the focus fusion forum. There is such a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons wouldn’t it be better to leave it alone altogether otherwise people end up fighting about who has the right to use the energy. The second part of this comment refers again to the motto (which I don’t have in front of me so this isn’t verbatim.) There is no unlimited energy source as the maintenance of such a system requires man hours, materials, etc. all of which is finite. Wouldn’t the more practical solution be to reduce energy consumption and focus on solar, wind, and microhydro which all have much less risk associated with production? Although nuclear energy has some uses such as space travel, it just seems that there are much easier ways to obtain energy, especially when you make buildings and machines more efficient.

    #1819
    Sigma
    Participant

    Problem with Alt energy is that the energy density is too low to power everything, unless radical new technologies and changes occur. The infrastructure would take 1-2 decades to switch to alt energy resources. While I believe it would be a good idea to incorporate alt energy into everything, we would probably still require workhorse energy facilitators i.e. Fusion.

    #1820
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Not very clear on your question here:

    Demeter Design, Cara wrote: if countries aren’t allowed to do nuclear research (and I am NOT in support of weapons manufacturing) than how would nuclear energy be universally available

    Are you referring to the political problems with Iran and its pursuit of fission?

    In case you are, indeed, referring to fission, I want to make it clear that this site has to do with fusion. The difference is discussed here: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/its_not_fission/

    Also note that focus fusion won’t be useful for the making of bombs/weapons/etc.: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/can_focus_fusion_be_used_to_make_a_fusion_bomb/

    Finally, I understand focus fusion franchises would be available for any country that wants it. So the energy would be available, even if the country was not researching it.

    As to limited resources:

    There is no unlimited energy source as the maintenance of such a system requires man hours, materials, etc. all of which is finite.

    The fuel supply is a billion years. Yes, if people manage to self-destruct before then, they won’t be around to make and run fusion plants, but the materials will all be here, sitting around, waiting.

    Perhaps we should say the effective limitation is removed. The relative limitation. Especially compared to the other energy types you list, including solar, wind, hydro. The amount of materials, people, resources (especially space – a lot of land area for solar and wind), noise pollution generated, and so forth for the alternatives you suggest (solar, wind, hydro) – per unit of energy output – are much more than what you would have with focus fusion. We will have to draw up a chart to get some quantification on this, but people often underestimate the environmental impact of the current alternative energy favorites. They may be better than oil, but they’re much worse than focus fusion, if it works.

    It might be empowering to realize that all solar energy is originally fusion energy. The sun is powered by fusion reactions. We’re just trying to figure out a way to get a piece of the sun right here on earth to produce the energy directly. Clean solar-esque energy.

    And again, when you say that there is too much risk associated with the fusion compared to solar, wind and hydro, it seems you are confusing Focus Fusion with fission and the associated nuclear weapons production capacity. But focus fusion is not that kind of energy, as mentioned in the links above.

    Although nuclear energy has some uses such as space travel, it just seems that there are much easier ways to obtain energy, especially when you make buildings and machines more efficient.

    I think hands down, focus fusion would be the easiest, lowest impact, most sustainable, environmental way to produce energy. Again, we should draw up a chart that spells it out in detail. How do you recycle solar panels? How much interference does microhydro pose for watersheds and riparian circulation? (and you’re a good person to ask! Looks like you do a lot of watershed work. Say, take a look at this link and give us your comments! https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/water/ – thanks!)

    I think an underlying issue here is that you’d like people to focus on conserving energy and making more efficient things. I think this will ultimately happen, not out of necessity, but out of taste and values and rising affluence. But I am not sure how that will play out.

    #1843
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    Just to second Reswan’s comments, solar and wind power demand very high capital costs for the machines and the real estate necessary to harvest enough energy to meet global needs. Also, not all sites on the planet are good for each technology.

    Hydro power is pretty limited; in the US most of the sites for hydro are already being utilized (unless you feel like damming places like the Grand Canyon). Other countries with hydro power in their energy arsenal have ran into similar problems. Add to that the silting that results in the man-made lakes that provide the power, you’ll find that hydro is a limited solution with a limited life span. The silting reduces the lakes water-holding capacity, eventually reducing water pressure to the point of being uneconomical.

    Of the three, wind is the most promising, and we should be doing more of it than we are, but it has its problems too, as I previously mentioned. It would be great in South Dakota. It would suck in NY state.

    Focus fusion power is fusion, not fission. No uranium or plutonium. It does not use radioactive fuel, instead it fuses non-radioactive fuel at super-high temperatures. Because of this, it is worthless for producing a thermonuclear weapon. It produces almost-zero nuclear waste, most in the form of x-rays. It generates electricity directly, thus giving the best (theoretical) power generation/fuel consumption ratio of any technology ever invented. The fuel, plain hydrogen and boron, is so plentiful that the Earth itself has about a billion years of it, and as the technology can also be used to power engines for spacecraft, in a billion years I am sure we can figure out how to get even more just from the local solar system. And to top it all off, a reactor can fit into a building the size of a garage.

    What this adds up to is this: permanent, clean, environmentally friendly, super-cheap energy that can be made in huge quantities wherever you want it. No more fossil fuels, no more Yucca Mountains, no more Global Warming. Also no more people dying because of heat, cold, lack of water, and lack of food, because with unlimited power, you can do miraculous things. This is why this project is so important.

    #2269
    Adam Whistle
    Participant

    I may just be sceptical but if countries aren

    #2270
    Transmute
    Participant

    I think fusion can get out of the problems of uranium enrichment and plutonium production (which could be used to make bombs) since fusion reactors are very different from fission reactors. A P+B11 fusion reactor uses extremely plentiful fuel elements which have no viable use as nuclear material in a bomb, and the P+B11 reactor would produce (theoritically) no nuclear waste or radioactivity, nor could it “melt down”. A D+D or D+T fusion reactors on the other hand needs rare fuels and produce huge amounts of high energy neutrons which would render the reactor highly radioactive for decades and could be used to breed plutonium.

    Solar, wind and hydro have very poor energy densities and (solar and wind) are intermittent source of energy. To achieve a true renewable energy economy would require huge amounts of cheap solar cells (cheap is possible, scaleable production is questionable) and also a massive battery system to store all the electrical energy (hydrogen, batteries, compression, etc), biofuels would need to be made from energy crops, agricultural waste and municipal waste. This is the future we are most likely headed for (say in 60 years when we have even depleted coal, oil and NG will have been long gone) but it will produce an economy were energy is much more expensive then today which will likely have very detrimental social side-effects (the end of the middle class, basic necessity like heat and food will be expensive). Ideas like grossly cheap p+b11 fusion present the possibility of truly cheap energy with virtually no environmental effects and billions of years of fuel reservoirs, the social effects would likely only be second to a utopia!

    #2271
    Adam Whistle
    Participant

    That’s an excellent post my friend, except that you are both quoting and telling what has been already told.

    #2272
    Transmute
    Participant

    Not really, for example no one on this thread has mentioned economic side effects of a renewable energy. At the very least I added details or provided different aspects to the combined answer to Cara questions and argument. It would be best if you either stated an argument against or for the thread starters position, rather then criticizing the quality of others statement, doing so makes you look like someone who did not come here to have a intellectual discussion but to start a pissing contest. just a friendly word of advice, my friend.

    #2273
    AaronB
    Participant

    With regard to unlimited energy for all, there are two aspects to that statement. Unlimited energy may be the case if this works, but capital investment and distribution will still have an effect on who gets it. Although I’m hopeful for a Utopia out of this, human history tends to chronicle an unequal distribution of available resources, with the strong and selfish taking more than their fair share. However, without the resources in the first place, the rest of the distribution argument is pointless. That’s what worries me about the world’s current energy situation, and why this technology is so important. If it works, there will be a seismic shift in technologies that will migrate toward the storage and use of electricity instead of coal, oil, and gas. This will spawn new industries, infrastructure, and challenges. Cara mentioned the issue of who has the “right” to use the energy. I’m not aware of any innate entitlement to a share of the world’s energy right now. It’s kind of “first come, first served” for those who can afford it, and I doubt that this would change. What would change is the amount of energy available, and according to the law of supply and demand, greater availability would lower the cost, which would then make it more accessible to more of the have-nots. I believe this might qualify as the near Utopian “social effects” that Transmute mentioned.

    #2274
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    On the economics of who will get Focus Fusion when… it’ll come to a combination of supply, price, and motivation. The initial installation of focus fusion will occur where there is the most need times the most capital to pay for it. Chile, the US and western Europe would be the first places it will show up, most likely, followed by Japan, South Korea, China and India.

    Chile is obvious; it is where the biggest efforts are happening. With its current investments in the project, Chile will want to use FF not just to offer cheap power to its citizens, but as a symbol of Chile’s national wisdom. Also, since Chile paid for a big chunk of the research, it will want free reign to install the technology without royalty, thus making it the least expensive place to convert the current grid to fusion. This will offer Chile a massive economic advantage globally.

    The US has a huge motivation to rapidly switch to Focus Fusion. It offers energy independence, large economic boons, and a way out of the Middle East and to possibly win the War on Terror. It also renders the argument about Global Warming and greenhouse gas emissions moot. The US will want to roll out focus fusion as quickly as possible, proclaim that it is doing more for combatting GW than any other country (other than Chile), and divorce itself from the economic bonds that keeps it from doing the right things in the Middle East. The cost of rolling out focus fusion is less than the current plans for conventional power plant growth currently being debated in Congress. The money is already there to install focus fusion. It is a matter of getting the research done. Between its own oil, coal and boron reserves, the US could be completely energy self-sufficient very quickly, and over time, focus fusion will replace everything else.

    Western Europe looks even better than the US, on the surface. The first big private investor to the project is from Europe, and Europe has also tended to be more forward-thinking when it comes to energy. The problem is that Europe is not exactly what you would call united. France already has a huge investment in fission. Other countries already have their limited capital tied into wind and other alternative energy initiatives. These initiatives have their own political power, and won’t give way easily. Between the byzantine nature of European politics and the entrenchment of those who have their power tied to other initiatives, I see that a focus fusion rollout being slower than in the US.

    Once focus fusion has proven itself in Chile, Japan will be very interested in it. I am not up on the level of use of fossil fuels for electrical generation in Japan, but as Japan is almost completely reliant on other countries for energy. Since Japan’s government generally moves more quickly than most, I expect Japan to be a rapid adopter, and may be the first to achieve 90% conversion. South Korea will not be far behind, and will likely offer to building plants for North Korea.

    In fact, the two countries with the greatest motivation to move to focus fusion is China and India. Huge populations, fast growing economies, and poor fuel resources mean that they can use focus fusion to directly power their future growth. They will want to license and build out a massive grid of FF power stations to fuel their economies and relieve themselves of the shackles of fossil fuels. Other east-asian economic powers such as Malaysia and Indonesia will follow suit.

    So where does this leave the rest of the world, particularly Africa? The African dream is to develop, as they say, but except for South Africa and maybe Nigeria, they are capital-poor. The rest of the world will need help in getting focus fusion technology. Which is why I say that the license structure for the technology needs to generate lots of money for the license holders. With lots of capital, they could then shunt a large portion of this wealth towards direct relief of poorer areas, possibly using the Focus Fusion Society as their non-profit arm. They can also use the wealth as political power to get the governments of richer countries to help poorer ones electrify fully.

    It will take some time, but, if and when focus fusion technology becomes proven, I don’t see any reason why it can’t reach everywhere on the planet, and become a positive influence in the lives of everyone.

    #2275
    Transmute
    Participant

    Not to seem laconic but “if” is the problem: if it works and if its as cheap as advertised, if not well at least it makes a nice x-ray generator :p

    Aside for the “if” my focus is on the energy economy. Grossly cheap electric power from focus fusion power plants (F2) will automatically out-compete just about everything else. Anyone that has enough money to make conventional power plants will already have enough to make arrays of F2s, in fact because of the scalable nature of F2 reactors (~5MW a piece, potentially small enough be shipped on a semi-truck) it might be cheaper to forgo maintenances on some types of existing power plants and phase in F2s on the spot! Grossly cheap electricity will also change the economic order of fuels: today fossil fuels are the cheapest sources of energy in most places, F2 will flip the order around with electricity the cheapest, hydrogen (from electrolysis of water) second cheapest, followed by hydrogenated depolymerization of biomass. One problem is that F2 powered coal to oil conversion would also become economical and competitive with F2 powered biomass to oil (hydrogenated depolymerization), biomass would not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere, coal as we all know does. So even though F2 would cure our energy problems via the automatic demand of economics, it would still require both a political and social conscience demand to make sure it also cures are environmental problems. I think that was Cara initial concern, Cara obviously wants a perfect pollution free world and erroneous believes solar means that: solar will not provide enough cheap energy to clean up all polluting systems, we would still suck every last drop of cheap oil and dig up coal for decades to come. F2 on the other hand could achieve that, because with F2 even garbage is economical to recycle, coal could be dropped out because of its environmental concern without worrying about its economic side-effect because the alternatives will be there and they will be cheap.

    #2276
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    Transmute wrote: Not to seem laconic but “if” is the problem: if it works and if its as cheap as advertised, if not well at least it makes a nice x-ray generator :p

    Quite true. “If” is the biggest problem.

    Transmute wrote: One problem is that F2 powered coal to oil conversion would also become economical and competitive with F2 powered biomass to oil (hydrogenated depolymerization), biomass would not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere, coal as we all know does. So even though F2 would cure our energy problems via the automatic demand of economics, it would still require both a political and social conscience demand to make sure it also cures are environmental problems.

    I don’t see biomass or coal-to-oil happening at all, if Focus Fusion occurs. Once FF (or F2, as you say) reaches a certain level of use, conventional oil prices will drop dramatically, as there will be more supply than demand, and the oil producers will want to move their product. The costs of converting coal-to-oil, even using DPFs, won’t compete with pumping oil and refining it. Think about it. You have to mine the coal, take it to the refinery, process it to remove all the sulfur and other contaminants, and convert it. Then you have to transport the fuel to market. Much of this is the same as conventional oil. Also, coal is used for other things already, such as steel production. That coal needs to last as well.

    Thus, those who have regular cars will have cheaper gasoline because of it. However, if you have an electric car, the fuel costs will be so much cheaper, and the performance (acceleration, speed, noise, stink) will be so much better, that people will be attracted to it via normal market forces. Also, it would be seen as the “latest, greatest thing,” and people will want to by them the same way they want to buy big flat-panel HD TV’s over the old CRT TV’s. There will be early adopters, the bugs will get worked out, technology will improve with the additional capital and investment, and the cars will improve to the point where only the “gas-car freaks” will want one.

    And there will be gas-car freaks who will hold onto their cars and keep them maintained, and sell them to each other for increasingly higher prices for many decades to come. Gasoline production may not end for another three centuries. But the amount of gasoline, the cost, and how it is distributed, will fluctuate as time goes on. Initially, gasoline will drop as there will be a spike in supply. Then, as it becomes increasingly uncompetitive, more players will merge and shrink, and the price will level out at a high level, made to supply those who have to have the need and money. As those uses that require a liquid fossil fuel decrease, gasoline refinement will become a niche industry, with limited supply networks. Only the devoted or truly needy will buy gasoline. And there it will remain, for a long time, like a small, slow burning star.

    And thats OK. You see, in order to halt and reverse global warming, we don’t have to totally cease fossil fuel use. We need to reduce it down to a level where nature can handle it. Thats all. Focus Fusion alone can do it.

    This is, of course, assuming that global warming is caused by human CO2 production. There is evidence that it is actually being caused by increased solar activity, which increases the amount of Solar System plasma via the solar wind. This, in turn, decreases the amount of cosmic ray radiation we get, which lessens cloud formation, thus increasing global temperature. This increase in solar activity is normal and cyclic, and is thought to reverse itself naturally. Even then, the point is moot, as we need Focus Fusion for far more than just reducing CO2 emissions.

    #2277
    Transmute
    Participant

    Good point, I was thinking that F2 would come online in a post peak oil environment where oil would be ridiculously expensive anyways even with an influx of alternative fuels. Global warming is not the only concern; limitations in extracted fuels supplies is the other. At present we have (probably) reach the maximum supply rate of conventional oil sources and should expected a decrease rate from now one (enhance

    #2278
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    You make a lot of good points. The key thing to keep in mind is that the curves given for fossil fuel production et. al. all work on the theory that things will continue as they are. If we move to fusion, those curves will elongate tremendously.

    Transmute wrote: As for the your theory that global warming is non-anthropomorphic, most climatologist disagree, as evidence show that cloud formation is actually up (from all the aerosols we pump into the atmosphere)

    This is global dimming. Dirt and crap we put in the air has kept temperatures down by combatting, what some feel, the effects of increased solar activity via increasing the brightness of clouds. Here’s a good link:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

    Here is a link to a Wikipedia entry about a documentary which projects the “sun activity” hypothesis for global warming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    The documentary was shown on the BBC, who then tried to distance itself from it. There is actually much good science in it, but there are also some disputed facts. I suggest looking into it, if for no other purpose but to get both sides of the debate.

    The more I research global warming, I am beginning to think it is kind of like the Big Bang Theory, in where most agree with it because everybody agrees with it, not looking at it critically and questioning the holes and missing pieces. I am hoping that the advent of F2 will make it all irrelevant.

    #2279
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    Here is another link with another documentary, this from the CBC, which questions global warming. Some of the same scientists are in it as the first link, but there are some other ones as well. These people aren’t fringe operators, but from major organizations like MIT and Harvard. Interesting stuff.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/cbc-global-warming-doomsday-called-off.html

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.