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

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2282
    Transmute
    Participant

    I’m not going to argue about global warming, Darwinian evolution was highly debatable in its first few decades, heck there are still people to this day that preach a

    #2283
    Transmute
    Participant

    I don’t prefer wikipedia as a source, rather I scrolled down to the references at the bottom. It best to hear from the horses mouth, rather then from hundreds of random dingbats that tell you second hand what the horse said. (www.wikitruth.info plug here)

    True with electric cars taking up most gasoline you could cut oil use in half (gasoline represents 45-55% of oil use), and thus extend existing supplies, but even if you choose to ignore the probable (we can agree its

    #2285
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    I

    #2286
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    True with electric cars taking up most gasoline you could cut oil use in half (gasoline represents 45-55% of oil use), and thus extand existing supplies, but even if you choose to ignore the probable (we can agree its

    #2288
    DaveMart
    Participant

    Demeter Design, Cara wrote: 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.

    Wind and solar resources are not then, by your account, unlimited as both require man hours, materials etc – in the case of wind resources at least, massive amounts of it for an unreliable resource.
    Your broadbrush characterisation of the risks of nuclear as oppoised to the other resources you mention also seems to take little account of the different risk profiles of different methods of producing nuclear energy – one of, although not the only one of, these being focus fusion.
    As for energy conservation being some sort of solution to energy requirements, if one were only concerned with the developed world that might just about wash, but vast numbers of people in India, China and throughout the developing world can’t have a reasonable standard of living on their present energy use, regardless of how economical they are with it.
    Essentially there is no technological challenge to producing all the energy the world needs, if need be without increasing CO2, as it could be done with coal technology and sequestration, for a total bill of perhaps 20% on energy costs – far cheaper then restricting economic growth or going to crazy levels with ultra-expensive solar power solutions.
    That is not to say that a much more elegant solution such as Focus fusion would not bring great benefits, not least for the huge numbers of miners who die annually.

    #2291
    Transmute
    Participant

    There are several post peak oil energy economies, for this forum I’ll focus on three:

    F2 economy: Fusion providing most if not all the input energy. This is base on the unlikelihood of cheap F2 coming out as advertised and quickly.

    Transition: Solar, wind, biomass, coal gasification step up as oil falls down. Coal would provide continues energy while solar and wind provide intermittent energy that would be used to charge EV or make hydrogen. Biofuels and coal gasification supplement dwindling oil in doing everything electricity and hydrogen can

    #2292
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    One further note relating not only to my previous post but to yours and Dave’s remarks.

    The EEStor technology is also being developed to provide on-site high-efficiency storage of electricity generated by a power plant. Part of the problem of using solar and wind is that there hasn’t been a good way to store electricity generated at peak periods (when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining) for use when the sky is dark and the wind is still. EEStor will change that, making both these technologies much more efficient. Still, the costs and energy produced by these technologies are not quite up to what we would want long term, but it certainly makes both much more viable options until something like focus fusion can come online.

    #2294
    Transmute
    Participant

    I’ve heard of EEStor before and I’m still very skeptical of their claims, until I see it work its just a nice dream (just like F2)

    #2612
    Brian H
    Participant

    Glenn;
    About France’s attachment to its fission plants: the Big Hammer of economics would bring even the French into line. When FF has about a 50:1 cost advantage, up front and nevermind the post-processing fission product costs, it will be hard put to keep pouring Euros down that hole. Even the French aren’t that pig-headed.

    As for waste products and pollution: there are solutions to those available, given energy sources. It’s been the rotten short-term economics that has held back applying them. (I am, however, reminded of a saying from a Toronto economics prof: “Cleaner is cheaper.” If you price in recycling, clean-up, and so on, it pays all on its own, generally.)

    The “unlimited” terminology is justified, btw, if you consider it to mean, “all you want at easily affordable prices”. As for that billion-year boron limitation: asteroid mining would extend that many orders of magnitude. One 2km diameter nickel-iron asteroid in orbit would yield more base and precious metals than have been mined in man’s total history. Current value: ~$1,000,000 per capita. For the whole planet.

    Oh, about EEStor: Google EEStor and Lockheed. Big news!

    #2613
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    I agree with everything you’ve said, Brian.

    Brian H wrote: Oh, about EEStor: Google EEStor and Lockheed. Big news!

    I know. This means that they have actually done it, and its now a matter of getting the processes for full-scale production finished. I am currently researching how to start a Zenn dealership. Its gonna be big!

    #2614
    Transmute
    Participant

    Glenn Millam wrote: I agree with everything you’ve said, Brian.

    Oh, about EEStor: Google EEStor and Lockheed. Big news!

    I know. This means that they have actually done it, and its now a matter of getting the processes for full-scale production finished. I am currently researching how to start a Zenn dealership. Its gonna be big!

    I don’t think that actually proves anything, EEStor product could perform a full fold less then what is claimed and it would still be a marketable product, not world changing but good for a variety of tasks. EEStor will have “actually done it” when 3rd party testing announce that they have.

    #2616
    Brian H
    Participant

    Transmute wrote:

    I don’t think that actually proves anything, EEStor product could perform a full fold less then what is claimed and it would still be a marketable product, ….

    Numbers, TM, numbers! How many-fold would that be? 2? 5? 10? 100? 1000?
    Heh. 😉

    I doubt that Lockheed’s engineers have been suckered, so there’s presumptive evidence that the fundamentals are there, anyway.

    #2617
    Transmute
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:

    I don’t think that actually proves anything, EEStor product could perform a full fold less then what is claimed and it would still be a marketable product, ….

    Numbers, TM, numbers! How many-fold would that be? 2? 5? 10? 100? 1000?
    Heh. 😉

    I doubt that Lockheed’s engineers have been suckered, so there’s presumptive evidence that the fundamentals are there, anyway.

    Lockheed has done many projects in its rich history, some of which have been complete failures, they are not new to high risk technologies. Also EEstor is now late by a full 12 month from their original validation release date.

    #2619
    Glenn Millam
    Participant

    I get Zenn’s investor communication emails. Here is the one I got today.

    ______________

    ZENN Motor Company held its Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders today. For those of you are interested, a podcast of the meeting can be found at http://www.ZENNcars.com and http://www.newswire.ca

    For a quick summary of the meeting, please see our news release below which outlines our plans for the future .

    All the best,

    Ian Clifford

    Chief Executive Officer

    ZENN MOTOR COMPANY DETAILS PLANS FOR
    HIGHWAY CAPABLE ZENN POWERED BY EESTOR!

    Toronto, Ontario

    #2620
    Brian H
    Participant

    I get Zenn’s investor communication emails. Here is the one I got today.

    ______________

    ZENN Motor Company held its Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders today. For those of you are interested, a podcast of the meeting can be found at http://www.ZENNcars.com and http://www.newswire.ca

    For a quick summary of the meeting, please see our news release below which outlines our plans for the future .

    All the best,

    Ian Clifford

    Chief Executive Officer

    ZENN MOTOR COMPANY DETAILS PLANS FOR
    HIGHWAY CAPABLE ZENN POWERED BY EESTOR!

    Toronto, Ontario

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.