[benf]

Is there no substitute for Beryllium (that isn’t classified)? How do you measure and is there a chart of materials that are transparent to x-rays?

[benf]

Correct me if I’m wrong in my understanding of the Black Swan, but what was “just” an exploding oil rig killing some workers has now turned into more of a Black Swan type of event, including birds and other animals soiled black with oil. If I follow Taleb’s narrative, some institutionalized thinking may have to change with this event, depending on how it plays out. Regulations for undersea oil drilling were engaged voluntarily, meaning the industry could police itself. Thus they didn’t have to put all the available safeguards in place. I see the powerlaw view coming into play though in another way as well, because of this event more people may lean toward another source of energy besides oil drilled in the ocean. They might want to see fission nuclear plants developed more rapidly, though the catastrophic failures with those could be profoundly worse.

Environmental issues must be a pain to have to take into account, especially if you’re dealing with energy. But it is a reality one has to accept this day and age, whether or not you accept GW. Likewise environmentalists have to accept that scientists and engineers figure into solutions to issues of technology in this modern world. There’s now a mutual exchange that goes on, codified into law between the people and the scientific community. When we didn’t have that arrangement, rivers caught on fire from pollution, radiation leaked, oil covered the beaches. We don’t want to go back to those days. The problem with Global Warming is that it’s mostly invisible. We won’t know it’s really a problem ’till it’s too late to change. Being more energy efficient in the mean time doesn’t really hurt anything accept maybe some stockholders returns. Car pooling and mass transportation helps the traffic flow. By listening to some of what the environmentalists views are, is the world necessarily worse off? I also think it’s good to have them as friends when you’re trying to introduce a game changing energy technology imo. The Black Swan is an interesting perspective on how people view their world. I think collaborating and developing a greater network of people supporting what you’re doing, get’s you a greater chance of promoting ideas to a broader audience and might even help encourage thinking outside the box.

A picture of a Black Swan I took, coasting along in a brook in France:

Attached files

[benf]

Great animation! It reminds me of the technology transformation from vacuum tube to transistor and now microprocessors. Nice work Torulf!

[benf]

Here’s a nice image of sprites found on Wikipedia:

Sprites

[benf]

SFA=Snack Food Association? 🙄

While sharing has it’s limits, it also has it’s place. The Focus Fusion Society is set up as a vehicle to exchange ideas and popularize the concept of fusion power as a viable energy source. The exchange benefits people who want to learn about the technology but also helps the folks at LPP learn about issues related to how their technology will find it’s place in society. This is all positive, everyone gains by it. Having a new energy source of the type proposed by LPP and it’s Focus Fusion would really solve a lot of problems, whether you believe in global warming or not. Since oil supplies will be dwindling and harder to recover and coal is difficult and destructive to mine, we have the prospect of a resurgent fission nuclear industry. Something I fear. If you do believe in global warming you might think this is our only realistic way out, apart from wind and solar. This change of perspective has happened with some prominent environment movement activists.

There are environmental groups that are very concerned about the pro-nuke developments who have discussed the possibility of fusion in the past, but my investigation at this point is showing they are woefully ignorant of the emerging aneutronic fusion developments that are going on. They are only aware of the huge tokamak mega projects, which haven’t produced any breakthroughs they could embrace. It may be premature to be seeking endorsements from them (yes, I believe that could be a prospect!) but this site gives them a window to the future, they should be made aware of.

It is to LPP’s credit that they are making their research public. Perhaps it’s also partly out of necessity for fundraising, but I believe this site has genuinely been set up to share the knowledge so there will ultimately be public acceptance that Focus Fusion will be a viable green alternative. Otherwise, why bother going the pB11 route?

Brian H. you ascribe to a more cynical view of human nature and it’s capacity to share in a beneficial way. Your other postings show that you’re networked into this world view. But what we also have to fear, is that the corporate elitist’s view isn’t bound by standard rules of propriety. They are capable of burying promising new technologies for the sake of maintaining the status quo or their own insatiable greed. To them they may feel there’s more money to be made mining and drilling ever deeper or building massive cooling towers for fission powered, steam engine generators.

All of humanity, including corporate power, stands to gain from this new energy source. Resources won’t be as stretched to the limits. More countries will be able to participate with the creation of power grids over larger demographic areas. Less environmental regulation will need to be imposed because of it’s smaller impact and footprint. Engaging and involving more people who are interested in finding solutions cooperatively is the best way to go.

[benf]

I had to bone up on the public utility concept to try and get a grip on what this proposition involves. PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) is basically saying that communities shouldn’t be able to take on the huge responsibility of setting up their own utilities without jumping a voters hurtle. They want to be the ones to spend taxpayers money exclusively and make it very difficult for communities to compete.

These two websites explain the problem with that better than I can:

Powergrab

SFGate

Here in California public utilities are supposed to allow for competition and are regulated to do so, with a Public Utilities Commission overseeing the industry.

Aeronaut-23 April 2010 06:09 PM
It boiled my blood just to read that short article. The $6.5M that PG&E has into that campaign so far could have been much better invested in a Stanford and/ or UC Irvine confirmation lab for FF and left them ~$5M to promote how green and visionary they are.

Good point Aeronaut. The campaign money that’s being thrown around…could be much better spent. >:(
I wasn’t aware of the research that’s been going on out here. edit: (other than Lawrence Livermore Lab’s Inertial confinement fusion project.)

[benf]

Sorry about the link, Aeronaut. I’ve changed it to a different site for all to check out.

California Prop. 16 Taxpayers Right to Vote Act

PG&E Utility is sponsoring this initiative pouring millions into the campaign. It basically says that cities can’t set up their own independent utility service without a two third majority vote.

[benf]

Brian H. -20 April 2010 10:35 PM
But there is no transmutation other than changing boron+hydrogen into common helium. “Dangerous” transmutation is a fission thing, and to some extent a fast neutron problem. None of that. No transport and burials necessary.

Thanks for the clarification Brian H. Rezwan, I had to do a search for this information to find it in the new web design:

https://focusfusion.pmhclients.com/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_vs_nuclear_reactors/

I think it used to be more accessible. It addresses the main concerns around radioactive emmissions and byproducts. I don’t know what ends up happening to the water barrier and boron 10 jacket, or if it’s ever an issue. Maybe that could be addressed. But I think this is info that should be prominent to allay concerns. Rezwan your informative thoughts are again helpful! It would be nice to have the likes of Bill Gates supporting your efforts.

[benf]

Here’s to hoping we can get the “if” behind us!

Brian H -20 April 2010 01:52 AM:
The images you have fixated on are, of course, selected. Science, however, depends on clean data, not emotive mental images.

In the news lately:
A coal mine disaster kills twenty nine….
Twelve missing, seven critically injured after an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico….
A young Gray Whale found dead in San Francisco Bay, it’s stomach is found to be full of trash….
A coal tanker from China leaves standard shipping lanes and ends up grounded and spilling fuel on the Great Barrier Reef off Australia…

This is empirical data observed relating to human consumption, I believe. The information causes me to feel some sad emotions.
These are risks we take to trying to maintain or expand raw materials and markets. It has become standard news that people just have to live with.

Focus Fusion and other sustainable technologies can help reduce those incidents for everyone’s benefit. 🙂

[benf]

I would answer that we’re already off to a very good start of taking on the debate and informing people with this website. From my experience, most of the people who comprised the no nukes movement in the past were not Luddites, they were mostly educated. The very same people began searching for viable alternatives to nuclear and oil turned to what science, even space science then had to offer. Solar cells and wind generators were a safe and relatively affordable way out, though on a small scale. Back in the seventies and eighties they were totally innovative. But as Eric has pointed out in his presentation to Google, that with the amount of time and resources to scale these technologies up, they won’t, as novel as they are, take us to where we need to be to deal with peak oil and the global warming threats. This was an eye opener to me and needs to be further circulated to people in a very big way. Now we have just been through eight years of an administration that was seriously anti-environment and anti-science and pro big oil. People in the environmental movement had their clocks turned back, seriously. The new administration was elected partly on a platform to move us away from that trend and they haven’t said no to nuclear power development. Environmentalists are in a bind, clearly, and looking for alternatives again, I think. They’re still against the idea of transporting and burying long half-life spent fuel. They also don’t want plants that have the potential to melt down or discharge hot water into the rivers. Focus Fusion addresses many of these issues and while there may be a fission component to the transmutation of the elements (if this is the right way to put it) it is near enough to inconsequential to my understanding. As long as there isn’t transportation to a cave in the southwest it will probably be acceptable. Also keep in mind that for the general public, the idea of a “warp drive” power plant for space travel has been totally acceptable thing to aspire to for the future! We all would like it to be safe, if possible. Global Warming Deniers still have the problems of peak oil economics to contend with and will also be wanting hi-tech solutions beyond coal mining, so maybe they can learn to put up with the environmentalists and see a brighter future.

[benf]

Another revealing study on solar radiation and the current disconnect with atmospheric temperature increase. From Stanford U.:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
Temperature had followed sunspot cycle variation. Now it isn’t.

[benf]

Thanks Rezwan. I viewed the source code in both Safari and Firefox and they read the same. Nothing jumps out at me to identify the problem. I’m not a coder so maybe someone else has that expertise. I’m happy to use Firefox but Safari is the default browser for Macs so this problem could frustrate inexperienced surfers. Hopefully Flickr will solve the problem as you say.

[benf]

I have an art background not a scientific one, so I can’t claim to be an authority on research. I am able see and interpret what I see and make deductions. I’m seeing pictures of the polar caps receding, pictures of dead coral reefs and vast areas of the ocean that are uninhabitable. I see and hear less songbirds and frogs. I have to watch out for Mosquitos now carrying diseases that were tropical. Whole forest are dying from beetle infestations. It goes on and on. I rely on what experts have to say and have written on the subject, just like I’ve learned from scientists like Darwin and Einstein, without necessarily really knowing the science. I’ve just read this article posted on the NY Times website by Paul Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?scp=1&sq=krugman cap and trade&st=cse
I’ve looked at graphs from climate researchers from MIT that show sea levels rising some 30 ft. in the coming decades. I’ve read books and articles such as A Reef In Time by J.E.N Veron which describes the negative impact of ocean acidification. There was the article in Scientific American describing how global warming started with agrarian farming some 8,000 years ago and it has halted the next ice age in it’s tracks. So I’m thinking of what Isaac Azimov once wrote about an alien planet that mechanically controlled it’s global temperature, but maybe this is a subject for another thread!
I don’t necessarily believe everything I read, but when I’ve read lot’s of compelling information from people who devote their lives pursuing research and their conclusions corresponds with some of what I and others see hear and feel, it carries a lot of weight. Regarding what Focus Fusion should leverage, GW or GWD, I think there are some major obstacles that have to be overcome with convincing people that Focus Fusion (using pB11) is a safe and benign nuclear power alternative that makes economic sense, compared to traditional fission or even “enhanced safety” fission designs. The anti-nuke movement of the 70’s and 80’s was a really big deal imho. It stopped fission nuclear power in this country and slowed it elsewhere. It was part of the growing concern for the environment by the public. People haven’t forgotten or changed their view that transporting and burying spent fuel rods is a bad thing. They haven’t forgotten about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I’m not one to stifle debate, but as far as what carries weight…the public with it’s concern for the environment, could certainly, for example, impact how the NRC handles emerging technologies such as FF. Additionally we have the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation and brinksmanship that reinforces fear of the word nuclear. Lots of work has to be done to allay this fear. Focus Fusion caught my interest because the society has been directly engaging in the discussion that must take place with people who fear advanced technology solutions to the both the energy crisis and global warming.
The global warming debate will go on, partly genuine, partly a diversionary tactic for the big oil and coal industries. Global warming deniers have made contributions to this debate and in these forums on other topics as well, but I fear what I see.

[benf]

A good blog from down under highlighting the opposition to progress on the environment. Fortunately the numbers of people who agree with the assessments of scientists regarding the dim prospects of global warming is large, and they’re from all over the world. The environmental movement has faced fierce opposition for years as entrenched corporate power has gone outside the law to dodge safe standards. Karen Silkwood was an example from the past. The recent West Virginia coal mine disaster show’s what happens when there is callous disregard for safety regulations. We go on fighting for change, despite those pressures, though. A relative of mine recently passed away after writing one last research paper on acid rain (George Tomlinson). He was 98 years old! The issues that are out there for us to resolve require long term efforts and resolve against opposition. The Obama administration has this on the White House website: “Closing the Carbon Loophole. By stemming carbon pollution through a market-based cap, we can address in a systematic way all the energy challenges that we face: curbing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our use of fossil fuels, and promoting new industries right here in America.” We need to hold them to that statement and prevent the forces of the denialists from achieving their goals, imho. Focus Fusion is a benign solution to our energy problems and a viable alternative to fossil fuel burning or fission nuclear power generation.

[benf]

I’m not seeing acid rain in the list Brian H, though, who knows, they could’ve snuck it in there somewhere. True the earth has experienced wide excursions of temperature and greenhouse gasses in the distant past. But we’re interested in the effects of rapid change happening now, when modern human civilization has developed huge cities along the coasts. A rapid rise of ocean levels could be devastating. If it can be at least diminished we should be responsible and try to limit the sources of warming that are contributing to the accelerated rate of change. Not to mention the other damaging effects of fossil fuel burning as highlighted by Vansig’s posts. I would add acid rain to the list along with mass extinctions…..A new, safer energy source can limit the damages by minimizing the CO2 and CH4 output.

[Author]

Posts