[emmetb]

Two questions:
– How would the plasma torch separate the oil from the sand?
– Isn’t the excavation of contaminated soil going to do a lot of damage?

According to wikipedia separating bitumen from soil is usually done by injecting steam. A process which requires a lot of energy in its own right:
“Approximately 1.0 – 1.25 gigajoule of energy is needed to extract a barrel of bitumen and upgrade it to synthetic crude.”

There is research on breaking down crude oil using bacteria. The main problem there seems to be to supply the bacteria with the minerals they need to break down the oil. I saw one research suggesting lipophilic fertilizers (uric acid and lecithin) for this. Even if the latter issue is solved there is still the Eutrophication of the affected area to deal with. So perhaps relocating this mix of lipophilic fertilizer, bacteria and contaminated soil to some desert for agriculture might do the trick?

[emmetb]

It’s quite a condescending statement.

Rather, it’s a good thing that FFS exists to make known the work of LPP who are doing the hard science.

I’m sure, if asked, Lerner would also give a talk at TED, like Cowley:
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html
…to bring onboard an even more pluriform group of concerned citizens.

As this is such an important topic, that concerns us all, it would be nice to see an open panel discussion on the directions of fusion energy research take place. Since the interests are so great, for political reasons, this will most probably never happen. Exuding an impression of consensus to the general public and the decision makers is far too important for the people involved in mainstream fusion research. This strategy will backfire. People like Cowley have a societal responsibility to engage in a debate with legitimate proponents of alternative fusion energy concepts, like Lerner.

[Author]

Posts