|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fusion Power on the way - at last ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota?
Fusion is the only sensible alternative to fossil-fuel energy production.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
It seems to me that something that works somewhere is better than something that works nowhere.
Where they work they work. But they don't work everywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Do I have to explain your own posts to you? So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I was replying to Message 30 where you said, " Where they work they work. But they don't work everywhere," in reply to Message 29 where NoNukes said, "It may well be that people are not putting solar panels or windmills in their back yards, but nobody objects to having those technologies put on the grid if it can be done economically. That's one way that we use solar farm and wind farms." You seemed quite clearly to be referring to solar farms and wind farms, which do not work everywhere. And you have been touting fusion power, which doesn't work anywhere. Clear yet? ("And you want to be my latex salesman?")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
We have several apartment buildings in town with solar panels just like that.
Our town is investigating doing this on all town buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
That's exactly the point: IF fusion gets going it MAY eventually be something or other. But it ain't going. Right now, it's nothing. It's only a little above fairy-powered hamster wheels on the list of possible replacements for fossil fuels. Solar and wind ARE going. They ARE realistic alternatives. Which is why I said in Message 31 that a real alternative is inherently better than a fantasy one.
We'll never see a fossil-fuel-less society so long as the alternatives can't be at least as good. Fusion, if it gets going, will be better. And that is why it stands an actual chance of replacing fossil fuels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I can put a science fiction book about fusion power in my car. Yes. But can I put those on my car? Don't get me wrong. I'd love to be able to go to Home Depot and buy a portable fusion reactor that would power my house. But I can't. I can't even read about an experimental one that's powering a small building for eight million dollars a year. With the technological development that I've seen in my lifetime, I'd hesitate to say it won't happen any time soon but it's pretty silly to dismiss the alternatives that do work in favour of a pipe dream that might someday be a miracle solution. By the way, if I do buy a portable fusion generator that can put out a few thousand kWh, what will it run on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
The question isn't whether or not they can replace fossil fuels completely at some point in the future. The question is whether or not they can replace somefossil fuels now - and the answer is, "Yes." Sure. But you also need to address whether those alternatives can replace fossil fuels. So far, no one has even approached the feasibility of replacing fossil fuels with solar or wind. We don't know when, or if, fusion power will become a reality. For the time being, we have to use real-world solutions, whether they are ultimate solutions or not. IF some day fusion power becomes a reality, it will have to compete with wind and solar. Maybe it will put them out of business. Maybe not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Of course it isn't feasible to replace fossil fuels with solar/wind in cars, etc. I asked you in Message 70, "If I do buy a portable fusion generator that can put out a few thousand kWh, what will it run on?"
I'm talking specifically bout the real-world (in)feasibility of large-scale solar/wind power in place of fossil fuels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Don't play dumb. What fuels it? You can't get something from nothing. What's the input?
Presumably the same thing any other fusion generator would run on: fusion power (from Wikipedia).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I asked you earlier in the thread if you could run your Toyota on fusion power. Your answer was the highly profound, "Yes." I ain't the Fusion Genie. If you want to know, look it up. I gave you the link. I'm asking you to back up your claim. The onus is on you to tell us what that Toyota would run on or what my portable generator would run on. What is the input?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I am trying to get you to answer a simple question: What would a fusion reactor - say in a car - run on? In effect, a fusion reactor is an internal "combustion" engine, so what is the input? What you actually said was: "Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota?" The point of the question is that there has to be something that you put in the car to make it go from A to B. I want you to tell us what that something is for fusion power. Then we can discuss whether or not that something is an effective alternative to fossil fuels. If not, then there are no alternatives, not even pipe dreams, and we'll have to think about getting rid of millions of individual engines instead of perpetuating a system that was probably a bad idea in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Read the rules. Bare links are not a legitimate argument. They're only for backing up an argument that you actually make.
Read the Wikipedia article. Jon writes:
Your claim is that fusion is the only potential alternative to fossil fuels for private vehicles. I'm saying that we need to know what the input is before we can decide whether or not it really is a viable alternative. For example, if the input is hydrogen (wild guess), then the plants that produce hydrogen present a whole new layer of problems.
Like I said, it's not my job to answer all your questions about fusion (me not being a nuclear physicist and all).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Bare questions are allowed. Bare links are not. If you don't know the answer, just admit it. You asked a bare question and I kindly provided a link to a resource that would answer it. I think it's an important question. If we need to put something into a fusion reactor to make it work - and the laws of thermodynamics suggest that we do - then the availability and suitability of that input is important to any discussion of whether or not fusion is a viable alternative. So, what's the input?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I would have thought going down to the Shell station to fill up on deuterium and tritium was a bit of a problem. In my rudimentary understanding of fusion, it is the deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen that is the fuel. The big problem isn't fuel, I wouldn't think, but ignition. But I thought Jon might be thinking of using fusion indirectly to fuel cars with hydrogen that was produced by gigantic fusion power plants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
That's what I was thinking - which is why I don't take Jon's claim about fusion-powered cars seriously. Surely deuterium/tritium fuel would entail the same problems as hydrogen, or worse.
Hydrogen is not a power source - it has to be generated by cracking water...with extremely large amounts of heat, or with electricity. So we need the high-capacity power plants either way (nuclear to generate the extreme heat for that method, or just any significant power output for the electrolysis method). Rahvin writes:
My main concern about electric cars is the Canadian winter. What happens to your battery when it's parked outside overnight?
Electric vehicles are making leaps and bounds in their range and energy density. Battery technology has not remained stagnant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024