Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fusion Power on the way - at last ?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 130 (740858)
11-07-2014 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 1:23 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
Yes they have. The alternative is to hook stuff up to the grid.
That doesn't address any of the hurdles I mentioned.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 1:23 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 130 (740859)
11-07-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by xongsmith
11-07-2014 2:31 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
Your guess is as good as anyone's
There's as much evidence that we will have fusion power in a decade as there is that we won't have fusion for many decades or centuries: none.
And there is also no evidence that we can replace fossil fuels with wind, solar or hydro. We don't even know if these alternatives are real options in every instance where replacement might be considered.
What do we know?
We know that fossil fuels work everywhere.
We know that fusion would work everywhere.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2014 2:31 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 130 (740861)
11-07-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 1:03 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
You could not possibly have thought your argument through. Are you suggesting that you'd select option (d) from the question below:
Can't anyone in this thread separate out the points of an argument instead of blurring everything into big confused mess?
That quote was a reply to New Cat's Eye regarding a graph posted in Message 17 about the safety of current energy production methods.
Your post is complete gibberish and full of irrelevancy.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 1:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:41 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 130 (740880)
11-07-2014 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 10:28 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
So you think we should avoid using steam to generate electricity on the ground because we cannot use it in space?
Where did I ever make that argument?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:19 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 130 (740882)
11-07-2014 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 10:33 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
Cars can utilize the output of any source that can generate electricity because we can use electricity to charge batteries and capacitors.
Of course.
But solar, hydro, and wind don't offer us a substantial amount more energy than we can get from fossil fuels. In one of the articles I linked to, an estimation was given that solar power requires about two times the amount of land area as coal power. Another link mentioned that coal is on the low end in terms of land area used (Message 13).
As you know, land on our little planet is limited, and energy-generation technologies that require exponentially larger amounts of land to generate energy than the land we are already using (and the impact is greater when energy demands increase, which they will as population increases) simply don't stand up as feasible alternatives.
When you add to that the fact that many of these technologies will require land that is most suited to other important things (like transporting goods or growing food), the practicality of replacing fossil-fuel energy with solar or wind or whatever else is is hard to see.
Can you give me some numbers to demonstrate the potential for solar or wind to replace fossil fuels?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:33 PM Jon has replied
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:41 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 130 (740883)
11-07-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 11:19 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
That's the conclusion that results from the dumb arguments you did make.
I asked you for the reason why we need to get rid of steam which is used to generate energy from multiple sources on earth, and which will probably be used even with fusion.
The only real answers you've given so far is that steam cannot be used in space or that it's old fashioned. Both of those answers are BS.
You've also made some complaints about other power sources not fitting in vehicles. Well you aren't going to put a fusion reactor in a car either.
None of this stuff is related.
You are taking several different lines of discussion and trying to meld them as though they were ever meant to go together. And, of course, this doesn't work, because I never proposed any relationship between the safety of coal and the safety of fusion. I never said we need to give up steam because we cannot use it in space (we shouldn't give up steam unless we have a usable alternative; turning off the steam and sitting in the dark just because steam doesn't work in space is a stupid idea).
Anyway, I'm not interested in cleaning up your sloppy mess. If you can't keep different lines of argumentation separate, whether intentionally or because you're stupid, then there's little point in trying to discuss anything else with you.
Uncross your wires and then we can talk.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 130 (740885)
11-07-2014 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 10:41 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
Does it really matter why you said it? Fusion would still not be the answer for situations where we cannot trust people to operate a steam plant. Just about all of the other options would much simpler to operate than a fusion reactor.
Of course it matters why I said it. The discussion about safety had nothing to do with fusion.
The attempt to link the two is your doing - not mine.
So any deficiency in the logic of that link is a reflection on your poor attempt of straw-man building, and not a reflection on any argument I actually made.
You're just being a weasel.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 130 (740886)
11-07-2014 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 11:33 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
Particularly if the coal land use includes the coal mine.
I don't recall if those numbers include the mines or not. But regardless, coal mines do not remain coal mines forever.
ABE: I see now that the numbers do include the mines. So even counting the mines, coal-generation uses significantly less land area (and can use land least-desirable for any other purposes) than solar. /ABE
On the other hand, solar and wind generation requires permanent use of the land involved.
Isn't this something I should have expected you to do?
You think it is a comparable (or better) alternative. Prove it.
It's no one's job to prove similarities between things that on the surface have nothing in common with one another except the person making the claim that they are comparable.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:33 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 130 (740888)
11-07-2014 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 11:41 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
There are no realistic numbers on how much of our energy can be replaced by fusion because we have no idea of the what it will really cost.
Let's leave fusion out of the discussion for now.
I think it would be great to get off fossil fuels.
My concern is that we don't have any current technologies that can get us there without significant drawbacks.
If you want to show how those technologies can work and be comparable to fossil fuels (minus the greenhouse gases), then I'm ready to be convinced.
For now, though, it seems we will be stuck with fossil fuels until a suitable alternative comes along.
And I think fusion just might be that suitable alternative.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:58 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 130 (740891)
11-08-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 11:55 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
That's nice.
Whenever you're ready for an honest discussion, I'll be here.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 11:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2014 12:30 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 130 (740932)
11-08-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
11-08-2014 10:49 AM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
Which is why I said in Message 31 that a real alternative is inherently better than a fantasy one.
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.
Earlier I posted figures for land use by solar power. Here is a chart of land use for wind as a function of land area: Area Used by Wind Power Facilities. If we look at the first item on the list, and compare its land use (and assume I can do math”the biggest assumption of our calculations), then we find that coal can generate somewhere around 50,000 times the amount of energy for a single acre of land as wind power.
My numbers are probably way off. But I think they still demonstrate how renewable energy is not even close to competing with coal as feasible alternatives to powering advanced, modern, successful societies like the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 11-08-2014 10:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 11-08-2014 11:44 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 130 (740933)
11-08-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
11-08-2014 11:10 AM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
What are their energy needs?
150% doesn't mean anything by itself.
quote:
Research released today found that coal companies are all talk and no action when it comes to energy poverty and that renewable energy is leading the way in poverty alleviation Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
That's probably true since coal companies are run by rich people looking to make money and solar power is installed by flower-power hippies with a genuine concern for helping others.
I can see why those interests would produce different results. But that just speaks of the interests of the parties and not of the physical feasibility of their proposed energy-generation methods.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 11:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 2:18 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 130 (740943)
11-08-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
11-08-2014 11:44 AM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
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 some fossil fuels now - and the answer is, "Yes."
And that's fine. I've already said a number of times that replacing fossil fuels with wind or solar where it can be done is a good thing.
But whether we can replace all of our fossil-fuels with wind or solar is as much of a daydream as whether we can develop fusion power that will replace everything.
For the time being, we have to use real-world solutions, whether they are ultimate solutions or not.
And I'm not even talking about ultimate solutions. I'm talking specifically bout the real-world (in)feasibility of large-scale solar/wind power in place of fossil fuels.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 11-08-2014 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 11-09-2014 1:16 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 130 (740971)
11-08-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
11-08-2014 2:18 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
Funny how you keep running away from the obvious: ALL their electrical needs are met with solar, Jon, ALL.
Unless you can tell me what those energy needs are, you can't demonstrate feasibility for advanced and powerful first-world nations with massive energy requirements.
Consider: If all we need to do is light up a bulb, a pickle from the fridge will do.
But that doesn't mean we can meet a developed society's energy needs with pickles.
You need to present some usable figures. That percentage you've quoted is just a soundbite.
Which is a reason why coal power companies are bad -- they don't want\care to provide electrical power, they want to make money, lots of money.
Sure. The companies are bad. But that doesn't mean the technology is necessarily bad or the wrong answer in all circumstances.
Pharmaceutical companies aren't very good either; but I think we can all agree that the science of developing and using drugs is a pretty good thing.
And when people can get a cheaper solution by going somewhere else then there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't do that.
Of course. I've mentioned several times that renewable energy is the only sensible route where it can be done cost-effectively and with results comparable to the current mainstream methods (fossil fuels).
For too long there has not been much of a choice in getting electricity, the "utilities" were basically monopolies that were pretty much free to set what rates they wanted.
Solar and wind break that stranglehold.
Now you're talking about something completely different than meeting a developed nation's energy needs.
I have no interest in discussing people rebelling against the 'Company' by putting solar panels on their roofs and windmills in their yards.
On the list of problems to solve regarding energy, sticking it to rich companies falls pretty low on the list.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 2:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2014 4:29 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 130 (741088)
11-09-2014 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
11-09-2014 1:16 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
"If I do buy a portable fusion generator that can put out a few thousand kWh, what will it run on?"
Presumably the same thing any other fusion generator would run on: fusion power (from Wikipedia).
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 11-09-2014 1:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 11-09-2014 2:19 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024