|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fusion Power on the way - at last ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Don't be so quick to knock new energy technologies. Not many were efficient first time out of the gate. And if everyone had adopted your dismissive attitude, we'd still be lighting our houses with lamps and riding around on animals (that is, the very few of us who'd be able to afford such luxurious technologies).
quote: Tinkering for improvements in a science lab despite all apparent obstacles is what's made our world what it is today. And no one remembers the names of the sceptics, because they only got in the way. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Fusion is the only sensible alternative to fossil-fuel energy production. I don't see any of the current alternatives replacing fossil fuels so long as they remain abundant-enough to make them economically feasible.
We will either run out of fossil fuels and be forced to switch to less desirable alternatives like wind, hydro, or solar; or we will switch willingly to fusion power. All that said, I see any development in fusion as a success. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota? Yes.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
showed that homes that invested in solar systems had higher resale value and recouped more than the installation cost. Sure. The alternatives have benefits and uses. But those benefits are minimal and uses are limited to special circumstances. Solar power doesn't work in areas with little sunlight. Hydro power doesn't work in a desert. And so on. Land use is also a concern with these alternatives:
quote: quote: And because each of these alternatives is geographically restricted, no one of them can become a sole and dominate form of energy production. Thus, a world dominated by the current alternatives to fossil fuels would fail to take advantage of the benefits of economies of scale. On the other hand, fusion plants, like coal plants, can be built anywhere, which means they are feasible as a sole and dominate form of energy production and thus possess all the benefits of economies of scale that go along with this. And this doesn't even get into the issue of diseconomies of scale:
quote: Solar, wind, hydro, etc. are simply not feasible alternatives to fossil fuels so long as we have an abundant-enough supply of the latter. Fusion power, though is better than fossil fuel power, and tremendously so. In a world with fossil fuel production, hydro, solar, wind, etc. have little chance competing. In a world with fusion power, no other method has any chance of competing. Fusion is the future.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
People tend not to care about their differences when everyone is rich and happy. And that is what fusion can provide. I think your daydreams of the world working together are bigger than my daydreams of fusion power.
Of course Fusion, with its lack of dangerous waste products would be ideal, but to say that it is the only sensible option seems a bit premature to me. Personally, if we are aiming for energy independence, I think we should increase the amount of fission reactors we have operating in the United States, especially while we wait for fusion to provide the innovation for the next step. Fission is, in my opinion, a horrible idea. The waste is a huge problem and we can't just stop using fission and then see the waste slowly disappear (like we can with fossil fuels, for example). Also, energy independence really is a silly goal. The industrial revolution and modernity were made possible by the huge increase in energy provided from steam power and the use of fossil fuels. If we want to keep moving forward we need to work for another a new way of doing things (such as fusion) not just 'better' ways of doing the same old thing. In its earliest stages fusion really will just be another way of generating steam power. But there are theoretical methods (with realistic potential) that abandon the use of steam for good. Upon reaching that point, the problems of humanity will essentially not exist. Energy will be virtually free and since all current problems are energy problem (hunger, thirst, disease) these will be conquered; likely within the first century of successful non-steam power generation using nuclear fusion processes. I know this sounds dreamy, but it's supported by the evidence. The only thing lacking now is the physical means of getting there. But it seems as though we are slowly progressing in that direction. Fission, solar, wind, etc. are, in my opinion, distractions from where our energies should really be directed.
Switching to more nuclear power would allow the scientists time to continue to work through the problems that are being mentioned, while still reducing the reliance on fossil fuels...I'd say that seems pretty sensible. Except that the wastes from nuclear power are way worse than the wastes from fossil fuels. We can more or less get by in a world polluted with fossil fuel waste (we pretty much already do), but we really can't get by very well in a world polluted with wastes from nuclear power. I think current nuclear plants should be shut down and replaced with coal plants. (Or even solar or wind or hydro plants; as bad as those are, they are better than nuclear fission.)Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But what options are there for fission wastes once we develop a virtually costless energy supply?
Fossil fuel wastes can be removed from the environment given enough energy. Can the same be said about fission waste? ABE: I realize that one possibility for fission waste disposal is to jettison it into space; so even there an almost unlimited energy supply would allow us to fix the problem. Still, I think fossil fuels present fewer long-term risks. You only mention small-scale fission use. What would be the nuclear waste output of a world run on nuclear fission? Edited by Jon, : -y + ess Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Even if the calculations are just modern, think of the less developed countries that have lower safety standards for things like steam generators (which blow up if not properly built, used, and maintained).
The numbers can be skewed even if they focus on just a recent time period because less developed areas have no access to nuclear power. So nuclear power is only used in areas where safety standards can be followed to a T. And coal power is used everywhere, even in places where safety is not a priority.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Instead, consider the unused real estate in town and along highways and train ways and all those existing transmission lines. PV solar can be integrated into other construction and provide energy in a distributed web that reduces the need and waste of high power lines. Coal cannot do this -- your comparison is fatally flawed. Example: an electric train in Germany that runs on power generated by solar panels along the train route -- no extra land needed no extra power needed. Wind too can be put up on existing infrastructure and integrated in a web of power generations: instead of linear distribution systems with alternate lines for a modicum of failsafe (but not enough to prevent blackouts and brownouts) the web energy flows from many sources to where it is used. Neighborhoods can stand alone, streetlights can collect power during the day and use it at night -- no more blackouts. The quality of service would be better. And you even mentioned anecdotal cases of it being cost-effective. Yet hardly anyone has solar panels on their houses or windmills in their backyards. People seem to prefer the grid system (out of sight out of mind mentality?). Look at gas lighting; in rural areas people have on-site LP tanks. Why didn't people in cities use onsite tanks for their lighting gas? I guess people just prefer the grid. Either that, or there is some unconsidered obstacle to large-scale in-home solar/wind systems in urban areas that has not been fully explored. Either way; it seems people like the grid. And fusion is all about the grid. Fusion power works with human nature. Another benefit it has over hippy-power.
And those plants would have less appeal for those living nearby than the existing coal plants, which - frankly - are hideous. Safety requirements on top of public aversion would mean they would have to be built a great distance away from living centers, require large transmission lines and distribution centers. Blackouts would still occur as those lines fail. How would they fail? They can produce exponential surpluses of energy that can be stored locally. You are still held back by the preconception that fusion is just another way of doing the same thing. But it isn't. The power-generating capabilities of successful fusion are astronomical. Truly successful fusion means a world never again in want of cheap, portable, easy energy.
You talk about fusion as a nascent industry and complain that it needs to be given a break, and then compare the current state of development of wind and solar generation to a mature industry that is fully developed. This is hypocritical. Considering the advances in the last 5 years and the knowledge that we have not yet begun to reach optimum development means that such comparisons are apples and oranges, based more on biases than reality. So you want to trade short-term gains for long-term progress?
Progress isn't just about making power, but integrating our systems to be places to live. Which we can more easily do with virtually limitless power that is boarder-line free. I think people will willingly adopt fusion. The fact that hardly anyone has adopted your system tells me it's dead out of the water. Why do you think the fairytale land of everyone getting along is more reasonable than an evidenced potential future of almost free power that never runs out?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What is the purpose or reason for eliminating steam? If it is eliminated, that's great, but why is that a priority for a fusion reactor? It's not a requirement for fusion. But it is a requirement for advancement. We can't live in the steam age forever.
So we continue to invest in fusion, but we simply cannot abandon other technologies for the sole reason that they are currently too expensive and then continue to work on fusion which is facing exactly the same issue. There is also the problem that power generation by fusion is not currently attainable at any cost. It isn't just about their cost-effectiveness. It is about their general impracticability and the fact that no one wants them. Do you honestly see coal-generated electricity falling out of use any time soon? The U.N. thinks we need to be completely off fossil fuels by 2100. Do you see that happening willingly with the current alternatives? I don't. In fact, I think expecting people to be switched completely off fossil fuels in 85 years with only the alternatives we have now is laughable.
Amusing. Care to elaborate?
Radioactive waste disposal is a problem, but is the problem with disposal actually worse than the problems presented by burning fossil fuels or coal? I don't believe you can come close to making that case. The waste products from coal are not radioactive, but non-radioactive is not the same as non-toxic. And no amount of time will result in their hazard lessening. Are you joking? Of course the problem with disposal of nuclear waste is worse than the problems of burning fossil fuels (which includes coal). We've actually developed dozens of ways of lessening the impact of fossil-fuel waste; and because of the relatively low use of nuclear power generation we can't even begin to understand what problems will be presented in an entirely fission society.
Currently solar power is drawing huge amounts of attention in NC. Everybody and their dog is trying to put together solar farms that service hundreds of families. So it is not just about a few hippies putting panels on their roofs anymore. Of course. But the question is rather that is a fad or the future.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Seems they don't have your problem ... Good for them. But they are only at 17%. And it seems they are an unusually good location for wind generation. The same cannot be said for every region on the planet.
There is more than enough wind and sun to power the world, it is available with existing technology and the innovations are still occurring at an incredible rate. As I have pointed out, the fact that the world has enough wind and sun to power the planet doesn't mean that the whole world does. As they say, location, location, location. There are plenty of places where these alternatives simply don't work.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What's the technological/economic objection to steam power? Jon thinks it is not cool is not a reason to abandon steam power. It's cumbersome and really only practical on the ground.
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. Sure. Where they work they work. But they don't work everywhere.
We will get huge reductions in the use of coal primarily because of the increase in availability of natural gas. Coal might well die off despite anything anti-environmentalists can do. Unfortunately, that same affect is going to cause problems for most 'green' technologies. Fusion, despite its attractiveness is not here and it may not get here any time soon. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.
Yes. I find it amusing that you label things as silly without argument and then ignore the issues associated with your own pipe dreams. You calling other people naive is pretty laughable. The Chicken seems to think we're aiming for energy independence, and I don't see how that has anything to do with this topic. If energy independence is what we want, then we should really be looking at upping our extraction of U.S. coal reserves (we have the largest in the world) and finding new ways of powering things with coal or its refined products. But no one wants a future powered by even more coal; yet that's what we get if we want energy independence to dictate our behaviors. And that's why energy independence is a stupid goal and has nothing to do with budding fusion technologies. The goal of energy independence stops fusion in its tracks.
What do we do with coal ash, Jon? We are increasingly finding ways to recycle more of it into useful products. What are we recycling nuclear waste into?
It's the present. Fusion power is not the present. And more to the point, it's a counter argument to your insistence that nobody wants solar power. And my point is that it's a distraction. Wide-scale adoption of these alternatives appears improbable, and anecdotes of folks here and there using solar, wind, etc. look more like a fad than anything else. And no one has yet addressed the hurdles to wide-scale use of the alternatives that I have brought up at least twice now.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It seems to me that something that works somewhere is better than something that works nowhere. Coal power works everywhere. So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Really? Because I recall supervising the operations of a nuclear reactor with its accompanying a steam plant a few hundred feet under the ocean out in the North Atlantic in a fairly compact space. Beyond that though, given that we use steam plants in lots of places on the ground, your objection is pretty meaningless. Good for you. But I was specifically referring to the impracticability of steam power in space.
The main difference between most of the other posters and you is that you are smitten with the promise of fusion without taking into account the reality. The reality is very clear to me: we will continue to use coal until either all the coal is gone or we develop economically-viable fusion.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Yes. But can I put those on my car?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do I have to explain your own posts to you? 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?") Try to follow the arguments. My statements regarding solar and wind not working everywhere were in regards to their potential to replace fossil-fuels. 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.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024