Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 7 of 130 (739969)
10-30-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
10-16-2014 1:51 PM


All Good Things Suck At First
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:
Ian Morris in Why the West RulesFor Now (2010):
The first working Western pump, the "Miner's Friend," was patented in England in 1698. It burned coal to boil water and then condensed the steam into a vacuum, whereupon operators opened a valve and the vacuum sucked water up from the mine. Now closing the valve, workers stoked the fires to boil this water, too, into steam; and then repeated the gravity-defying process of boiling and condensing over and over again.
...
For decades, this inefficiency restricted steam power to the single job of pumping out coal mines, and even for that, one owner complained, "the vast consumption of fuel of these engines is an immense drawback on the profit of our mines . . . This heavy tax amounts almost to a prohibition." For any business that had to ship coal from mines to factories, steam engines were just too expensive.
Engines were, however, fun for professors. Glasgow University bought a miniature example, but when none of the scholars could get it to work, it made its way in 1765 to the workshop of James Watt, Mathematical Instrument Maker to the University. Watt got it going, but its inefficiency sinned against his craftsman's soul. In between other tasks he obsessed about better ways to evaporate and condense water, until... (p. 494)
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2014 1:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2014 5:05 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 130 (740082)
10-31-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
10-31-2014 5:05 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2014 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2014 9:12 AM Jon has replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-03-2014 12:12 PM Jon has replied
 Message 15 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-03-2014 2:07 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 130 (740269)
11-03-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
11-03-2014 12:12 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota?
Yes.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-03-2014 12:12 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 130 (740274)
11-03-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
11-03-2014 9:12 AM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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:
"Land Requirements for PV Versus Coal Energy Generation" from The Energy Collective:
Here’s the summary then of what we need to meet our annual energy requirements:
  • coal mining requires around 1100km2 of land, or 33km X 33km
  • solar requires around 2500km2 of land, or 50km X 50kms
So thats about double the space for solar, at worst, being pretty conservative.
quote:
"Report Counts up Solar Power Land Use Needs" from IEEE Spectrum:
One study looked at what it would take to produce 10 percent and 100 percent of the whole world's power from various sources, and found nuclear and geothermal energy at the very lowest end of area needs, followed by coal, CSP, and natural gas.
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:
Wikipedia on Fusion Power:
Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy the production cost will not increase much even if large numbers of plants are built, because the raw resource (seawater) is abundant and widespread.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2014 9:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 11-03-2014 1:36 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2014 7:09 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 130 (740295)
11-03-2014 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
11-03-2014 2:07 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-03-2014 2:07 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 11-03-2014 5:13 PM Jon has replied
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2014 6:54 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 130 (740306)
11-03-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
11-03-2014 5:13 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 11-03-2014 5:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 11-03-2014 5:36 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 130 (740311)
11-03-2014 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
11-03-2014 6:12 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-03-2014 6:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2014 9:05 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 1:03 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 130 (740317)
11-03-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
11-03-2014 7:09 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2014 7:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2014 6:08 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 130 (740695)
11-06-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
11-06-2014 6:54 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2014 6:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2014 11:13 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 130 (740698)
11-06-2014 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-06-2014 6:08 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2014 6:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2014 12:10 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 130 (740739)
11-07-2014 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
11-06-2014 11:13 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2014 11:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 11-07-2014 11:34 AM Jon has replied
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 12:38 PM Jon has replied
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 1:23 PM Jon has replied
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2014 2:24 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 130 (740754)
11-07-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
11-07-2014 11:34 AM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 11-07-2014 11:34 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 11-07-2014 12:14 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 130 (740771)
11-07-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
11-07-2014 12:38 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 12:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:28 PM Jon has replied
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 11:10 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 130 (740772)
11-07-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
11-07-2014 12:10 PM


Re: solar and wind in a distributed web -- attuned to life
Yes. But can I put those on my car?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2014 12:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:33 PM Jon has replied
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:34 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 10:37 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 11:17 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 11-08-2014 11:34 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 130 (740774)
11-07-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
11-07-2014 12:14 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 11-07-2014 12:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by xongsmith, posted 11-07-2014 2:31 PM Jon has replied
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 11-08-2014 10:49 AM 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