| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2006 06:05:21 PM |
| Object: |
Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
Its now an engineering problem , the physics having been
solved , so we can all consume all the goods we want and become mega
rich without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
However I think they may be on the wrong track . Why not
freeze deuterium and tritium molecules to ultra cold Bose-Einstein
state so they fuse and become on super atom and release cold fusion
energy ?
excerpt bbc.co.uk
In a fusion reaction, energy is released when light atomic nuclei -
the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to
form heavier atomic nuclei.
To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is
necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius
- many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.
The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent
decades developing, are immense; but the rewards, if Iter can be made
to work successfully, are extremely attractive.
One of the attractions of fusion is the tiny amount of fuel needed.
The release of energy from a fusion reaction is said to be 10 million
times greater than from a typical chemical reaction, such as burning a
fossil fuelOne of the attractions of fusion is the tiny amount of fuel
needed. The release of energy from a fusion reaction is 10 million
times greater than from a typical chemical reaction, such as burning a
fossil fuel.
A 1GW fusion power station would burn about 1kg of deuterium and
tritium per day, compared with a 1GW coal power station burning 10,000
tonnes per day of coal.
Efficient system
The raw materials to produce this reaction are water and lithium.
Lithium is a common metal, in daily use in mobile phones and laptop
batteries.
Used to fuel a fusion power station, the lithium in one laptop
battery, complemented by deuterium extracted from 45 litres of water,
would produce some 200,000 kWh of electricity - the same as 40 tonnes
of coal and the equivalent of the UK's current per capita electricity
production for 30 years.
There is enough deuterium for millions of years of energy supply, and
easily accessible lithium for several thousands of years.
The Iter project will be based at Cadarache, France
Although it will occupy a large volume, around 1,000 cubic metres, the
amount of tritium and deuterium in a fusion reactor will be tiny: the
weight of the hot fuel in the core will be about the same as ten
postage stamps.
There is no possibility of a runaway reaction and because the gas will
be so dilute, there is not enough energy inside the plant to drive a
major accident and not much fuel would be available to be released to
the environment if an accident did occur.
The aim of Iter is for the first time to put reactor scale physics and
technology together in a single experiment to demonstrate that a
fusion power plant is feasible.
The European experiment Jet, hosted in the UK, has already produced
16MW of fusion power, but only by inputting 25MW to heat the plasma.
Iter is double the dimensions of Jet, and has the goal of producing
500MW of fusion power, 10 times the input power.
Prototypes of all key Iter components have already been fabricated by
industry and tested, and initial construction work for the 5bn-euro
construction project is scheduled to start within the next year.
Tough materials
Another major challenge is to choose and test materials suitable to
face the plasma in a fusion power station that can withstand
continuous bombardment of neutrons, while at the same time being
recyclable after a reasonable period for radioactive decay.
Iter cannot be used for this - it would need to be made of such
materials - so the only way to test suitable materials is to reproduce
the real environment of a power station by constructing an
accelerator-based test facility, where material samples can be left in
the neutron beam for many months to test their resilience.
The Jet plasma requires more energy input than it can output
The agreement to take such a facility - International Fusion Materials
Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) - forward is due to be initialled the day
after the signing of the ITER agreement.
This will be a joint Europe/Japan initiative, following up on from the
broader approach strategy for fusion development agreed at the time of
the Iter construction site choice between Europe and Japan.
If the Iter project and materials facility are successful, a prototype
fusion power station could be putting electricity into the grid within
30 years, with commercial fusion power following 10 years later.
The longer view
Sceptics make the comment that fusion power has always been - and will
always be - 50 years away - but the time horizon seems to be slightly
shortening now.
One criticism levelled at fusion research is that it will not provide
an energy source soon enough and that far too much money is being
poured into a long-term gamble.
To put the cost into context, the current world energy market is about
three trillion US dollars a year and growing. An energy source that
can make an impact on that market, even at a few percent, has an
annual market of tens of billions of dollars, several times the
lifetime cost of the Iter experiment.
As for the timescale, fusion certainly wouldn't be available in the
short-term, but the problem of providing viable energy sources is not
going to get easier even if conservation, CO2 sequestration, fission
and renewables are more widely used, and there are currently no other
large-scale options beyond the 20-50-year timeframe.
We thus need to pursue fusion to the reactor scale through
constructing Iter to see whether and to what extent it can contribute.
Kaname Ikeda is a nuclear engineer by training, and has also had a
successful career in science and technology administration in Japan;
as well as being a diplomat.
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics
running weekly on the BBC News website
The proposed Iter reactor is shaped like a doughnut - a
Russian-conceived design referred to as a tokomak
Deuterium and tritium - isotopes of hydrogen - are fed into the
reactor and heated to 100 million Celsius
A powerful magnetic field holds the hot plasma, or gas, away from the
walls and squeezes to initiate fusion
Iter hopes to do this in bursts of 500 seconds; a commercial reactor
would have to run for prolonged periods
In a commercial reactor, energetic neutrons are absorbed in a
surrounding 'blanket' to drive a steam-turbine system
...
In the core of the Sun, huge gravitational pressure allows this to
happen at temperatures of around 10 million Celsius. At the much lower
pressure that is possible on Earth, temperatures to produce fusion
need to be much higher - above 100 million Celsius.
No materials on Earth could withstand direct contact with such heat.
To achieve fusion, therefore, scientists have devised a solution in
which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held and squeezed inside an
intense doughnut-shaped magnetic field.
What are the advantages of fusion?
The best fuel for fusion comprises two types, or isotopes, of
hydrogen: deuterium and tritium. The former can be derived from water
which is abundant and available everywhere. The latter can be produced
from lithium, which is plentiful in the Earth's crust.
Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, fusion reactions produce no carbon
dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed by scientists for warming the
planet (ancillary activities such as construction will, of course).
Fusion scientists also say the system would be inherently safe because
any malfunction would result in a rapid shutdown.
Will Iter produce radioactive waste?
Yes. The neutrons produced in fusion reactions will "activate" the
materials used in the walls of Iter's plasma chamber. But one of the
project's tasks will be to find the materials that best withstand this
bombardment.
This could result in waste materials that are safe to handle in a
relatively modest timescale (50-100 years), compared with the much
longer lived radioactive waste (many thousands of years) produced as a
direct result of splitting atoms in fission reactions.
It has been calculated that after 100 years of post-operation
radioactive decay, Iter will be left with about 6,000 tonnes of waste.
When packaged, this would be equivalent to a cube with about 10m
edges.
How soon will Iter be built?
In 2005, the Iter partners agreed to site the reactor at Cadarache in
southern France after a long period of negotiation. Ministers have now
signed an agreement that puts in place the legal framework for the
project.
How much will Iter cost?
Iter construction costs are estimated at 4.57bn euros (at 2000
prices), to be spread over about 10 years. Estimated total operating
costs over the expected operational lifetime of about 20 years are of
a similar order.
How will Iter be financed?
As the host, the EU will shoulder 50% of the construction costs, the
rest being shared by other partners. Because Japan agreed to stand
aside in favour of Cadarache, it gets favourable terms. Japan will get
to host a related materials research facility - of which half the
construction costs will also be shouldered by the EU. Japanese
scientists will get a larger share of Iter's research posts, too.
In addition, the Japanese nuclear engineer and diplomat Kaname Ikeda
is the nominated director general of the project.
Why was the EU so keen to host the reactor?
Iter will require considerable investment from the partners, but the
potential pay-offs are thought to be well worth it.
Hosting the experimental reactor will put the EU at the front of the
queue to take commercial advantage of fusion.
The project is expected to generate more than 10,000 jobs and the
expertise developed on Iter will allow Europe to reap the benefits of
spin-off technologies.
Why is fusion energy seen to be so desirable?
We cannot rely on fossil fuels indefinitely. Firstly, supplies of oil,
coal and gas are finite and will eventually run down. Secondly, the
greenhouse gases produced through the burning of fossil fuels are a
major driver of climate change, scientists believe.
However, demand for energy is also increasing. In 1990, about 75% of
the world's population (those in the developing countries) were
responsible for only 33% of the world's energy consumption.
By the year 2020, that 75% could have risen to 85% and the energy
consumption to around 55%. Thus, there will be greater competition for
the fuel resources available.
Some think fusion will provide a relatively safe, green alternative to
fossil fuels; enabling the production of vast amounts of energy from
abundant sources.
When will the first commercial fusion reactor be built?
Not for a long time. Experimental fusion reactors like the Joint
European Torus (Jet) at Culham in the UK currently use more energy
than they release.
There are therefore many major scientific and engineering hurdles to
overcome before the technology becomes commercially viable. A
commercial reactor is not expected before 2045 or 2050 - if at all.
Indeed, there is no guarantee that
.
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
22 Nov 2006 06:37:43 AM |
|
|
In article <45639428.1837406@news.clara.net>, hi@anony says...
Its now an engineering problem , the physics having been
solved , so we can all consume all the goods we want and become mega
rich without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Let's hope so. (Though CO2 is really no problem.)
This technology no doubt will ultimately be mastered
But unforthunately, the ruling circles in the world of today
are not very interested at all in bringing this about. Only
very small funds are being allocated to such research.
The prevailing political tendency insted is an opposite
one, of strangulating and not developing the energy supply.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
22 Nov 2006 09:15:02 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
In article <45639428.1837406@news.clara.net>, hi@anony says...
Its now an engineering problem , the physics having been
solved , so we can all consume all the goods we want and become mega
rich without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Let's hope so. (Though CO2 is really no problem.)
This technology no doubt will ultimately be mastered
But unforthunately, the ruling circles in the world of today
are not very interested at all in bringing this about. Only
very small funds are being allocated to such research.
This thing is expected to cost about 10,000,000,000 euros over it's
life and is just an experiment.
If you concider this "very small funds", what would you concider
adequate funds?
The prevailing political tendency insted is an opposite
one, of strangulating and not developing the energy supply.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
22 Nov 2006 11:00:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
In article <45639428.1837406@news.clara.net>, hi@anony says...
Its now an engineering problem , the physics having been
solved , so we can all consume all the goods we want and become mega
rich without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Let's hope so. (Though CO2 is really no problem.)
This technology no doubt will ultimately be mastered
But unforthunately, the ruling circles in the world of today
are not very interested at all in bringing this about. Only
very small funds are being allocated to such research.
This thing is expected to cost about 10,000,000,000 euros over it's
life and is just an experiment.
If you concider this "very small funds", what would you concider
adequate funds?
The prevailing political tendency insted is an opposite
one, of strangulating and not developing the energy supply.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
--
Jim Pennino
--------------------
the Iter i s not only a huge wast of money and resources
itis a huge wast of precious time that we do not have !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 11:40:35 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
In article <45639428.1837406@news.clara.net>, hi@anony says...
Its now an engineering problem , the physics having been
solved , so we can all consume all the goods we want and become mega
rich without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Let's hope so. (Though CO2 is really no problem.)
This technology no doubt will ultimately be mastered
But unforthunately, the ruling circles in the world of today
are not very interested at all in bringing this about. Only
very small funds are being allocated to such research.
This thing is expected to cost about 10,000,000,000 euros over it's
life and is just an experiment.
If you concider this "very small funds", what would you concider
adequate funds?
The prevailing political tendency insted is an opposite
one, of strangulating and not developing the energy supply.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
--
Jim Pennino
--------------------
the Iter i s not only a huge wast of money and resources
itis a huge wast of precious time that we do not have !!!
The money is peanuts. If the nuclear scientists and engineers were not working
on Iter they are more likely to be working on weapons, they certainly wouldn't
be working on windmills, so just whose time is being wasted?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 04:28:18 AM |
|
|
In article <ek4mm8$gmf$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,
says...
the Iter i s not only a huge wast of money and resources
itis a huge wast of precious time that we do not have !!!
The money is peanuts. If the nuclear scientists and engineers were not working
on Iter they are more likely to be working on weapons, they certainly wouldn't
be working on windmills, so just whose time is being wasted?
I agree. Those 10 billoon euro in 10 years, shared by several
states, is not much money at all, and the project is very important.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 01:38:24 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
If the nuclear scientists and engineers were not working
on Iter they are more likely to be working on weapons, they certainly wouldn't
be working on windmills, so just whose time is being wasted?
Do some serious thinking about physics & economics. Is there much to
be gained from further work by physicists on windwills? The answer,
clearly, is NO! Betz limit, etc. To the extent that windmills could
be improved, there are companies like Vestas out there that will hire
physicists & engineers and do the work, on their own dime. The
taxpayer is involved only because windmills are (and will remain)
uncompetitive, and politicians have tried to hide that fact by
subsidizing & mandating their construction.
On the other hand, could physicists make significant advances in
fusion? The answer clearly is YES! We are nowhere close to any
physical limit. But the route by which scientific bureaucracies have
chosen to pursue fusion may not be optimum, or even practical. A
physicist working on a dead-end is just as much of a waste as a
bureaucrat filling in forms that no-one will ever read. Why should the
taxpayer be forced to pay for either the physicist or the bureaucrat?
The famous Peter Drucker once wrote something like -- Nothing is so
wasteful as taking the time to do well that which should not be done at
all. We live in a world of limited resources. Physicists are a
limited resource. The physicists working on a dead-end like ITER are
not working on coming up with a creative alternative that will blow it
out the water. Those physicists efforts (and all that taxpayer money)
are being wasted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 04:32:47 AM |
|
|
In article <1164310704.812565.270210@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Scott wrote:
If the nuclear scientists and engineers were not working
on Iter they are more likely to be working on weapons, they certainly
wouldn't
be working on windmills, so just whose time is being wasted?
Do some serious thinking about physics & economics. Is there much to
be gained from further work by physicists on windwills? The answer,
clearly, is NO! Betz limit, etc. To the extent that windmills could
be improved, there are companies like Vestas out there that will hire
physicists & engineers and do the work, on their own dime. The
taxpayer is involved only because windmills are (and will remain)
uncompetitive, and politicians have tried to hide that fact by
subsidizing & mandating their construction.
On this you're right, of course.
On the other hand, could physicists make significant advances in
fusion? The answer clearly is YES!
I absolutely agree.
We are nowhere close to any
physical limit. But the route by which scientific bureaucracies have
chosen to pursue fusion may not be optimum, or even practical. A
physicist working on a dead-end is just as much of a waste as a
bureaucrat filling in forms that no-one will ever read. Why should the
taxpayer be forced to pay for either the physicist or the bureaucrat?
The famous Peter Drucker once wrote something like -- Nothing is so
wasteful as taking the time to do well that which should not be done at
all. We live in a world of limited resources. Physicists are a
limited resource. The physicists working on a dead-end like ITER are
not working on coming up with a creative alternative that will blow it
out the water. Those physicists efforts (and all that taxpayer money)
are being wasted.
I had no idea that ITER was a dead end.
Could you explain in some simple terms, why?
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
LongmuirG wrote:
Scott wrote:
If the nuclear scientists and engineers were not working
on Iter they are more likely to be working on weapons, they certainly wouldn't
be working on windmills, so just whose time is being wasted?
Do some serious thinking about physics & economics. Is there much to
be gained from further work by physicists on windwills? The answer,
clearly, is NO! Betz limit, etc. To the extent that windmills could
be improved, there are companies like Vestas out there that will hire
physicists & engineers and do the work, on their own dime. The
taxpayer is involved only because windmills are (and will remain)
uncompetitive, and politicians have tried to hide that fact by
subsidizing & mandating their construction.
On the other hand, could physicists make significant advances in
fusion? The answer clearly is YES! We are nowhere close to any
physical limit. But the route by which scientific bureaucracies have
chosen to pursue fusion may not be optimum, or even practical. A
physicist working on a dead-end is just as much of a waste as a
bureaucrat filling in forms that no-one will ever read. Why should the
taxpayer be forced to pay for either the physicist or the bureaucrat?
The famous Peter Drucker once wrote something like -- Nothing is so
wasteful as taking the time to do well that which should not be done at
all. We live in a world of limited resources. Physicists are a
limited resource. The physicists working on a dead-end like ITER are
not working on coming up with a creative alternative that will blow it
out the water. Those physicists efforts (and all that taxpayer money)
are being wasted.
I see no evidence that ITER is a dead end, and your saying that it is doesn't
make it so. Unless you can produce something more technical than mere
assertion, then I don't find your argument against it, in the least bit convincing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 02:08:43 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (23 Nov 2006 11:38:24 -0800) it happened "LongmuirG"
<LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in
<1164310704.812565.270210@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
The
taxpayer is involved only because windmills are (and will remain)
uncompetitive,
They are competive where I live, and many farmes have these on their land
to save or make some money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 03:19:42 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote (about windmills):
They are competive where I live, and many farmes have these on their land
to save or make some money.
Indeed! But just because farmers can make money by leasing out land
for windmills under current political regulations, that does not mean
that windmills are economically competitive.
Ranchers in parts of the US have used windmills to pump water for
cattle for over a century. Those windmills are competitive -- the
cheapest way of pumping water since there are no electric power lines
within miles. Those windmills are unsubsidized.
Most modern electric-generation windmills, in contrast, are not
economically competitive. They are built only because politicians
mandated that power companies buy wind-generated electricity; and
provided direct subsidies or tax breaks for the investors; and forced
power companies to accept preferential pricing agreements which require
them to buy wind-generated electricity at the highest price even if
they don't need that power. All those costs get passed on to the
ordinary guy who pays his electric bill. Ask yourself -- If windmills
are economic, why do we never hear politicians talking about taxing the
profits made by Big Wind?
Except for a few niche uses, windmills are a way of pumping money out
of the pockets of ordinary people and into the pockets of the rich &
politically well-connected. They are not the answer to human needs for
large-scale reliable power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 06:14:06 PM |
|
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1164316782.152640.9660@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Jan Panteltje wrote (about windmills):
| > They are competive where I live, and many farmes have these on their =
land
| > to save or make some money.
|=20
| Indeed! But just because farmers can make money by leasing out land
| for windmills under current political regulations, that does not mean
| that windmills are economically competitive.
|=20
| Ranchers in parts of the US have used windmills to pump water for
| cattle for over a century. Those windmills are competitive -- the
| cheapest way of pumping water since there are no electric power lines
| within miles. Those windmills are unsubsidized.
|=20
| Most modern electric-generation windmills, in contrast, are not
| economically competitive. They are built only because politicians
| mandated that power companies buy wind-generated electricity; and
| provided direct subsidies or tax breaks for the investors; and forced
| power companies to accept preferential pricing agreements which =
require
| them to buy wind-generated electricity at the highest price even if
| they don't need that power. All those costs get passed on to the
| ordinary guy who pays his electric bill. Ask yourself -- If windmills
| are economic, why do we never hear politicians talking about taxing =
the
| profits made by Big Wind?
|=20
| Except for a few niche uses, windmills are a way of pumping money out
| of the pockets of ordinary people and into the pockets of the rich &
| politically well-connected. They are not the answer to human needs =
for
| large-scale reliable power.
In a democracy it is up to the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
not to vote for politicians who mandate that power companies buy=20
wind-generated electricity; the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
is the same ordinary guy who pays his taxes and the same ordinary guy=20
who objects to the windmill being in his neighbour's backyard because=20
it is unsightly, whereas the ranchers in parts of the US put their own=20
windmills up out of sight of their fellow rancher who lives over the =
horizon
and pays lower taxes than the ordinary guy in Europe because the USA=20
is not a nanny state mandating who can and who cannot have their own=20
windmill blocking the view of a protected ruin of a 1000 year-old Norman
castle built on a 2000 year-old Roman Fort over-shadowed by a 600 feet=20
high smoke stack burning coal to help power London where there isn't =
room=20
for windmills.=20
Google Earth; =20
51=B025'6.56"N 0=B036'13.91"E Kingsnorth power station.
51=B023'21.58"N 0=B030'4.33"E Rochester castle.=20
50=B054'46.67"N 0=B057'53.82"E Dungeness nuclear station. =20
51=B025'10.20"N 1=B014'9.65"E Offshore wind farm.=20
Windmills may not be the answer to human needs for large-scale reliable=20
power, but ... WHAT THE HELL IS? =20
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
23 Nov 2006 10:53:28 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
Windmills may not be the answer to human needs for large-scale reliable
power, but ... WHAT THE HELL IS?
With today's known technology -- nuclear fission reactors. Lots & lots
of them, including use of a breeder fuel cycle.
In parallel with building fission reactors, it would also be smart to
expand research aimed at finding the technological breakthroughs that
will make large-scale photovoltaics or bio-fuels truly economic (i.e.,
able to compete with fossil fuels on a level unsubsidized playing
field). Smart funding of fusion research would also be good.
ITER puts a very large amount of research funding into a single
speculative fairly-unpromising approach. Not a wise way to spend the
taxpayer's money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 12:52:36 AM |
|
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1164344008.171202.126640@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| With today's known technology=20
we should use windmills.=20
Ok, I agree.
Y'know, snipping is very annoying, isn't it?=20
You seem to have missed my points, I'll put them back and give=20
you a chance to answer them again. Then I may answer yours.
Or I may just plonk you, since I'm not too fond of bigots and treat=20
them with a taste of their own medicine, the rude ignorant bastards.
In a democracy it is up to the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
not to vote for politicians who mandate that power companies buy=20
wind-generated electricity; the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
is the same ordinary guy who pays his taxes and the same ordinary guy=20
who objects to the windmill being in his neighbour's backyard because=20
it is unsightly, whereas the ranchers in parts of the US put their own=20
windmills up out of sight of their fellow rancher who lives over the =
horizon
and pays lower taxes than the ordinary guy in Europe because the USA=20
is not a nanny state mandating who can and who cannot have their own=20
windmill blocking the view of a protected ruin of a 1000 year-old Norman
castle built on a 2000 year-old Roman Fort over-shadowed by a 600 feet=20
high smoke stack burning coal to help power London where there isn't =
room=20
for windmills.=20
Google Earth; =20
51=B025'6.56"N 0=B036'13.91"E Kingsnorth power station.
51=B023'21.58"N 0=B030'4.33"E Rochester castle.=20
50=B054'46.67"N 0=B057'53.82"E Dungeness nuclear station. =20
51=B025'10.20"N 1=B014'9.65"E Offshore wind farm.=20
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 09:24:26 AM |
|
|
Touchy Androcles, calling himself Sorcerer, wrote:
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message news:1164344008.171202.1=
26640@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| With today's known technology
we should use windmills.
Ok, I agree.
Y'know, snipping is very annoying, isn't it?
Not really. Deliberate snipping to misrepresent someone else's point
of view is silly, which is why most of us do not do it, Mr. Sorcerer.
On the other hand, snipping for focus is an entirely appropriate form
of editing -- one which recognizes that the reader's time is valuable,
and respects the reader. If one does not snip, one is left with very
long messages like this which consume bandwith with needless repetition
and can make it hard for the reader to follow the discussion. Focus,
dear Androcles. Focus!
You seem to have missed my points, I'll put them back and give
you a chance to answer them again. Then I may answer yours.
Or I may just plonk you, since I'm not too fond of bigots and treat
them with a taste of their own medicine, the rude ignorant bastards.
No, I did not miss your points. But there are no question marks in
your piece, which would indicate that you are inviting responses from
interested parties on issues you have raised. Still, since this is
important to you, dear Androcles aka Sorcerer, let's carry on.
In a democracy it is up to the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
not to vote for politicians who mandate that power companies buy
wind-generated electricity; the ordinary guy who pays his electric bill
is the same ordinary guy who pays his taxes and the same ordinary guy
who objects to the windmill being in his neighbour's backyard because
it is unsightly, whereas the ranchers in parts of the US put their own
windmills up out of sight of their fellow rancher who lives over the hori=
zon
and pays lower taxes than the ordinary guy in Europe because the USA
is not a nanny state mandating who can and who cannot have their own
windmill blocking the view of a protected ruin of a 1000 year-old Norman
castle built on a 2000 year-old Roman Fort over-shadowed by a 600 feet
high smoke stack burning coal to help power London where there isn't room
for windmills.
Google Earth;
51=B025'6.56"N 0=B036'13.91"E Kingsnorth power station.
51=B023'21.58"N 0=B030'4.33"E Rochester castle.
50=B054'46.67"N 0=B057'53.82"E Dungeness nuclear station.
51=B025'10.20"N 1=B014'9.65"E Offshore wind farm.
Androcles
Yes, no question marks in there. The underlying point is incontestable
-- in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. The tone seems a
little ironic, and the lats/longs obviously mean more to the writer
than to the reader. Nevertheless, the piece stands on its own and
needs no further comment or response.
Now, Mr. Androcles, what really got you ticked off?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 09:39:03 AM |
|
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1164381866.831218.91310@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Touchy Androcles, calling himself Sorcerer, wrote:
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1164344008.171202.126640@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| With today's known technology
we should use windmills.
Ok, I agree.
Y'know, snipping is very annoying, isn't it?
Not really. =20
Ok, then you won't me doing it. Have a nice day.
Androcles.
=20
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
25 Nov 2006 05:31:29 AM |
|
|
In article <1164344008.171202.126640@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Sorcerer wrote:
Windmills may not be the answer to human needs for large-scale reliable
power, but ... WHAT THE HELL IS?
With today's known technology -- nuclear fission reactors. Lots & lots
of them, including use of a breeder fuel cycle.
Yes, absolutely. This should be done. For political reasons,
it isn't.
In parallel with building fission reactors, it would also be smart to
expand research aimed at finding the technological breakthroughs that
will make large-scale photovoltaics...
Well, perhaps, for space appliances above all. At the earth's surface,
there's so little sun radiation per square unit that "solar energy"
seems more or less a dead end.
....
or bio-fuels truly economic (i.e.,
able to compete with fossil fuels on a level unsubsidized playing
field).
I hold "bio-fuels" are a very bad idea. Farmland should be used
to produce food, not energy, which can be gooten much more
efficiently from other sources.
And it seems you (although very well-informed on other energy
matters, and arguing very sensibly, I think) don't know that
"fossil" is a misleading designation for those fuels, which
don't have "bio-origins" at all by stem from vast amounts of
hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle, and are quite plentiful.
For that reason too it is that the "bio-fuels" idea is bad.
Smart funding of fusion research would also be good.
Yes, absolutely.
ITER puts a very large amount of research funding into a single
speculative fairly-unpromising approach. Not a wise way to spend the
taxpayer's money.
Unknown to me that the ITER idea is unpromising.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
25 Nov 2006 01:12:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:31:29 +0000, Rolf Martens wrote:
In article <1164344008.171202.126640@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Sorcerer wrote:
Windmills may not be the answer to human needs for large-scale
reliable power, but ... WHAT THE HELL IS?
With today's known technology -- nuclear fission reactors. Lots & lots
of them, including use of a breeder fuel cycle.
Yes, absolutely. This should be done. For political reasons, it isn't.
In parallel with building fission reactors, it would also be smart to
expand research aimed at finding the technological breakthroughs that
will make large-scale photovoltaics...
Well, perhaps, for space appliances above all. At the earth's surface,
there's so little sun radiation per square unit that "solar energy"
seems more or less a dead end.
...
or bio-fuels truly economic (i.e.,
able to compete with fossil fuels on a level unsubsidized playing
field).
I hold "bio-fuels" are a very bad idea. Farmland should be used to
produce food, not energy, which can be gooten much more efficiently from
other sources.
Rolf, not all bio-fuels require cropland. There is (I think) research
underway to grow oil producing marine algae in the ocean. There's a lot
more ocean than cropland. It might provide a significant portion of
energy someday. Or not.
At any rate, in a free market, the balance between food and fuel will work
itself out through competition, as LongmuirG points out.
I'd prefer to generate interest in fusion with a prize system rather than
an all-eggs-in-one-basket government approved approach. Perhaps exempting
taxes for, say, 20 years, on profits made by selling fusion power would
encourage some big private money to get involved. It would be interesting
to hear the arguments against that.
Regards,
Bill Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
25 Nov 2006 03:15:17 PM |
|
|
Bill Ward wrote (inter alia):
Perhaps exempting taxes for, say, 20 years, on profits made by
selling fusion power would encourage some big private money to
get involved. It would be interesting to hear the arguments
against that.
Great idea, Bill! The larger the number of different approaches we try
for fusion power, the more likely it is we will find one that works.
Looking at some of the problems that have occurred with "windfall
profits" from mineral or oil & gas developments (where prices can
fluctuate a lot), perhaps it would be wise to agree in advance a cap on
how much profit could be exempted from taxes over 20 years, and state
in advance what taxes would be imposed above that cap. The idea, of
course, would still be that a successful fusion plant would be much
more profitable than any conventional investment, to encourage research
& risk-taking. One of the big issues would be whether any investor
would trust that Big Government would allow a successful venture to
make high profits for 20 years.
Maybe we would also be wise to face squarely some of the other big
disincentives to research & development and investment (and not just of
fusion power) -- bureaucratic delay, red tape, unnecessary burdens, and
frivolous lawsuits. Maybe governments should "pre-authorize" certain
sites for fusion developments, and provide rapid streamlined permitting
procedures for anyone who wants to build at those sites. It might be
interesting if (for example) the US Federal Government stood aside and
let 50 state governments and several hundred Indian tribes compete to
provide the most sensible permitting procedures.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
26 Nov 2006 06:02:48 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2006.11.25.19.15.46.190269@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com says...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:31:29 +0000, Rolf Martens wrote:
I hold "bio-fuels" are a very bad idea. Farmland should be used to
produce food, not energy, which can be gooten much more efficiently from
other sources.
Rolf, not all bio-fuels require cropland. There is (I think) research
underway to grow oil producing marine algae in the ocean. There's a lot
more ocean than cropland. It might provide a significant portion of
energy someday. Or not.
Still absolutely a silly idea. There's a lot of oil; more than
enough for all needs, and its extractíon can cost no more than
$15/bl (in Saudia Arabia today, $1/bl). Growing algae for
fuel must be quite expensive. For food, such can be grown.
At any rate, in a free market, the balance between food and fuel will work
itself out through competition, as LongmuirG points out.
"Free market"! Today! For energy, in particular!
This is really an outlandish fairytale.
It's the governments that are making all energy so expensive
and scarce. There hasn't been anything like a "free market"
for energy in the last 50 years.
I'd prefer to generate interest in fusion with a prize system rather than
an all-eggs-in-one-basket government approved approach. Perhaps exempting
taxes for, say, 20 years, on profits made by selling fusion power would
encourage some big private money to get involved. It would be interesting
to hear the arguments against that.
Regards,
Bill Ward
"Private money" cannot get involved, because it's the states
that regulate all such things.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
26 Nov 2006 09:49:23 AM |
|
|
Rolf Martens wrote:
Still absolutely a silly idea. There's a lot of oil; more than
enough for all needs....
Yes Rolf, in your world. Even the EIA sees a peak in 2030. But they base
that on numbers that are highly questionable.
http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
27 Nov 2006 04:22:43 AM |
|
|
In article <7Iiah.6335$ya1.4630@news02.roc.ny>, says...
Rolf Martens wrote:
Still absolutely a silly idea. There's a lot of oil; more than
enough for all needs....
Yes Rolf, in your world. Even the EIA sees a peak in 2030. But they base
that on numbers that are highly questionable.
http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
In the real world, yours too, oil comes from enormous amounts
of hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continuously
seeping upwrds. Thus oil is plentiful. No "peak" at all,
technically. "Even" the EIA is another reactionary propaganda
organ - perhaps not quite as nasty as some others.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
27 Nov 2006 04:52:45 PM |
|
|
In the real world, yours too, oil comes from enormous amounts
of hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continuously
seeping upwrds. <
total nonsense. Hydrocarbons cant even survive the heat 7
miles down and decompose into gases never mind the earth's mantle
hundreds of miles !!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LongmuirG" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
27 Nov 2006 12:42:30 PM |
|
|
Rolf Martens wrote (inter alia):
In the real world, yours too, oil comes from enormous amounts
of hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continuously
seeping upwrds. Thus oil is plentiful. No "peak" at all,
technically.
Let's suppose that all oil is abiotic in origin, that it has been
seeping up from the mantle throughout geological history, and has
accumulated in the conventional petroleum traps which the oil industry
has learned to identify & develop.
We know that many old oil reservoirs have been produced to their
economic limit, which suggests that the rate at which we extract oil
from reservoirs is typically much faster than the rate at which those
reservoirs may be refilling by seepage. This is the usual "geological
timescale" issue -- we produce reservoirs in decades, but it may have
taken millions of years for them to be filled. (No problem on a planet
that is thousands of millions of years old)
This would suggest that, even if oil is abiotically sourced, there is a
maximum practical oil production rate -- equal to the rate at which oil
can seep up from the mantle and replace the oil we extract from traps.
Of course, if we could identify places where the abiotic oil was
seeping upwards and accelerate that seeping process by drilling very
deep conduits, we could increase that maximum rate. But even with
technological advances which would let us identify & develop those
locations, there would still be a practical global maximum oil
production rate. If oil is abiotic, then the issue is rate, not volume.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
28 Nov 2006 08:10:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1164652950.535960.81110@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Rolf Martens wrote (inter alia):
In the real world, yours too, oil comes from enormous amounts
of hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continuously
seeping upwrds. Thus oil is plentiful. No "peak" at all,
technically.
Let's suppose that all oil is abiotic in origin, that it has been
seeping up from the mantle throughout geological history, and has
accumulated in the conventional petroleum traps which the oil industry
has learned to identify & develop.
We know that many old oil reservoirs have been produced to their
economic limit, which suggests that the rate at which we extract oil
from reservoirs is typically much faster than the rate at which those
reservoirs may be refilling by seepage. This is the usual "geological
timescale" issue -- we produce reservoirs in decades, but it may have
taken millions of years for them to be filled. (No problem on a planet
that is thousands of millions of years old)
This would suggest that, even if oil is abiotically sourced, there is a
maximum practical oil production rate -- equal to the rate at which oil
can seep up from the mantle and replace the oil we extract from traps.
Of course, if we could identify places where the abiotic oil was
seeping upwards and accelerate that seeping process by drilling very
deep conduits, we could increase that maximum rate. But even with
technological advances which would let us identify & develop those
locations, there would still be a practical global maximum oil
production rate. If oil is abiotic, then the issue is rate, not volume.
Yes, that's true.
But the fact is, only extremely little exploration of the
earth's surface for oil deposits has taken place so far.
And much of it is being banned by law, precisely for strangulation
purposes.
In Iraq, for instance, only some 20,000 exploratory wells havebeen
drilled, compared to actually millions in Texas.
Here in Sweden, the most probably is a very large deposit, very
deep down, which may be comparable to all the North Sea oil,
but whose exploration is banned (after promising results aroound
1990).
And similar it is all around the world.
Enourmous oil resources certainly exist, buf for political
reasons lie untouched, in many countries around the world.
Quite possibly - though of this I'm not certain, there already
are some conduits from the mantle which will not run out
of oil at all - in Saudia Arabia, and/or Eugene Island, for
instance.
In the longer run, hundreds of years, oil of course will get
öutmoded as an energy resource, comared to nuclear fission
and fusion.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
27 Nov 2006 12:49:05 PM |
|
|
someone with an alias wrote:
Let's suppose that all oil is abiotic in origin, that it has been
seeping up from the mantle throughout geological history, and has
accumulated in the conventional petroleum traps which the oil industry
has learned to identify & develop.
[...]
Let's just suppose we can all have free food and just move on...
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
28 Nov 2006 08:12:09 AM |
|
|
In article <200611271849.kARIn5lv026766@ipp.mpg.de>,
Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
someone with an alias wrote:
Let's suppose that all oil is abiotic in origin, that it has been
seeping up from the mantle throughout geological history, and has
accumulated in the conventional petroleum traps which the oil industry
has learned to identify & develop.
[...]
Let's just suppose we can all have free food and just move on...
--
ciao,
Bruce
Technically, we more or less could! In a not too distant
future, at least.
The problem, and a BIG one, is political. Those who rule
the world today absolutely don't want this.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 04:39:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1164316782.152640.9660@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote (about windmills):
They are competive where I live, and many farmes have these on their land
to save or make some money.
Indeed! But just because farmers can make money by leasing out land
for windmills under current political regulations, that does not mean
that windmills are economically competitive.
Ranchers in parts of the US have used windmills to pump water for
cattle for over a century. Those windmills are competitive -- the
cheapest way of pumping water since there are no electric power lines
within miles. Those windmills are unsubsidized.
It's news to me that there are even areas in the US which
are not covered with electric power lines. Here in Sweden, with
less population density, the last far-away farm got power line
electricity in 1980.
Most modern electric-generation windmills, in contrast, are not
economically competitive. They are built only because politicians
mandated that power companies buy wind-generated electricity; and
provided direct subsidies or tax breaks for the investors; and forced
power companies to accept preferential pricing agreements which require
them to buy wind-generated electricity at the highest price even if
they don't need that power. All those costs get passed on to the
ordinary guy who pays his electric bill. Ask yourself -- If windmills
are economic, why do we never hear politicians talking about taxing the
profits made by Big Wind?
Except for a few niche uses, windmills are a way of pumping money out
of the pockets of ordinary people and into the pockets of the rich &
politically well-connected. They are not the answer to human needs for
large-scale reliable power.
This is correct, of course
The thing to do, in the interests of most people, is to
build nuclear power plants, above all (as you're advocating too),
and to draw power lines from them everywhere. This would make all
windmills uncompetitive.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
24 Nov 2006 12:15:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
<snip>
It's news to me that there are even areas in the US which
are not covered with electric power lines. Here in Sweden, with
less population density, the last far-away farm got power line
electricity in 1980.
You do realize that Sweden is tiny compared to the US which has states
bigger than Sweden?
The far-away rural areas in the big countries like the US and Russia are
farther away than Sweden is wide.
<snip>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Martens" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
26 Nov 2006 05:40:45 AM |
|
|
In article <6bpj34-7nq.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, says...
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
<snip>
It's news to me that there are even areas in the US which
are not covered with electric power lines. Here in Sweden, with
less population density, the last far-away farm got power line
electricity in 1980.
You do realize that Sweden is tiny compared to the US which has states
bigger than Sweden?
The far-away rural areas in the big countries like the US and Russia are
farther away than Sweden is wide.
<snip>
--
Jim Pennino
I know this quite well. What I pointed out was that Sweden's
population density is less than that of the USA. (Though not
less than that of Russia, I think.)
The area of Sweden (9 million inhabitants) is bigger than
that of Germany (80+ million inhabitants). And the northen
part of Sweden is even more scarcely poupulated.
The distances in the USA of course are even bigger than
those i nSweden, but that country is a much bigger one too.
Thus still no reason why power lines cannot be drawn
everywhere in the USA. Still cheaper and more effective
(coupled nu nuclear power plants) than windmills in far-away
regions.
Rolf M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iter will return 20 times the energy input |
26 Nov 2006 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
In article <6bpj34-7nq.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, says...
In sci.physics Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@comhem.se> wrote:
<snip>
It's news to me that there are even areas in the US which
are not covered with electric power lines. Here in Sweden, with
less population density, the last far-away farm got power line
electricity in 1980.
You do realize that Sweden is tiny compared to the US which has states
bigger than Sweden?
The far-away rural areas in the big countries like the US and Russia are
farther away than Sweden is wide.
<snip>
--
Jim Pennino
I know this quite well. What I pointed out was that Sweden's
population density is less than that of the USA. (Though not
less than that of Russia, I think.)
The area of Sweden (9 million inhabitants) is bigger than
that of Germany (80+ million inhabitants). And the northen
part of Sweden is even more scarcely poupulated.
The distances in the USA of course are even bigger than
those i nSweden, but that country is a much bigger one too.
Thus still no reason why power lines cannot be drawn
everywhere in the USA. Still cheaper and more effective
(coupled nu nuclear power plants) than windmills in far-away
regions.
Rolf M.
You have no grasp of the distances, and sometimes terrain, involved.
Electricity in the US is a private industry, not government.
People who chose to live in those isolated areas don't have the millions
of dollars to put in transmission lines nor would the utilities for
the costs would never be recovered.
A windmill or propane generator is far cheaper than 50 miles of line
for one household.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
