It ain't just solar power sats, either!

[psygnisfive]

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1364/

Venture capitalists investing in companies in order to get nuclear fusion power plants into production within five years?

My goodness, it's like someone listened to me when I said, way back when, that power sats and fusion are _the_ sustainable, green power sources of the future!

Mm vindication. 'Tis delicious. ;)

[psygnisfive]

What, you're all, "Oh my god we need to save the environment! Renewable! Green! Sustainable!" but you're not excited about the prospect of fusion power? C'mon, show some genuine enthusiasm for the cause you purport to be in favor of.

[CyclotronMajesty]

Well it's just that i'm more excited about personal energy, than big energy plants. To me the energy revolution is going to be like the personal computer revolution. Each person will have their own. Of course we will still need some public energy generation. And thats exciting I guess, don't I sound excited? What isn't so exciting is that it only matches the kwh price of coal and does not beat it. The fact that a fusion reactor works is great. Now just make it a little more impressive than coal and some excitment may come.

[psygnisfive]

Surely the fact that it's not pumping tonnes of uranium into the atmosphere like coal does is a bit more impressive, surely. Or the fact that it's non-polluting. Or that the fuel source is so abundant that we basically won't have to worry about power generation ever again. Or...

[latewood]

Surely the fact that it's not pumping tonnes of uranium into the atmosphere like coal does is a bit more impressive, surely.

:confused: burning coal pollutes the air with tons of uranium???

[psygnisfive]

:confused: burning coal pollutes the air with tons of uranium???

Yes. Coal has large amounts of Uranium in it, and burning said coal releases the Uranium into the atmosphere. But it's not just Uranium, it's also Thorium.

Some numbers from here (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html):

In the 100 years after 1937 a total of 828 thousand tons of Uranium, and 2 million tons of Thorium, will have been released into the atmosphere worldwide, 145 thousand and 357 thousand, respectively, by the U.S.

Yes, TONS. That's 1,600,000,000 POUNDS. For Uranium, that's a block 38,000 cubic meters. If it were a cube, it'd be 33 meters on a side. A cube over a hundred feet high. Into the atmosphere that we BREATHE. And you're worried about power lines giving you cancer? How about breathing in URANIUM? Never mind that you've also got Thorium being output at more than twice the rate.

Coal outputs more radioactivity than nuclear power plants, and it's not the kind of radioactivity that gets absorbed by a few feet of concrete and ten you're safe. No, this is the linger-in-the-environment-for-years-then-you-get-leukemia kind of radioactivity. AKA Nuclear Fallout.

A further quote from the website: "The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants."

You get 100 times the amount of radiation from a coal power plant as you do from a nuclear power plant. 100 times. NOT. SAFE.

Also mentioned on the site is that if we used the NUCLEAR fuel in the coal (thus removing the danger of the nuclear fuel), we'd actually get MORE power than if we burned the coal it was in. Coal power: Waste of resources AND incredibly dangerous. ALL AROUND WIN.

[Ostritt]

What, you're all, "Oh my god we need to save the environment! Renewable! Green! Sustainable!" but you're not excited about the prospect of fusion power? C'mon, show some genuine enthusiasm for the cause you purport to be in favor of.

Did you expect this thread to fill with posts after the last lines in the intro thread were

My goodness, it's like someone listened to me when I said, way back when, that power sats and fusion are _the_ sustainable, green power sources of the future!

Mm vindication. 'Tis delicious.

No one will even care what you have to say if you are arrogant. For someone who's all "Oh I'm the smartest person on the planet, everyone needs to listen to my environmental ideas or we're going to die!" you should learn that. If you really think your ideas can help it would serve you to learn how to express them in a way that inspires rather than repels.

[Szifers]

We don't need no terrible nucular powers! Titan has all the hydrocarbons we need, all we got to do is bring them all here! :D

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html

[VictoriaPandora]

Coal isn't ideal, however it isn't created equal either. Some is a lot cleaner.

[psygnisfive]

Coal isn't ideal, however it isn't created equal either. Some is a lot cleaner.

Some coal is cleaner, sure, but coal as a whole is putting enormous quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Nevermind that coal contributes to global warming. Coal, as a whole, is worse than fission, and most definitely is worse than fusion and solar powersats.

[madmanintheattic]

If you read the articles and commentaries on fusion you will notice the regular use of the phrase "if it works." IF. No one knows if this technology will work. The temperatures generated are approximately the same as the surface of the sun. So far the only controlled fusion reaction to take place on earth has been a hydrogen bomb and it is detonated by a fission bomb in order to obtain the necessary temperatures.

It takes about 10 to 20 years to build a fission reactor and that is known and proven technology. To say unproven tech will be up and running in 5 years is delusional fantasy at its best. And none of it is clean. Remember these things have to be built. That is, ore must be mined and smelted; cement paste must be manufactured from mined materials and be cooked using tremendous amounts of natural gas. And on and on. It takes approximately the lifetime of a fission reactor delivering "clean" energy to neutralize the GHGs generated in its construction. A fusion reactor will be no different.

The issue of cooling is frequently ignored. In France last summer they had to shut down several of their fission reactors because the water in the rivers feeding the cooling systems was too warm from the hot weather. Fusion reactors will have to be cooled too. And what about the heat pollution? That heat is generally released back into the river and destroys the ecosystem of said river by raising the temperature of the water.

The technical fantasy notwithstanding I am still uninformed as to how a fusion energy will power a 747 airliner, or a dump truck or my car. How will we keep Happy Motoring going (that's what this alt energy thing is all about isn't it?). Don't count on hydrogen - the technical problems there are not solved either.

All that said, what good is a new source of energy when we are running out of soil, fresh water, ecological and genetic diversity, when we have 150 dead spots already in the ocean, when 90% of all predatory fish has disappeared, when food production has been declining since the 1980s, when the ocean is only about 1 degree Celsius from death by anoxia, when the tundra is melting and releasing GHGs, when methane hydrates in the oceans are melting and releasing GHGs, when there is NO coordinated global effort to deal with this problem?

Don't believe me. Read The Revenge Of Gaia by James Lovelock. There and elsewhere he asserts that "billions will die," that less than 20% of a population of 6.5 billion will survive to to the end of the century because climate change has already passed the threshold of no return.

I think rather than touting unproven technological fantasies one might be better advised to get prepared for "unimaginable horror and degradation" as it is so colorfully described in the prophecies of the Hindu Puranas (I'm not into prophesy - I just like a well-turned phrase).

"There is no reason to be paranoid and little reason to be hopeful."
-Terence McKenna

[Ostritt]

Interesting post, thanks. Even if it is hopeless at this point I'd rather be doing something, at least it will raise consciousness a bit. Definitely going ot read that book though. Peace

[KMO]

http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbplovelock.html

[psygnisfive]

If you read the articles and commentaries on fusion you will notice the regular use of the phrase "if it works." IF. No one knows if this technology will work. The temperatures generated are approximately the same as the surface of the sun. So far the only controlled fusion reaction to take place on earth has been a hydrogen bomb and it is detonated by a fission bomb in order to obtain the necessary temperatures.

Actually the temperature is closer to the core of the sun (current experimental reactors get up to 500,000,000,000 degrees). The point, tho, is that this is an investment into fusion power plants, with the indication that they'll be ready sometime in the next FIVE YEARS. That's why I posted it. Not be

It takes about 10 to 20 years to build a fission reactor and that is known and proven technology. To say unproven tech will be up and running in 5 years is delusional fantasy at its best. And none of it is clean. Remember these things have to be built. That is, ore must be mined and smelted; cement paste must be manufactured from mined materials and be cooked using tremendous amounts of natural gas. And on and on. It takes approximately the lifetime of a fission reactor delivering "clean" energy to neutralize the GHGs generated in its construction. A fusion reactor will be no different.

What ore? There is no ore that needs to be processed for anything except maybe Helium fusion, and this is 2H+3H fusion to PRODUCE Helium.

The issue of cooling is frequently ignored. In France last summer they had to shut down several of their fission reactors because the water in the rivers feeding the cooling systems was too warm from the hot weather. Fusion reactors will have to be cooled too. And what about the heat pollution? That heat is generally released back into the river and destroys the ecosystem of said river by raising the temperature of the water.

Heat pollution is a problem with any energy generation that isn't solar or wind or hydro.

The technical fantasy notwithstanding I am still uninformed as to how a fusion energy will power a 747 airliner, or a dump truck or my car. How will we keep Happy Motoring going (that's what this alt energy thing is all about isn't it?). Don't count on hydrogen - the technical problems there are not solved either.

Fusion power means plentiful electricity which can be used to synthesize fuel in large quantities cheaply, by doing stuff like CO2 + H2 processes. It would be non-polluting because you can turn the combustion by products back into combustibles and take them out of the atmosphere. That's one way, anyway.

All that said, what good is a new source of energy when we are running out of soil, fresh water, ecological and genetic diversity, when we have 150 dead spots already in the ocean, when 90% of all predatory fish has disappeared, when food production has been declining since the 1980s, when the ocean is only about 1 degree Celsius from death by anoxia, when the tundra is melting and releasing GHGs, when methane hydrates in the oceans are melting and releasing GHGs, when there is NO coordinated global effort to deal with this problem?

Separate problems, dude. They're all important, noones saying that they're not. If we found a solution to fresh water scarcity, I wouldn't come in and say "But what good is clean water when we're running out of soil and genetic diversity and..."

They're all problems that need to be solved, and one of them might be close to getting solved.

Infact, cheap power makes fresh water more available because distillation facilities become cheaper to operate.

Don't believe me. Read The Revenge Of Gaia by James Lovelock. There and elsewhere he asserts that "billions will die," that less than 20% of a population of 6.5 billion will survive to to the end of the century because climate change has already passed the threshold of no return.

And you know what Lovelock advocates? Nuclear fission. Fusion is even better than fission, too, because fusion is (or can be) clean.

I think rather than touting unproven technological fantasies one might be better advised to get prepared for "unimaginable horror and degradation" as it is so colorfully described in the prophecies of the Hindu Puranas (I'm not into prophesy - I just like a well-turned phrase).

The point of the article, tho, is that usually venture capitalists don't start investing if they don't have a damn good reason to believe that they're close to market. That's sort of the POINT of me posting this: Venture capitalists are investing in fusion, so there are signs that fusion is getting close to becoming commercially viable. The point of the article is that it no longer seems to be a fantasy.

[psygnisfive]

But why are we arguing, we all want to eliminate pollution and global warming and other bad things done to the environment. I'm in favor of as many options as possible as fast as possible. Fusion and solar powersats merely seem to be the most readily impactful. High-efficiency solar panels for your roof, combined with, say, ultra low power requirements in your house, is also good. I'm for it all. This was just news about one thing.

Also, did you know that theoretically, "reversible computer" can result in a computer that requires no energy to perform computations? You could literally run a computer of _any_ scale using 0 net energy. Implementing it would probably be really hard but how cool is that?

Or how about this: Direct electricity-to-light conversion like we do electricity-to-radio conversion. Right now a lot of energy is wasted generating visible light. Incandescence spends something like 90% of energy generating heat. fluorescence is maybe 5 times more efficient, but LEDs spend hardly any energy at all, and I believe it's quantum dots that would make electricity-to-light conversion ridiculously efficient.

High temperature superconducting cable would eliminate electrical inefficiencies due to resistance making long distance power transfer much less subject to power loss, it would make all motors and electronic devices more efficient, etc.

I'm for _all_ of that, I'm not against reducing energy consumption and more local small scale energy production, I'm just also not against big centralized energy production. This was just news about one particular thing.

[madmanintheattic]

YOU are the one who is arguing. I'm merely trying to point out techno fixes are not the solution. In fact, besides too great a world population, the problems we face today are ALL due to technological fixes of the past.

Not separate problems. All one big problem. No good having tech if no soil, no water, no oxygen, no food, no oceans. (trying to keep it simple for you.)

And that was smelting ore for the steel, copper, aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, gold, silver, etc, to make the plant - sorry for not dumbing it down enough. (and, by the way, there are worldwide shortages of all these industrial metals looming on the horizon as well.)

Ever heard of peak petroleum? The Energy Watch Group is confident global peak oil production occurred summer 2007. How do we build all your techno fixes if oil supplies are decreasing at 3% per year and demand is increasing by the same? Do you really think the dwindling supplies will be diverted to high tech fantasies?

The assumption that venture capitalists know something about this is so stupid I can hardly comment. No venture capitalist has been wrong in the past? No venture capitalist has ever succumbed to stupidity, greed, fantasy, the need to launder their drug money? No venture capital venture has ever failed? You should look into the history of all the stupid things capitalists have said and done in the past.

If capitalists are so infallible explain Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson and all the great frauds of the last 10 years. If capitalists are going to save us from them, how is it the fallacy of infinite expanding economic growth is their credo?

There is such a thing as peak technology as well. Perhaps we are there already. Techno fixes for techno problems will not infinitely expand just in the same way our market economy cannot infinitely expand on a planet which is finite (we are already two or three earths short).

And what about quality of life? Do you want to live on a desert planet of weeds drinking distilled ocean water, eating synthesized food, breathing manufactured oxygen, controlled by the fascist and totalitarian descendants of George W. Bush?

I'm voting for devastating worldwide plague or glaciation after a global superstorm brought on by the collapse of the thermohaline circulation. The sooner Gaia takes her revenge on us, the sooner the rest of the biosphere has a chance to recover. We don't deserve to be here, new age transformation-of-consciousness poppycock notwithstanding. That is clear - our behavior as a species speaks more clearly and loudly than any new age nonsense, any techno fantasy, any "entheogenic" revelation.

Furthermore just because I mentioned Lovelock's book doesn't mean I agree with everything in it. I think his advocacy of fission is just as loony as your fantasy about fusion (unproven tech in five years? Wake up). On a different thread you whined about someone else putting words in your mouth - don't put them in mind if you please.

And I repeat: NOT SEPARATE PROBLEMS; ALL ONE BIG PROBLEM.

[madmanintheattic]

Excellent ad hominem book review by Mr. Bates of The Revenge of Gaia. I did mention I don't agree with everything Lovelock said but it is more valuable for all to discuss the only the ideas and keep the attack on the man to oneself.

The reason I mentioned Lovelock is it seems to me he is one of the few to take his head out of the sand or his backside or wherever most people keep theirs and make a statement about how very deep into disaster we really are.

I am quite sure it wouldn't matter what book was suggested, it would be slagged in some way or another by someone, somewhere, sometime ...:)

*******

"There is no reason to be paranoid and little reason to be hopeful."
- Terence McKenna

[psygnisfive]

Overpopulation is due to a technological fix? You mean the technical fix of better health, longer life expectancy, prodigious food growth capacity, etc? Well, I'm sorry, but overpopulation is preferably to living 30 years, dying from the flu or a broken leg, or starving to death, which were the reasons we developed these things. There ain't any other fix than a technological fix, because that's what technology is, humans altering nature to solve problems.

[psygnisfive]

Reading your post further, you start talking about shit that has nothing to do with this, like Enron and Worldcom. I thus assume you're an idiot who can't form coherent arguments and will subsequently ignore everything you have to say.

[madmanintheattic]

Yes, indeed, I am an idiot. No doubt about it. It's just that you were talking about capitalists ...

That's sort of the POINT of me posting this: Venture capitalists are investing in fusion.

... and I was just trying to suggest that capitalists and their ilk are not to be trusted or followed and offered up Enron and Wordcom as the most recent, greatest examples of rogue capitalists.

Of course I am an idiot to think you could comprehend as subtle an allusion as that.

Terribly sorry.

Mea Culpa.

[psygnisfive]

Yes, indeed, I am an idiot. No doubt about it. It's just that you were talking about capitalists ...

No, I was talking about fusion power looking like it's getting close to being viable because people are starting to find it worth investing in. There's a difference.

and I was just trying to suggest that capitalists and their ilk are not to be trusted or followed and offered up Enron and Wordcom as the most recent, greatest examples of rogue capitalists.

Except the executives of Enron, et al. were a) Greedy lying idiots who betrayed the stock holders for their own personal gain (which is the opposite of what a capitalist is supposed to do in those situations), and b) An absurdly small number of people who make investments who aren't representative of the whole of investors. Not only is your assertion completely irrelevant, it's also completely fallacious.

Of course I am an idiot to think you could comprehend as subtle an allusion as that.

Terribly sorry.

Mea Culpa.

If you call making hasty generalizations and false assertions about people's behavior an "allusion" then you certainly are an idiot.

[madmanintheattic]

Covert, implied, indirect, reference (to). The Consice Oxford Dictionary

Always interesting to see how tiny minds react so vociferously and dramatically to things like the usage of a single word.

Again, I admit to being an idiot, oh, such an idiot. I did some research. Not one venture capitalist has ever been wrong, duped, sucked in by lies or his own greed. Not one venture capitalist (VC) lost a shilling in the South Sea Bubble; not one VC lost a guilder in the Tulip scam; not one VC lost a cent on anything in 400 years since then up to and including the well known fact not one VC lost a dollar on the Bre-ex scandal; and we all know that not one VC lost a penny in the dot com bubble (they ALL made HUGE amounts of money and dot com is still flying high).

VCs are alway right about everything they do, know exactly what is going to fly, can always understand the development of technology and know exactly when it will be ready and what the return on their dollar will be. Omniscient they are I see now.

Excuse me for being such an idiot to not see that if a Venture Capitalist (capitalized as in 'God') says it will be so then it most CERTAINLY will be so.

So many Mea Culpas to say tonight ...

[psygnisfive]

Covert, implied, indirect, reference (to). The Consice Oxford Dictionary

Always interesting to see how tiny minds react so vociferously and dramatically to things like the usage of a single word.

Again, I admit to being an idiot, oh, such an idiot. I did some research. Not one venture capitalist has ever been wrong, duped, sucked in by lies or his own greed. Not one venture capitalist (VC) lost a shilling in the South Sea Bubble; not one VC lost a guilder in the Tulip scam; not one VC lost a cent on anything in 400 years since then up to and including the well known fact not one VC lost a dollar on the Bre-ex scandal; and we all know that not one VC lost a penny in the dot com bubble (they ALL made HUGE amounts of money and dot com is still flying high).

Now this, sir, is alluding, because you're implying, without saying so, that I believe that venture capitalists are never wrong, etc. Which I don't. I was being optimistic.

But let's go back to a far more interesting topic, since this has nothing to do with the topic of fusion power.

You don't like technological solutions. Ok, so what solution do think we need for the looming power crisis, among other things?

[madmanintheattic]

that you cannot, do not or will not read ... or that you are such an egomaniac that you cannot see beyond your techno-geek notion that tech will save us (what are gonna eat - hard drives?) or you spend too much time just admiring yourself in the mirror.

I stated my solution several posts back. Maybe your mommy can read it to you.

But then, I'm just "an idiot who can't form coherent arguments" and you promised to "subsequently ignore everything [ I ] have to say." (See. Such an idiot I can't even figure out how to use the quote function half the time! Oh, woe, it's a wonder I can even dress myself. 'slobber, drool') Please, oh please, oh Great Tech Prophet, do not waste your valuable time on little drooling idiot me.

I'm so ashamed. Now I have to throw in some 'Our Fathers' and a few 'Hail Maries.' Gonna be a long night ...

[cutlerface7]

fucking hell lads.....

why dont we both just calm down,
psygnisfive, i have to say that your argument has not been so well structured as madmanintheattic, and to be honest you made the big mistake in an argument by making yourself look a bit like a tit by calling madmanintheattic an idiot.

at the end of the day. you are arguing over nothing. you both are making the same argument, but are coming at in in different directions. just stop thinking you have the complete answers and look at someone eles point of view.

this is what this whole forum is about

sort yourselves out!!

peace and love
CF7

[psygnisfive]

Where is your solution? The only solution I see you offering is "I think rather than touting unproven technological fantasies one might be better advised to get prepared for "unimaginable horror and degradation" as it is so colorfully described in the prophecies of the Hindu Puranas (I'm not into prophesy - I just like a well-turned phrase)."

I see nothing else that is a solution to any impending problems. Please point them out or clarify them in a new post, because your previous posts do not seem to contain them or if they do, they don't come across clearly.

[madmanintheattic]

I guess I really would not call it a solution. I honestly do not believe there to be any solutions. We have been laying waste to the planet for 40,000 years. Remember the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia and all that area, thought to be the most fertile and fecund area in the ancient world, is now the desert wasteland which is Iraq and Iran. Human activity created that and it is only a matter of time until that feature (desert) is the predominant landscape on the planet.

The "solution" I was referring to, as I said is not a solution, but rather the way I would like to see things unfold (and still being an IDIOT) I can't figure out this quote function so I copy and paste from my previous post below:

"I'm voting for devastating worldwide plague or glaciation after a global superstorm brought on by the collapse of the thermohaline circulation. The sooner Gaia takes her revenge on us, the sooner the rest of the biosphere has a chance to recover. We don't deserve to be here, new age transformation-of-consciousness poppycock notwithstanding. That is clear - our behavior as a species speaks more clearly and loudly than any new age nonsense, any techno fantasy, any "entheogenic" revelation."

Kudos to KMO for his wise words encouraging peace and calm in the 'Solutions' thread. Thank you KMO. I do disagree this kind of acrimony and discord is a result of the anonymity of the internet; I believe it is what people do. We kick the s**t out of each other and everything around us. There is something very wrong with us as a species, as an animal. After all, this could be the only planet on the universe on which life has developed to this degree and look at what we are doing to it.

I hope we are all bored with this thread now and can put it to sleep.

[psygnisfive]

I guess I really would not call it a solution. I honestly do not believe there to be any solutions. We have been laying waste to the planet for 40,000 years. Remember the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia and all that area, thought to be the most fertile and fecund area in the ancient world, is now the desert wasteland which is Iraq and Iran. Human activity created that and it is only a matter of time until that feature (desert) is the predominant landscape on the planet.

What evidence is there that human actions caused this sort of defertilization? And by what measure are you claiming defertilization?

"I'm voting for devastating worldwide plague or glaciation after a global superstorm brought on by the collapse of the thermohaline circulation. The sooner Gaia takes her revenge on us, the sooner the rest of the biosphere has a chance to recover. We don't deserve to be here, new age transformation-of-consciousness poppycock notwithstanding. That is clear - our behavior as a species speaks more clearly and loudly than any new age nonsense, any techno fantasy, any "entheogenic" revelation."

Right... so your solution is massive numbers of horrific deaths?

...

I hope we are all bored with this thread now and can put it to sleep.

...

Are you fucking serious?

[psygnisfive]

I've just got tot ask again to make sure I'm understanding you...

Your solution to the problem of global environment catastrophe that threatens to kill millions and end our civilization...

is to let it kill millions and end our civilzation?

Do you understand the meaning of the word SOLUTION?!

[madmanintheattic]

Quote
"I guess I really would not call it a solution. I honestly do not believe there to be any solutions." Quote