|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: koraks] 2
#22245134 - 09/16/15 09:59 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said: Everything we do or deal with is "toxic". It's an empty argument.
I don't get why nuclear and solar/wind would be opposing camps. Especially the combination of both is interesting for the future energy mix. Augmented with several other sources of course. We don't need one single solution. We need many.
No. We need one. Fusion.
--------------------
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod] 2
#22245209 - 09/16/15 10:27 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This is one of those creepy moments when Zappaisgod and I completely agree. 
We need powerplants of raw concentrated power on a small surface area. By raw concentrated power I mean, one plant that puts out one or several GIGAwatts on a steady basis.
We have four things that really do that.
-A Hydroelectric Dam. Obviously, that only works on very few places in the world.
-A Fossil Fuel plant. Can't do that anymore. Too polluting and soon, EXTINCT.
-A Nuclear (Fission) Power plant. We can do this for a few hundred years more, then we are stuck with another energy crisis and lots of highly radioactive waste that will stay hot for thousands of years and lots of countries who will have built nukes from their fuel. Fission plants are TOO COSTLY to build, maintain and most of all, to dismantle. In addition, Thorium, Uranium and Plutonium fuels are too valuable for the exploration of outer space so waste these strategic resources on energy production.
-A Fusion Plant. This is the future. The FUTURE. Turning ubiquitous, cheap, nonradioactive light elements (Hydrogen, Deuterium, Lithium, Boron) into energy and minimal radioactive waste. Once we master neutronic fusion we are close to mastering aneutronic fusion, and the latter produces NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT ALL.
Fusion is the only realistic option for a powerplant of raw concentrated power on a small surface area.
We need these powerful reactors to power cities and produce fuels for our vehicles and fuel cells.
Wind is not realistic. Wind is too variable and a little decrease in wind causes the generated energy to plummet - and its barely cost effective.
Solar just isnt power dense and quite expensive.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Sheekle
FREE BURKE



Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 53,153
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck *DELETED* [Re: Asante]
#22245213 - 09/16/15 10:28 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by AsanteReason for deletion: offtopic post, handled in PM
-------------------- "Ur cat died because he hated u" - Koods "I hope JSB kicks your ass one day." - Vandago "you are the biggest 'internet guy' I have ever come across"- Jokeshopbeard "The more I see you post the more I realize you're just this fuckin tie dye loser who trolls the Shroomery 24/7." - Herbologist "Sheekle you cannot vile the dice of bullshit you have posted on this forum over the years, I like databases" - thelastoneleft "or maybe i just come from a blood line of superior intelligence" - trees R.I.P Kelsy, ?/?/?? - 6/11/16
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Asante]
#22245296 - 09/16/15 10:48 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 3 minutes, 47 seconds
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod]
#22245379 - 09/16/15 11:05 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: What does the energy of all the sunlight that falls on earth have to do with anything? Did you know that fossil fuels are a product of that? And that it comes from fusion? That solar cells are useless in the northeastfor at least half the year.
Fusion or loosion. If we don't get it eventually we are fucked. Solar and wind are bullshit. If the sun don't shine electricity goes out. If the wind don't blow electricity goes out. Storage for that is in highly toxic batteries. It's all a pipe dream that you can replace fossil fuels with that crap.
Why does harnessing solar or wind have to be toxic?
Do you know how they make them? Do you know how toxic the batteries needed to store the power through the night are? Do you know how many birds turbines chop up? How is solar gonna work in Maine? In the winter? How useful are wind turbines gonna be in highly populated areas? Where do you keep the batteries and how do you dispose of them when they are spent?. Where do you dispose of them? How much does all this bullshit cost? A lot more than nuclear. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't subsidized by taxpaying victims. It is economically unfeasible.
Economically unfeasible says the "fusion reactor or nothing" professor.
Fusion reactors are realistic, but non-toxic energy storage systems aren't?
And what the fuck does geographical location of energy sources have to with it? Does only West Virginia burn coal? Does only Saudi Arabia have internal combustion engines?
You clearly haven't thought this through.
--------------------
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Asante]
#22245381 - 09/16/15 11:05 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said: We need powerplants of raw concentrated power on a small surface area.
Not only and not necessarily.
Quote:
Wind is not realistic. Wind is too variable and a little decrease in wind causes the generated energy to plummet - and its barely cost effective.
Solar just isnt power dense and quite expensive.
The arguments of cost effectiveness at this stage are premature. We have barely started rolling these technologies out on any significant scale. Moreover, the cost comparison is always made with current cost levels, which are based on fossil fuels. We all know that in those prices, negative externalities (such as environmental costs and costs associated with health risks) are only marginally discounted.
In addition, the argument relying on the intermittent nature of sources such as tidal energy, solar power and wind all work on the assumption that two elements of the energy system will never change: (1) adjustment of demand to supply and (2) large-scale energy storage (of which chemical storage using batteries is just one out of several options).
Arguing at this point that we need only one energy source or that we will ultimately end up with just one is marching way too far ahead of the band. Premature speculation.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: The Ecstatic]
#22245440 - 09/16/15 11:14 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: What does the energy of all the sunlight that falls on earth have to do with anything? Did you know that fossil fuels are a product of that? And that it comes from fusion? That solar cells are useless in the northeastfor at least half the year.
Fusion or loosion. If we don't get it eventually we are fucked. Solar and wind are bullshit. If the sun don't shine electricity goes out. If the wind don't blow electricity goes out. Storage for that is in highly toxic batteries. It's all a pipe dream that you can replace fossil fuels with that crap.
Why does harnessing solar or wind have to be toxic?
Do you know how they make them? Do you know how toxic the batteries needed to store the power through the night are? Do you know how many birds turbines chop up? How is solar gonna work in Maine? In the winter? How useful are wind turbines gonna be in highly populated areas? Where do you keep the batteries and how do you dispose of them when they are spent?. Where do you dispose of them? How much does all this bullshit cost? A lot more than nuclear. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't subsidized by taxpaying victims. It is economically unfeasible.
Economically unfeasible says the "fusion reactor or nothing" professor.
Fusion reactors are realistic, but non-toxic energy storage systems aren't?
And what the fuck does geographical location of energy sources have to with it? Does only West Virginia burn coal? Does only Saudi Arabia have internal combustion engines?
You clearly haven't thought this through.
Yes I have. You can put coal on trains. You can put oil on trucks and trains. How you gonna move solar energy from the sunshine state to Maine? And are you gonna cover the whole state with solar panels? You gonna evacuate San Diego to feed electricity to the incredibly rainy PNW? Do you have any idea what kind of infrastructure it would take and the energy loss across that many of miles? Then what do you do for heat in the winter? Electric heat? There is a reason it is the most expensive. Wood burning stoves? They are the most polluting of all. No, grasshopper, 'tis you who has not thought this through. Until we get fusion we are wedded to fossil fuels.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: koraks]
#22245458 - 09/16/15 11:18 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Tidal is constant but limited. Geothermal is constant but an excellent investment for heating and cooling a home. Wind and solar are crap.
--------------------
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod]
#22245534 - 09/16/15 11:33 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Especially deep geothermal is interesting, if the location allows it. Shallow-depth seasonal thermal energy storage is a good solution as well and much less dependent on local conditions. However, in many places, it's only used for heating currently, which is unsustainable in the long run.
|
Mr.GuessWork
Stranger

Registered: 03/30/13
Posts: 4,563
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod]
#22245598 - 09/16/15 11:49 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
....
Yes I have. You can put coal on trains. You can put oil on trucks and trains. How you gonna move solar energy from the sunshine state to Maine? And are you gonna cover the whole state with solar panels? You gonna evacuate San Diego to feed electricity to the incredibly rainy PNW? Do you have any idea what kind of infrastructure it would take and the energy loss across that many of miles? Then what do you do for heat in the winter? Electric heat? There is a reason it is the most expensive. Wood burning stoves? They are the most polluting of all. No, grasshopper, 'tis you who has not thought this through. Until we get fusion we are wedded to fossil fuels.
You'd be way better off arguing in favor of nuclear fission power than fusion. It already works, but it doesn't currently compete with fossil fuels all that well. Fusion power is going to rely heavily on fission reactors for a good while if it works worth a damn at all. If you've read through the wiki a bit, you'll see that there are already many fission reactors that are capable of producing meaningful amounts of power. The trouble is that they all suck at it for the most part, and the energy that they produce isn't cost justified. Fusion power will be a step down in efficiency from fission for a good while (maybe forever). You're not thinking far enough ahead into the future. We need to work on more powerful and more efficient sources of renewable energy if we don't want o be super fucked in the next few hundred years. Stuff like solar and wind power has a lot of room for improvement, and it works pretty well in places where people have the sense not to bitch about their view being fucked up while they sit in freezing cold air conditioned rooms. You guys need to put down the scifi or at least pick up some better scifi. Fission is for the future of the war machine, not the future of humanity.
EDIT: that infrastructure that you're talking about might already exist BTW. I haven't checked in a while, but power definitely flows between states on a large scale. It is all pretty lossy though.
Edited by Mr.GuessWork (09/16/15 11:50 AM)
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Mr.GuessWork]
#22245654 - 09/16/15 11:58 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.GuessWork said: Fusion power is going to rely heavily on fission reactors for a good while
No, not necessarily. Tritium breeding can in principle be done in the same fusion reactor that burns it. It's a key element of the ITER project.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: koraks]
#22245742 - 09/16/15 12:13 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Asante said: We need powerplants of raw concentrated power on a small surface area.
Not only and not necessarily.
Quote:
Wind is not realistic. Wind is too variable and a little decrease in wind causes the generated energy to plummet - and its barely cost effective.
Solar just isnt power dense and quite expensive.
The arguments of cost effectiveness at this stage are premature. We have barely started rolling these technologies out on any significant scale. Moreover, the cost comparison is always made with current cost levels, which are based on fossil fuels. We all know that in those prices, negative externalities (such as environmental costs and costs associated with health risks) are only marginally discounted.
In addition, the argument relying on the intermittent nature of sources such as tidal energy, solar power and wind all work on the assumption that two elements of the energy system will never change: (1) adjustment of demand to supply and (2) large-scale energy storage (of which chemical storage using batteries is just one out of several options).
Arguing at this point that we need only one energy source or that we will ultimately end up with just one is marching way too far ahead of the band. Premature speculation.
Correct. Its amusing that the fusion fanatics talk about something we don't have as though it was already here while discounting things like solar based on today's technology. If we are going to talk about pie in the sky fusion, then we can talk about advanced solar as well. 50 years ago solar cost maybe 10x as much as conventional if not more. Now its somewhat competitive and the cost keeps dropping. You are not going to put a fusion plant in a car or in your pocket, that is pure fantasy. But you can put solar on your car even today, and clothes can be made to produce electricity to cool or heat the wearer or to charge their phones.
The roof of most buildings provides enough power to run it during the day and extra that can be stored. Even if other power is used at night, daytime power is nice to have. Ever had the power go out? It will keep happening.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Stonehenge]
#22245774 - 09/16/15 12:19 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: But you can put solar on your car even today, and clothes can be made to produce electricity to cool or heat the wearer or to charge their phones.
These examples are a bit unfortunately chosen. The solar panel on your car will provide 1-5% of the car's energy requirement on a good day. Cooling your body with solar-generated electricity runs into the same problem (for starters). Heating your body with solar-generated electricity is obviously a silly idea. The phone charging idea is viable though, and usable even today.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: koraks]
#22245787 - 09/16/15 12:20 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
He is a walking talking
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 3 minutes, 47 seconds
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod]
#22245796 - 09/16/15 12:22 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Yes I have. You can put coal on trains. You can put oil on trucks and trains. How you gonna move solar energy from the sunshine state to Maine? And are you gonna cover the whole state with solar panels? You gonna evacuate San Diego to feed electricity to the incredibly rainy PNW? Do you have any idea what kind of infrastructure it would take and the energy loss across that many of miles? Then what do you do for heat in the winter? Electric heat? There is a reason it is the most expensive. Wood burning stoves? They are the most polluting of all. No, grasshopper, 'tis you who has not thought this through. Until we get fusion we are wedded to fossil fuels.
Trains moving coal run on coal, energy lost.
All the costs associated with distributing solar power are the same costs associated with distributing any other kind of power.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: The Ecstatic]
#22245829 - 09/16/15 12:28 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
No.
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 3 minutes, 47 seconds
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: zappaisgod]
#22245853 - 09/16/15 12:34 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The costs aren't numerically identical, but extraction, infrastructure, distribution, and transportation are all appplicable across the board.
--------------------
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: koraks]
#22245961 - 09/16/15 12:57 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Stonehenge said: But you can put solar on your car even today, and clothes can be made to produce electricity to cool or heat the wearer or to charge their phones.
These examples are a bit unfortunately chosen. The solar panel on your car will provide 1-5% of the car's energy requirement on a good day. Cooling your body with solar-generated electricity runs into the same problem (for starters). Heating your body with solar-generated electricity is obviously a silly idea. The phone charging idea is viable though, and usable even today.
Did I say solar would power your whole car today? No I didn't. They do have totally solar powered cars now but they are specialty cars. Now we have solar panels they will ventilate your car while its out in the sun or charge your stuff. Some day solar and batteries will advance to the point you will seldom need any other power source as long as you park outdoors. Likewise with clothing. Homes will run mostly off solar. The fusion fools talk about stuff we don't have and may never have but when I talk about future solar, they all say it can't be done.
Sap, uh I mean zap, drag your knuckles over to some other thread. This one is for grown ups.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Dest
Roller-Derby Coach


Registered: 06/14/09
Posts: 2,444
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Asante]
#22245984 - 09/16/15 01:02 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As amazing as fusion is as an energy source, humans all too often ignore the biggest source of this energy they have, the sun. I think in 5 years if we as a species put our heads together we could have clean burning fossil fuels made from augmented algae and the like, cheaper than gasoline. Petro derived solar cells even keep getting better. http://www.gizmag.com/transparent-perovskite-solar-cells-graphene-electrodes/39349/ Also if we put our own biochemical energy to use better, there would be less need for grid juice.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: in 10 years Lockheed produces a 100 MW Fusion Power Plant that fits on the back of a truck [Re: Dest]
#22246029 - 09/16/15 01:13 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The sun is fusion. We need to make our own suns.
Stonehenge has been hitting the pipe a bit hard. He never answers the question about energy storage and battery disposal nor does he address the issues of geography. Yeah, it is feasible. In San Diego. New York? Not so much.
--------------------
|
|