...

[BLA + 1,666]

..

Edited November 1, 2020 by BLA

[Meredith Poor + 883]

44 minutes ago, BLA said:

DO WE SPEND (WASTE)  $ TRILLION ON "GREEN NEW DEAL" WHEN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND U.S. INGENUITY CAN PROVIDE A BETTER SOLUTION ?

Part 1 of my response to this is while fusion may impact wind, it will not eliminate solar. Imagine some rancher in Montana setting up a fusion reactor to provide power. If that doesn't seem likely, solar is still in the running. A lot of stuff is just to small too justify fusion. There has been a lot of resistance to wind turbines, some of it due to aesthetics and some of it due to the transmission lines that run for hundreds or thousands of miles through otherwise 'pristine' landscapes.

Part 2 is the variability in 'the 2030's'. First, see 'room temperature superconductivity' and how that might impact fusion reactors. The second is that fusion might be viable by 2025, but it also may not be working at any time in the 2030's.

If fusion is going to displace natural gas and fission power plants, it is better to do this at a measured pace. Fusion will set off a gold rush when it comes in. It's better to have a lot of other infrastructure set up to handle it.

 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

52 minutes ago, BLA said:

Fusion is not nuclear. Fusion is the opposite of Fission.  Whereas Fission splits unstable nucleus, Fusion combines nuclei ,hydrogen isotopes.Very little byproduct and NO MELT DOWNS, NO THREE MILE ISLANDS, NO CHERNOBYLS, NO FUKUSHIMAS.

First of all, fusion is very definitely nuclear. Anything that transmutes elements is a 'nuclear' reaction.

Some fusion reactions produce gamma rays. The difference between 'fission waste products' and irradiated confinement vessels is that 'fission waste' is unpredictable - you get what you get, and you have to deal with it. One can control the materials used in a fusion reactor, and therefore chose materials that produce benign isotopes or isotopes with short half lives that aren't dangerous to life.

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

57 minutes ago, BLA said:

If true this will be devastating to not only the hydrocarbon (oil, gas,coal) energy industry BUT ALSO the Solar , Wind Turbine and Hydrogen industry .   .   .   .  and as a result the "Green New Deal" long-term viability. 

There are 17 projects working on commercializing nuclear fusion.  One of the projects considered a standout is Commonwealth Fusion . Commonwealth was incubated at MIT with physicist  Bob Mumgaard now the CEO.

CEO Mumgaard says Commercial Product in 2030's.  

* Fusion is not nuclear. Fusion is the opposite of Fission.  Whereas Fission splits unstable nucleus, Fusion combines nuclei ,hydrogen isotopes.Very little byproduct and NO MELT DOWNS, NO THREE MILE ISLANDS, NO CHERNOBYLS, NO FUKUSHIMAS.

* Commonwealth says they will deliver a 10 Q rating.  Meaning for each input unit of energy they will be able to generate 10X energy output. Impressive.

* Commonwealth will be able to mass produce generators similar to say GE mass producing turbines or jet engines. No exotic, rare or expensive materials needed like cobalt, lithium etc. Mostly just metal.

* Commonwealth will announce the sight of their first working reactor before the end of the year.  Estimated 5 years to build, test, refine design and maximize manufacturing efficiencies.

* Commonwealth SPARC reactor can be actively controlled. (Unlike Fission)

This DOES change everything. 

Winners: The world

Losers: Oil Industry, Natural Gas Industry, Solar Industry, Wind Turbine Industry, OPEC Oil States Economy, Green New Deal.  These industries will have uses for many years but at a tiny, tiny, tiny  fraction that is being planned and funded.

SIMPLE QUESTION TO PONDER:

DO WE SPEND (WASTE)  $ TRILLION ON "GREEN NEW DEAL" WHEN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND U.S. INGENUITY CAN PROVIDE A BETTER SOLUTION ?

 

 

Atlantic Council interview with Commonwealth Fusion CEO Mumgaard.

 

 

Bla this is nothing new

Iter (https://www.iter.org/) is by far the largest conglomerate of countries with all of their leading physicists working together

It is by far the most likely to crack the mysteries of fusion due to this level of funding and the best physicists on the planet.

If these lot cant do it nobody can!

[BLA + 1,666]

2 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Part 1 of my response to this is while fusion may impact wind, it will not eliminate solar. Imagine some rancher in Montana setting up a fusion reactor to provide power. If that doesn't seem likely, solar is still in the running. A lot of stuff is just to small too justify fusion. There has been a lot of resistance to wind turbines, some of it due to aesthetics and some of it due to the transmission lines that run for hundreds or thousands of miles through otherwise 'pristine' landscapes.

Part 2 is the variability in 'the 2030's'. First, see 'room temperature superconductivity' and how that might impact fusion reactors. The second is that fusion might be viable by 2025, but it also may not be working at any time in the 2030's.

If fusion is going to displace natural gas and fission power plants, it is better to do this at a measured pace. Fusion will set off a gold rush when it comes in. It's better to have a lot of other infrastructure set up to handle it.

 

Meredith

If you read my complete posts you will see I stated there will still be uses for solar.  Your example of a Montana rancher , if he's not serviced by a nearby power plant sure.  That rancher may be able to get a nice return on installing solar now.  He's not going to throw out his solar.

The point being solar will be a tiny fraction of the future energy picture. This needs to be considered and factored in to present day planning.

As for your technical drawbacks.  Apparently Commonwealth Fusion (and others) have worked out many of those technical kinks.  They will announce the location of their first prototype shortly and commence construction in early 2021.  

I'm not pro or against either oil or solar.  I'm for the cleanest, low cost energy available to provide the world's energy. 

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

11 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Part 1 of my response to this is while fusion may impact wind, it will not eliminate solar. Imagine some rancher in Montana setting up a fusion reactor to provide power. If that doesn't seem likely, solar is still in the running. A lot of stuff is just to small too justify fusion. There has been a lot of resistance to wind turbines, some of it due to aesthetics and some of it due to the transmission lines that run for hundreds or thousands of miles through otherwise 'pristine' landscapes.

Part 2 is the variability in 'the 2030's'. First, see 'room temperature superconductivity' and how that might impact fusion reactors. The second is that fusion might be viable by 2025, but it also may not be working at any time in the 2030's.

If fusion is going to displace natural gas and fission power plants, it is better to do this at a measured pace. Fusion will set off a gold rush when it comes in. It's better to have a lot of other infrastructure set up to handle it.

 

Meredith I dont get your point 1 where you say "Imagine some rancher in Montana setting up a fusion reactor to provide power. If that doesn't seem likely, solar is still in the running."

Why would an individual try to do this it would be astronomical in cost? The point is these fusion reactors would supply electricity to the grid just like fission do now. Therefore it does threaten ALL other large scale energy generation (dependent on cost) including solar. If you threaten the large scale it means that small scale solar doesnt get the economies of scale for production and/or the grants from government, basically its dead.

I do agree it is most definitely nuclear though.

[BLA + 1,666]

13 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

First of all, fusion is very definitely nuclear. Anything that transmutes elements is a 'nuclear' reaction.

 

"First of all, fusion is very definitely nuclear. Anything that transmutes elements is a 'nuclear' reaction."

Mer

Not according to MIT nuclear physicist Bob Mumgarrd.

Let's not bicker over semantics.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

5 minutes ago, BLA said:

Meredith

If you read my complete posts you will see I stated there will still be uses for solar.  Your example of a Montana rancher , if he's not serviced by a nearby power plant sure.  That rancher may be able to get a nice return on installing solar now.  He's not going to throw out his solar.

The point being solar will be a tiny fraction of the future energy picture. This needs to be considered and factored in to present day planning.

As for your technical drawbacks.  Apparently Commonwealth Fusion (and others) have worked out many of those technical kinks.  They will announce the location of their first prototype shortly and commence construction in early 2021.  

I'm not pro or against either oil or solar.  I'm for the cleanest, low cost energy available to provide the world's energy. 

Agree with most of this

The issue at hand in fusion is controlling the plasma once you get to plasma. To maintain the fusion reaction is proving the stumbling block for ALL fusion projects which there are dozens around the globe.

Nobody has cracked this yet which is why it currently doesnt work based on a Tritium / Dueterium fuel mix.

Personally I'm an optimist and believe in science and that if there's a goal worth achieving the human mind tends to get there in the end. However I have  grave doubts this is economically viable against current fossil fuel/green energy generation.

However if we could have some of the trillions of dollars Biden wants to spend on climate change then I'm pretty sure that would be a decent subsidy!

[BLA + 1,666]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Bla this is nothing new

Iter (https://www.iter.org/) is by far the largest conglomerate of countries with all of their leading physicists working together

It is by far the most likely to crack the mysteries of fusion due to this level of funding and the best physicists on the planet.

If these lot cant do it nobody can!

Rob

Don't know how much you understands about tech.  Very competitive.  It's very common that one good technology "LEAP FROGS" another and obsoletes the prior.

Plus, the GOVERNMENT funded ITER effort is commendable, but when it comes to successful product development  private startups can produce a working product at a fraction of the cost in 1/2 the time.

Commonwealth will have a working SPARC Reactor before ITRI completes their very expense lab experiment.

ITER project being built in France may become the largest "WHITE ELEPHANT" in the history of the world.  

Give Mumgarrd a chance.  Why do you need to pan what could be a great development.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree with most of this

The issue at hand in fusion is controlling the plasma once you get to plasma. To maintain the fusion reaction is proving the stumbling block for ALL fusion projects which there are dozens around the globe.

Nobody has cracked this yet which is why it currently doesnt work based on a Tritium / Dueterium fuel mix.

Personally I'm an optimist and believe in science and that if there's a goal worth achieving the human mind tends to get there in the end. However I have  grave doubts this is economically viable against current fossil fuel/green energy generation.

However if we could have some of the trillions of dollars Biden wants to spend on climate change then I'm pretty sure that would be a decent subsidy!

It's been cracked.

You Ludites are in senile.

Commonwealth combines hydrogen isotopes.

Congress included funding in the last energy bill for fusion.  I'm sure the next energy bill (whomever is president) will also.

Educate yourself.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

5 minutes ago, BLA said:

It's been cracked.

Commonwealth combines hydrogen isotopes.

Congress included funding in the last energy bill.  I'm sure the next one (whomever is president) will also.

Bla no it hasnt been cracked by anyone

Just to let you know Tritium and Deuterium are those hydrogen isotopes MIT talk of, again nothing new.

If this had been cracked it would be global news, there is zero evidence they have done this, hell they havent even started building it yet.

Yes Iter might be the most expensive white elephant on the planet, and I'm not panning MIT and hope to hell it works, but all I'm saying is Iter has a massive head start on MIT and has global funding from about a dozen countries including the USA.

Just take 20 mins and look at the link and read what they've achieved, its truly remarkable.

The question is do you go Tokamak or Stellarator to achieve fusion?

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

Certainly 1 thing I agree with is that if it works and makes economic sense then the all other forms of powergen are largely dead

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, BLA said:

If true this will be devastating to not only the hydrocarbon (oil, gas,coal) energy industry BUT ALSO the Solar , Wind Turbine and Hydrogen industry .   .   .   .  and as a result the "Green New Deal" long-term viability. 

There are 17 projects working on commercializing nuclear fusion.  One of the projects considered a standout is Commonwealth Fusion . Commonwealth was incubated at MIT with physicist  Bob Mumgaard now the CEO.

CEO Mumgaard says Commercial Product in 2030's.  

* Fusion is not nuclear. Fusion is the opposite of Fission.  Whereas Fission splits unstable nucleus, Fusion combines nuclei ,hydrogen isotopes.Very little byproduct and NO MELT DOWNS, NO THREE MILE ISLANDS, NO CHERNOBYLS, NO FUKUSHIMAS.

* Commonwealth says they will deliver a 10 Q rating.  Meaning for each input unit of energy they will be able to generate 10X energy output. Impressive.

* Commonwealth will be able to mass produce generators similar to say GE mass producing turbines or jet engines. No exotic, rare or expensive materials needed like cobalt, lithium etc. Mostly just metal.

* Commonwealth will announce the sight of their first working reactor before the end of the year.  Estimated 5 years to build, test, refine design and maximize manufacturing efficiencies.

* Commonwealth SPARC reactor can be actively controlled. (Unlike Fission)

This DOES change everything. 

Winners: The world

Losers: Oil Industry, Natural Gas Industry, Solar Industry, Wind Turbine Industry, OPEC Oil States Economy, Green New Deal.  These industries will have uses for many years but at a tiny, tiny, tiny  fraction that is being planned and funded.

SIMPLE QUESTION TO PONDER:

DO WE SPEND (WASTE)  $ TRILLION ON "GREEN NEW DEAL" WHEN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND U.S. INGENUITY CAN PROVIDE A BETTER SOLUTION ?

 

 

Atlantic Council interview with Commonwealth Fusion CEO Mumgaard.

 

 

IMHO natural gas can do the jog just as well as renewables and with minimum real pollution as well as less CO2 than what the world is using now. The West should definitely not rush into expensive new renewable projects just because the greenies, the left, and crony capitalists want to push it. I am not against them, but just want to make them do it on their own. No governmental bodies picking the winners. Asia needs to clean up its air, water, and land. We need to build our own solar panels and wind turbines. Not import them from China and elsewhere. 

Fusion would be great and I would be all for it, but it is not a proven provider that is cost effective. We will have to wait for that. Meanwhile we have many options for fuel. We also have too many crony capitalists pushing renewables when we have natural gas being flared and new finds all over the world. 

[BLA + 1,666]

43 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Bla no it hasnt been cracked by anyone

Just to let you know Tritium and Deuterium are those hydrogen isotopes MIT talk of, again nothing new.

If this had been cracked it would be global news, there is zero evidence they have done this, hell they havent even started building it yet.

Yes Iter might be the most expensive white elephant on the planet, and I'm not panning MIT and hope to hell it works, but all I'm saying is Iter has a massive head start on MIT and has global funding from about a dozen countries including the USA.

Just take 20 mins and look at the link and read what they've achieved, its truly remarkable.

The question is do you go Tokamak or Stellarator to achieve fusion?

They have built, tested and proven their technology.

They are on to their next step . Building and fine tuning a commercial reactor. They estimate 4 to 5 years to complete.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

On 10/23/2020 at 12:07 PM, ronwagn said:

IMHO natural gas can do the jog just as well as renewables and with minimum real pollution as well as less CO2 than what the world is using now. The West should definitely not rush into expensive new renewable projects just because the greenies, the left, and crony capitalists want to push it. I am not against them, but just want to make them do it on their own. No governmental bodies picking the winners. Asia needs to clean up its air, water, and land. We need to build our own solar panels and wind turbines. Not import them from China and elsewhere. 

Fusion would be great and I would be all for it, but it is not a proven provider that is cost effective. We will have to wait for that. Meanwhile we have many options for fuel. We also have too many crony capitalists pushing renewables when we have natural gas being flared and new finds all over the world. 

Agree

I believe natural gas should bridge to Fusion.  Power plants can retrofit with fusion reactors.  

Why spend $ Trillions on solar and wind. The Green New Deal will enrich Wallstreet, crony capitalists and China.

I know some early solar companies that received large grants and Federal and State tax benefits.  The developed the technology, declared bankruptcy and founders took the technology to China to mfg.

The original LCD monitor and Flat screen TV technology was all developed in U.S. with grants from the U.S. Defense Dept funds. Then all the mfg was moved to China.  

U.S. taxpayers get stiffed.  Wallstreet and Corporations get rich.  It doesn't have to be that way.

Whatever green energy subsidies  passed by Congress, in order to receive funds from government solar and wind mfg MUST manufacturer in the U.S.  

I believe to receive an EV tax credit to purchase an EV that vehicle should be mfg in U.S.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA

[Meredith Poor + 883]

56 minutes ago, BLA said:

It's been cracked.

Commonwealth combines hydrogen isotopes.

Congress included funding in the last energy bill for fusion.  I'm sure the next energy bill (whomever is president) will also.

Educate yourself.

Commonwealth shows that 'net yield' is on their 'To Do' list. This is the screen shot from their website.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Meredith I dont get your point 1 where you say "Imagine some rancher in Montana setting up a fusion reactor to provide power. If that doesn't seem likely, solar is still in the running."

Why would an individual try to do this it would be astronomical in cost? The point is these fusion reactors would supply electricity to the grid just like fission do now. Therefore it does threaten ALL other large scale energy generation (dependent on cost) including solar. If you threaten the large scale it means that small scale solar doesnt get the economies of scale for production and/or the grants from government, basically its dead.

I do agree it is most definitely nuclear though.

Really rural areas don't always have power lines available, or they would be cost prohibitive to bring in. 

Solar plus battery backup and a small wind turbine would be best. A generator is the cheapest option. 

[BLA + 1,666]

4 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Commonwealth shows that 'net yield' is on their 'To Do' list. This is the screen shot from their website.

Watch the video.

CEO Mumguaard discussed yield aka "Q grade" 

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Really rural areas don't always have power lines available, or they would be cost prohibitive to bring in. 

Solar plus battery backup and a small wind turbine would be best. A generator is the cheapest option. 

Agreed my point if you re-read it was large scale solar would be dead and cost for small scale solar would increase due to no economies of scale in production and government grants

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

24 minutes ago, BLA said:

They have built, tested and proven their technology.

They are on to their next step . Building and fine tuning a commercial reactor. They estimate 4 to 5 years to complete.

No there is a massive difference to being able to create plasma but nobody has done this sustainably ie for more than a minute so it isn’t proven

sorry Bla it just isn’t by anyone yet

as I say if they could sustain the plasma and get 10x the power out then basically they have proven fusion technology works ie you get more power out than you put in and for a length of time that warrants building a power station

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

First of all, fusion is very definitely nuclear. Anything that transmutes elements is a 'nuclear' reaction.

Yep, you cant have nuclear without a nucleus!

i think he’s dumbing it down for the masses.

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

2 hours ago, BLA said:

If true this will be devastating to not only the hydrocarbon (oil, gas,coal) energy industry BUT ALSO the Solar , Wind Turbine and Hydrogen industry .   .   .   .  and as a result the "Green New Deal" long-term viability. 

There are 17 projects working on commercializing nuclear fusion.  One of the projects considered a standout is Commonwealth Fusion . Commonwealth was incubated at MIT with physicist  Bob Mumgaard now the CEO.

CEO Mumgaard says Commercial Product in 2030's.  

* Fusion is not nuclear. Fusion is the opposite of Fission.  Whereas Fission splits unstable nucleus, Fusion combines nuclei ,hydrogen isotopes.Very little byproduct and NO MELT DOWNS, NO THREE MILE ISLANDS, NO CHERNOBYLS, NO FUKUSHIMAS.

* Commonwealth says they will deliver a 10 Q rating.  Meaning for each input unit of energy they will be able to generate 10X energy output. Impressive.

* Commonwealth will be able to mass produce generators similar to say GE mass producing turbines or jet engines. No exotic, rare or expensive materials needed like cobalt, lithium etc. Mostly just metal.

* Commonwealth will announce the sight of their first working reactor before the end of the year.  Estimated 5 years to build, test, refine design and maximize manufacturing efficiencies.

* Commonwealth SPARC reactor can be actively controlled. (Unlike Fission)

This DOES change everything. 

Winners: The world

Losers: Oil Industry, Natural Gas Industry, Solar Industry, Wind Turbine Industry, OPEC Oil States Economy, Green New Deal.  These industries will have uses for many years but at a tiny, tiny, tiny  fraction that is being planned and funded.

SIMPLE QUESTION TO PONDER:

DO WE SPEND (WASTE)  $ TRILLION ON "GREEN NEW DEAL" WHEN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND U.S. INGENUITY CAN PROVIDE A BETTER SOLUTION ?

 

 

Atlantic Council interview with Commonwealth Fusion CEO Mumgaard.

 

 

One things for sure 

@Jay McKinsey will be pissed off

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, BLA said:

"First of all, fusion is very definitely nuclear. Anything that transmutes elements is a 'nuclear' reaction."

Mer

Not according to MIT nuclear physicist Bob Mumgarrd.

Let's not bicker over semantics.

If hydrogen fusion isn't 'nuclear', then what is it?

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Great discussion!

Makes me worry more about world order: 1) Wipe out the need for a fuel and petrochemical source that has provided energy and products for the world for a century, 2) In the process bankrupting some very violent countries, 3) Add in Artificial Intelligence, 4) Which leaves more time for procreation, 5) Leaving 15 billion angry people living longer lives but with absolutely nothing to do except fight and forage for food. 

I'm glad I'm old! Beam me up, Scotty! 

[BLA + 1,666]

11 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

If hydrogen fusion isn't 'nuclear', then what is it?

Mer

Talk to Professor Mumguaard the MIT physicist. He knows a little more than me about fusion.

If it makes you feel better I'll say you are correct . Doesn't change anything. 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA