...

[BLA + 1,666]

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

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! 

Are you describing the future or today ?

Your Armageddon senario sounds like the Democratic/Biden Platform. 

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA

[Bob D + 562]

OK   Here we go again

We put a date on a launch of an unproven commercial concept.  What could go wrong??  Nothing.  For #&@*'s sake people.  It's just some of the the most powerful forces in the universe being toyed with by humans.  The concept was stared with government money (university) and will undoubtedly progress to grant money for further development, tax subsidies for commercialization and on to tax benefits to incentivize acceptance.  I personally can't wait for my nuclear fission powered space car so I can roll like George Jetson into 2030.  Going to buy a teather now to keep my space car from drifting away.  CART / HORSE.  

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

58 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

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! 

Agree Gerry

i bet they were scared when they left their farms when the industrial revolution kicked in though.

i guess we have progress as a species, if that’s what we’re doing, which is debatable 

[BLA + 1,666]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

  I personally can't wait for my nuclear fission powered space car so I can roll like George Jetson into 2030.  Going to buy a teather now to keep my space car from drifting away.  CART / HORSE.  

Don't knock flying cars.  Saudi Prince Mohammed bin-Salman is going to have flying cars in his new futuristic city NEOM by 2030.

LOL

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

7 hours ago, Bob D said:

OK   Here we go again

We put a date on a launch of an unproven commercial concept .  .   .  .    .   .   . 

 

 

"We" didn't put a date on it.

The  Commonwealth CEO Bob Mumguaard an MIT physicist professor put a date on it. 

They have shown  working prototype product in the lab environment.  On to the commercial product build. Proving the technology works is important, but also this next phase of building and designing a manufacturable product is also very important.

Nothing's guaranteed but some extremely Intelligent people believe Commonwealth Fusion has a successful Fusion Reactor .   .  .  .  .   .  Has Commonwealth Fusion found the Energy Holy Grail ?

We will see who's right .   .   .   .  Unfortunately we'll have to wait 4 or 5 years to find out.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

One things for sure 

@Jay McKinsey will be pissed off

 I'm all for fusion. It just hasn't been proven to work on Earth yet. It may be 5 years off or it might be 50. In the meantime renewables are on a clear exponentially decreasing cost curve. Oh and both solar and wind are powered by the Sun which is a fusion reactor.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

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! 

Me too. 

I think it is good to have a sense of humor about this. Just think, eight years ago I studied energy because we had a major supposed energy crisis. I studied everything from  "free energy", cellulose, ethanol, biogas, natural gas, wind, solar, etc. My favorite is still natural gas, but if something else is as cheap, clean, and abundant that is fine too. Just don't let the governments pick the winners. Let the customers pick what they want. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

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.

Are you conflating "nuclear" with "radiation"? 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

35 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 I'm all for fusion. It just hasn't been proven to work on Earth yet. It may be 5 years off or it might be 50. In the meantime renewables are on a clear exponentially decreasing cost curve. Oh and both solar and wind are powered by the Sun which is a fusion reactor.

Haha so true

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree Gerry

i bet they were scared when they left their farms when the industrial revolution kicked in though.

i guess we have progress as a species, if that’s what we’re doing, which is debatable 

 

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree Gerry

i bet they were scared when they left their farms when the industrial revolution kicked in though.

i guess we have progress as a species, if that’s what we’re doing, which is debatable 

 

1 hour ago, BLA said:

Don't knock flying cars.  Saudi Prince Mohammed bin-Salman is going to have flying cars in his new futuristic city NEOM by 2030.

LOL

I'm trying to decide on one https://www.beautifullife.info/automotive-design/10-real-flying-cars/

[Meredith Poor + 897]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 I'm all for fusion. It just hasn't been proven to work on Earth yet. It may be 5 years off or it might be 50. In the meantime renewables are on a clear exponentially decreasing cost curve. Oh and both solar and wind are powered by the Sun which is a fusion reactor.

Actually, it works fine, just in 20 megaton quantities.

[Meredith Poor + 897]

5 hours 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.

The video shows that he refers to 'Nuclear' vs. 'Particle Accelerator' in terms of the regulations. Fusion reactors would be regulated similar to particle accelerators since they don't produce fission products and don't start with uranium or plutonium fuel. This should not be confused with nuclear physics as a branch of science.

[BLA + 1,666]

52 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Me too. 

I think it is good to have a sense of humor about this. Just think, eight years ago I studied energy because we had a major supposed energy crisis. I studied everything from  "free energy", cellulose, ethanol, biogas, natural gas, wind, solar, etc. My favorite is still natural gas, but if something else is as cheap, clean, and abundant that is fine too. Just don't let the governments pick the winners. Let the customers pick what they want. 

Good point things change. Technology changes.  

The end of 2012 / beginning of 2013 I was asked to do an analysis and eventually made an executive presentation of the top 10 midstream companies along with the growing natural gas firms.  Upon starting I noticed the potential for midstream oil development.  At the time the Bakken was the only productive play.  The EIA estimated recoverable Bakken shale oil was only 1 Billion barrels.  During research for study I realized the potential for Eagleford and Permian. The smart money oilmen were already getting into these plays.

Well I gave a presentation of my report to this group of executives in March of 2013. I talked about the coming shale oil development and said that oil would go below $70 bbl and probably much lower (oil was trading somewhere around $90 bbl) The execs started smirking and some chuckled .   

The rest is History.  

[BLA + 1,666]

28 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

 

I'm trying to decide on one https://www.beautifullife.info/automotive-design/10-real-flying-cars/

Try driving down the highway without getting your wings clipped.

I bet parallel parking is a bitch.

LOL

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, BLA said:

Try driving down the highway without getting your wings clipped.

I bet parallel parking is a bitch.

LOL

I need to talk to my insurance agent for air car and life. Then flight school. 

[BLA + 1,666]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Actually, it works fine, just in 20 megaton quantities.

So you think the good MIT physicist is pulling a con job on us. 

First , large scale solar farms take up a lot of Real Estate. Not always available. This must be factored into total cost of solar.

Maybe  Biden can sign an Executive Order converting all cemeteries into solar farms. 

Once efficient cost effective solid state (fire proof) batteries are on the market we will see major benefits of home solar systems in geographies that have the requisite sunshine.  I'm all for it.  

As for power generation to enable industry, transportation , cities, etc we need power plants.  Solar won't cut it. Natural gas is the answer now. I believe fusion is the future.

I believe  Commonwealth Fusion has the answer and have no reason to doubt them when they say commercial in 2030. 

You Ludites can whine all you want.  They laughed at Alexander Graham Bell.  

I'm sorry if you fear your Green New Deal is threatened by fusion.  But when planning for the next 30 years we have to consider Commonwealth Fusion's development into the calculus. We're talking a $100 Trillion Green New Deal expenditures over time.

There is a place for solar. But it's not the answer.

Edited October 23, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 I'm all for fusion. It just hasn't been proven to work on Earth yet. It may be 5 years off or it might be 50. In the meantime renewables are on a clear exponentially decreasing cost curve. Oh and both solar and wind are powered by the Sun which is a fusion reactor.

Jay 

Can you see the argument of using natural gas over the short term as opposed to spending $ trillions building solar farms using panels that are manufactured in China ?

When those $ Trillion could be used to subsidize the build out of fusion power plants.

[Bob D + 562]

15 minutes ago, BLA said:

Jay 

Can you see the argument of using natural gas over the short term as opposed to spending $ trillions building solar farms using panels that are manufactured in China ?

When those $ Trillion could be used to subsidize the build out of fusion power plants.

YES  agree 100%

We need to stop the senseless harm windmills do to our aviary friends and solar panels do to the earth which is denied sunlight.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

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! 

Having unlimited energy does allow us to do some unprecedented things. Many of which would sustain a much larger population. 

I see your point though. Things aren't necessarily improving as we advance. The mental state of the first world is declining. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, BLA said:

So you think the good MIT physicist is pulling a con job on us. 

First , large scale solar farms take up a lot of Real Estate. Not always available. This must be factored into total cost of solar.

Maybe  Biden can sign an Executive Order converting all cemeteries into solar farms. 

Once efficient cost effective solid state (fire proof) batteries are on the market we will see major benefits of home solar systems in geographies that have the requisite sunshine.  I'm all for it.  

As for power generation to enable industry, transportation , cities, etc we need power plants.  Solar won't cut it. Natural gas is the answer now. I believe fusion is the future.

I believe  Commonwealth Fusion has the answer and have no reason to doubt them when they say commercial in 2030. 

You Ludites can whine all you want.  They laughed at Alexander Graham Bell.  

I'm sorry if you fear your Green New Deal is threatened by fusion.  But when planning for the next 30 years we have to consider Commonwealth Fusion's development into the calculus. We're talking a $100 Trillion Green New Deal expenditures over time.

There is a place for solar. But it's not the answer.

I think cemeteries are a massive waste of land.  Lots of premium real estate wasted - turn them into parks or natural land once the dead have been in the ground for ~125 years (nobody alive has met them).  Make a plaque with all the names, remove the tombstones, plant native vegetation.

 

Environmentalists would love fusion - but it is not going to develop/commercialize nearly fast enough.

 

 

[BLA + 1,666]

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I think cemeteries are a massive waste of land.  Lots of premium real estate wasted - turn them into parks or natural land once the dead have been in the ground for ~125 years (nobody alive has met them).  Make a plaque with all the names, remove the tombstones, plant native vegetation.

 

 

That might happen some day.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

53 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

 

Environmentalists would love fusion - but it is not going to develop/commercialize nearly fast enough.

 

 

You are correct

Environmentalist can't wait to spend Trillions for their solar utopia. 

They don't mind spending 10's of $ Trillions of taxpayers money over the next five years enriching the Biden Family, Wallstreet Bankers, Friends of the Administration and  Chinese Communist Party .   .   .   .  to name a few.

I too want a clean environment .  But diving head first with reckless abandonment is foolish. 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by BLA

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, BLA said:

Jay 

Can you see the argument of using natural gas over the short term as opposed to spending $ trillions building solar farms using panels that are manufactured in China ?

When those $ Trillion could be used to subsidize the build out of fusion power plants.

No I can't. First of all you need to build the first fusion plant before you can build out the rest. Second, you seem to indicate that this trillion dollars is the subsidy being given to renewables. You guys really need to figure out the difference between billion and trillion. 

"For 2018, the JCT estimated energy credit tax expenditures to be $2.8 billion, with the majority of tax expenditures ($2.5 billion) attributable to solar. Between 2018 and 2022, the JCT has estimated energy credit tax expenditures to be $13.5 billion, with $12.5 billion for solar." https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10479.pdf

All other investment is private capital that is in it to make money, it is not a cost center but a profit center.

[Meredith Poor + 897]

2 hours ago, BLA said:

So you think the good MIT physicist is pulling a con job on us. 

 

I don't understand how this has you confused. He used a term with respect to regulation, not with respect to science. As far as whether the fusion reactor they are building will 'work', what he says in the video is they currently have a Q of .7. Their research papers suggest the SPARC reactor will get a Q > 10. I wouldn't call this a 'con job', but neither he nor anyone else know what the reactor is actually going to produce. They have to build it to find out.

High school kids can build 'fusors' that transmute hydrogen into heavier elements. NASA has demonstrated fusion in erbium deuteride irradiated by gamma rays. Hydrogen bombs have been detonated by multiple sovereign governments. All of these things demonstrate that 'fusion works'. Hydrogen bombs definitely produce more energy out than is input to start the reaction. The only unanswered question is 'can a Q > 10 be created and maintained in a controlled, economically useful manner?'. We'll only know that when it works.

[BLA + 1,666]

38 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No I can't. First of all you need to build the first fusion plant before you can build out the rest. Second, you seem to indicate that this trillion dollars is the subsidy being given to renewables. You guys really need to figure out the difference between billion and trillion. 

"For 2018, the JCT estimated energy credit tax expenditures to be $2.8 billion, with the majority of tax expenditures ($2.5 billion) attributable to solar. Between 2018 and 2022, the JCT has estimated energy credit tax expenditures to be $13.5 billion, with $12.5 billion for solar." https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10479.pdf

All other investment is private capital that is in it to make money, it is not a cost center but a profit center.

Commonwealth will announce the site of their first Fusion plant before the end of the year.

The Green New Deal has not been enacted yet.  Read it .  $ Trillions.

We should know if Commonwealth Fusion has a winner in about 4 or 5 years. I'll give you a call then.