quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Stars die. They consume all their fuel and die. Their is no such thing as infinite energy..

And so therefore, no energy is possible/viable? Interesting fallacy. I though mathematicians were good at logic?

We don't seek energy for it to be infinite. We seek it to use to power things.

Though my passive solar heating comes damn close.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Do you really believe that's what I'm saying?

More to the point, do you really believe that's the criterion for an acceptable source of energy?

Has it occurred to you that this would eliminate ALL forms of energy from being acceptable? And yet we use them.

Are you beginning to see why I'm speaking to you as if you were a small child?

Run the math on that, Ego Boy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Do you really believe that's what I'm saying?
More to the point, do you really believe that's the criterion for an acceptable source of energy?
Has it occurred to you that this would eliminate ALL forms of energy from being acceptable? And yet we use them.
Are you beginning to see why I'm speaking to you as if you were a small child?
Run the math on that, Ego Boy.

Then consider this very carefully, for fusion to work as a power source it would require an energetic power source. What is that source? Where does the power come from to make the plasma? Where does the power come from to keep the plasma close enough together to fuse? Where does the power come from to keep the stray particles from the fusion getting loose and causing problems?
Do you know anything at all about the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus000

In the end, fission might end up being the cleaner and cheaper option. But the Koch brothers and other oil barons will try to hinder any progress that makes us not dependent on oil and gas. And yes, climate change is due to human activity and the booming of world economy and the global rise of the middle class. Simple scientifically proven fact.

An article in the INPO Journal (Institute of Nuclear Power Operators - www.inpo.info ) made a good point several years ago. (Numbers were documented for 1993)

Nuclear power plants generated 7,000,000,000 (7 billion) tons of low level radioactive waste a year. All of this waste is accounted for, controlled, and shipped for proper disposal.
Based on the percentage of pitchblende (a Uranium ore) and the coal usage for electrical generation from Coal industry figures and deducting the residual radioactive material left in the "clinkers"; the Coal power industry puts 350,000,000 (350 million) tons of radioactive material out the stack each week. (emphasis is mine)

Let's do the math. Assuming 50 weeks of operation a year (they do have down time for maintenance) that would be 350M X 50 weeks = 17.5 billion tons of radioactive material put out the stack of coal burning power plants each year.

Oh, yes, since the radioactive material in coal is "natural" there is no limit or requirement for monitoring.

Yep, nuclear is expensive to build but cleaner and the second cheapest way to generate electricity after hydroelectric.

(BTW - 30+ years dealing with radioactive material)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Do you really believe that's what I'm saying?
More to the point, do you really believe that's the criterion for an acceptable source of energy?
Has it occurred to you that this would eliminate ALL forms of energy from being acceptable? And yet we use them.
Are you beginning to see why I'm speaking to you as if you were a small child?
Run the math on that, Ego Boy.

Then consider this very carefully, for fusion to work as a power source it would require an energetic power source. What is that source? Where does the power come from to make the plasma? Where does the power come from to keep the plasma close enough together to fuse? Where does the power come from to keep the stray particles from the fusion getting loose and causing problems?
Do you know anything at all about the subject?

Perhaps the energy is locked up in some element? It shouldn't take as much energy, let alone more, to transform that potential energy, else why spend the energy in the first place.

Energy is released when ATP is broken down to ADP + P. This energy is what is used for muscular contraction (according to the Sliding Filament Theory of Muscle Contraction). The bond in CP (creatine and phosphate) store energy to quickly replenish ADP + P to ATP (at least that's my own thinking), which is why increasing the amount of Creatine in your muscles (where it is located to some degree) reduces the energy replenishment time, allowing one to perform more work in a given amount of time. Was there energy created? Of course not. That's going against the 2nd Law. But, there was transformation of energy from one source to another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And where is that potential energy? The Sun does it by being at the bottom of a sun sized gravity well. Show me a way to create one of those and I'll believe in a fusion power plant that is net producer of power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Do you really believe that's what I'm saying?

More to the point, do you really believe that's the criterion for an acceptable source of energy?

Has it occurred to you that this would eliminate ALL forms of energy from being acceptable? And yet we use them.

Are you beginning to see why I'm speaking to you as if you were a small child?

Run the math on that, Ego Boy.

Then consider this very carefully, for fusion to work as a power source it would require an energetic power source. What is that source? Where does the power come from to make the plasma? Where does the power come from to keep the plasma close enough together to fuse? Where does the power come from to keep the stray particles from the fusion getting loose and causing problems?

Do you know anything at all about the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

FR

All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it.

Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach?

I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif]

Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Why am I not surprised.

2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely *nothing* about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less.

The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions.

Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less):

Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%).
Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles.
Efficiency of energy collection from plasma.

The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy.

Which, while true, has nothing to do with your contention that we may never be able to have fusion power due to the second law of thermodynamics. Said statement is, as I said before, wrong.

We may never have fusion, although I think we will. But if we don't it will be economic, political, and technological impediments that prevent it. The second law of thermodynamics will have nothing to do with it.

Wait, you think the 2nd law isn't entropy? WTF do you think the 2nd law is? How precisely would it not apply?

Do you see me saying that the second law doesn't regard entropy?
In fact, when you made the uneducated opinion that fusion may not be possible because of the second law of thermodynamics I educated you and said that the entropy of the system decreases when the heavier elements were made.

Using small words: The things that stop us from getting fusion power are economic, political, and technological. You really do hate admitting you are just wrong.

You don't get it do you, how precisely can you get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Wow, what a disillusioning discussion. ONE poster seems to have a real grasp of the complexities. Because he came in late and did a few short posts? (MM. DS, close, study the Krebs Citric Acid cycle? It's got a Lot of steps?) Several self-identified experts (Probably great at their tech jobs) totally miss vital points.
For starters, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to Closed systems. Therefore usable IC engines (Producing economic power for over 100 years and counting) and Fusion power plants aren't impossible, just technologically challenging. Current high tech gasoline Otto cycle (Car) engines are capable of Cleaning the existing air in some European cities as they move vehicles (Exhaust is cleaner than intake air), in China, they'd be transformative! Current retail engines in high regulatory regimes are close to that. China has recognized the issue and plans to move to US/EU pollution regs on it's domestic autos. Modern cars, at the usual quoted 30% efficiency do better overall cycle wise than any existing electrical generation and distribution E-vehicle system. The old electrical trolley system probably was better. None of which changes fossil fuels move Carbon stored for millenia underground into the atmosphere Now. No matter how it is used as energy locally. Natural gas is turning out cleaner than crude oil by a lot, the damage current fracking is doing to get it probably will have this generation cursed as much as anything else we are doing, other than ignoring the whole non-sustainable nature of our current industrial manufacturing and food production complex.
Biodiesel isn't that great a fuel. The process has some nasty waste products. A diesel engine run on straight vegetable oil is considerably better. It doesn't start or run in cold weather till warm for snot. ALL diesels not using the latest particulate extraction technology are rather damaging to humans, particularly Young humans, in their neighborhood. A whole different problem from gasoline engines. Work on diesel particulates continues. You wouldn't want to live in a 100% diesel city till it gets Much better.
Nobody actually reads current literature? There are, in operation, a number of affordable CO2 plant exhaust stack extraction technologies on current industrial and experimental systems. A few schemes may make money in the bargain. Good design doesn't solve one issue and produce a new waste product, it finds ways to solve current issues and produces a novel revenue stream with the solution.
A 1%/yr change in any quantity in the atmosphere is a GEOMETRIC CURVE, idiots who Deny. Any uninterrupted geometric curve is going to massively change any system it affects. I'd say 'do the math', but our math majors fail mostly at that, so why bother? Our industrial system's carbon dioxide contribution to Earth's atmosphere isn't an interrupted geometric curve (which is what the 'alarmists' are asking for, it's an INCREASING ratio geometric curve, as both technology and population are increasing non-sustainable energy use that is based on fossil fuels.
The methane and meat discussion is just one big face slap cartoon in text.
Anyone who thinks close to 7 billion humans can eat meat and have even a remotely inhabitable planet for either ecological or military/political considerations is (I'll be polite) dreaming.
Several planet weather projections are almost as 'flightful'. Europe gets colder, for awhile, not much of the rest. The polar regions are already warming, possibly faster than the tropics.
I'm not aware of any current fusion design that has produced Continuous power in excess of input, it's doing momentary net power output. SHORT momentary? Gains are Slow and Expensive. I don't see the current direction of study producing competitive power given the pace of other energy extraction technologies with almost none of the challenges. Nano-tech informed biology based solar energy extraction is only a few years old and already competitive in laboratory level trials. Orders of magnitude overall gains from the present may be possible. Solar power doesn't have to displace people or plants. There is a Lot of open land unsuitable for much else. Moving the stored energy is the challenge, not a show stopper if Hydrogen storage issues for mobile vehicles keeps progressing as well as at present.
Solar panels as well as wind generators have advanced in service life far beyond the estimates made even a decade ago. Their total environmental cost are still indeterminate and the technology to lower what we know is being invested in strongly.
Actual biological fuel and energy production from GM algae are equally promising. And don't ruin a neighborhood for a few thousands of years if the maintenance budget gets shorted by bureaucrats, as they always seem to do.
The methane and meat discussion is just one big face slap cartoon in text.
Hydropower has turned out to be a disaster most places, few dam/reservoirs having even a 50 yr service life. The ecological costa are often incredible. Economists are just beginning to learn how to do accurate estimates for those previously hidden charges. Flood control is a plus that goes away when the dams minuses are unacceptable and the dams removed. Most places the corruption of large scale construction is irresistible temptation, I'll be surprised if the Gorges Dam stays up 30 years. Like a Nuke plant, failure is stupidly expensive? Climate change makes the large investment a huge risk for all but the richest countries.
And so on. . . it's late,
you guys are EMBARRASSING.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And where is that potential energy? The Sun does it by being at the bottom of a sun sized gravity well. Show me a way to create one of those and I'll believe in a fusion power plant that is net producer of power.

The potential energy in an atom is found in the energy binding the nucleus. WTF kind of math did you do if you don't even understand that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Do you really believe that's what I'm saying?

More to the point, do you really believe that's the criterion for an acceptable source of energy?

Has it occurred to you that this would eliminate ALL forms of energy from being acceptable? And yet we use them.

Are you beginning to see why I'm speaking to you as if you were a small child?

Run the math on that, Ego Boy.

Then consider this very carefully, for fusion to work as a power source it would require an energetic power source. What is that source? Where does the power come from to make the plasma? Where does the power come from to keep the plasma close enough together to fuse? Where does the power come from to keep the stray particles from the fusion getting loose and causing problems?

Do you know anything at all about the subject?

So your answer to my first question is clearly "No, I have no idea what you're talking about, so I really do believe my own fantasy world about your post, because that way I don't have to face up to the reality that you busted me."

There's no new news here about fusion. Decades old, in fact. Yawn.

Go run some math.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I'm going to speak a little imprecisely, so you can understand the fundamentals which have been understood for over a hundred years. What Einsteins (and bolzman's and schrodingers and..) equations mean is that matter an energy are convertable, from one to another.

In a normal chemical or physical reaction matter is neither created nor consumed.

In a nuclear reaction matter may be created or destroyed - it is only the sum of all forms of energy that is conserved.
Matter is cconverted into energy (E=mc^2).

So in fission, you have radioactive elements being split into lower weight elements and usable energy given off in the form of neutrinos, heat etc.
In fusion, you have light weight elements being combined and again giving off usable energy in the process.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics says that these things MUST occur, and it says the direction of these reactions; and that the opposite (creating elements higher than Fe for example) will REQUIRE energy.

We get more energy out of fusion reactions more than we put into it all the time. The sun, the stars, and tens of thousands of fusion bombs are examples of fusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And where is that potential energy? The Sun does it by being at the bottom of a sun sized gravity well. Show me a way to create one of those and I'll believe in a fusion power plant that is net producer of power.

The potential energy in an atom is found in the energy binding the nucleus. WTF kind of math did you do if you don't even understand that?

If that potential energy was sufficient to sustain a fusion reaction then suns would not die until they fused every last hydrogen atom. Since that is obviously untrue...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

My mistake. I correctly got no infinite energy, but mistakenly thought mathematicians were good at logic.

I stand corrected.

Do you really believe you can get more energy out of a system than is put in?

Conversion between matter and energy actually happens, ya know. E=Mc2

Controlled fusion has a problem with producing usable power larger than the required input power to initiate fusion.

The total of the system, matter and energy, does not increase but matter is converted to energy. Fusion of hydrogen produced more energy per incident than fission of U-235 or Pu-239. But, getting the total system to produce more output than you have to pump in with the laser initiators and the magnets for the containment bottle has eluded scientists since they first started trying in the 1970s.

I think you are confusing a closed system with trying to operate an open system with a gain in usable power between input and output. Think of an internal combustion engine. You get usable motive force out for chemical input of fuel and air.