Another "green" energy company bites the dust

[billvon 2,772]

>In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile
>applications.

A solar grid IS powered by nuclear fusion.

As for local fusion plants? Local fusion is the power source of the future - and always will be. The only really practical fusion reaction, 3He+3He, is very far away from being achievable here on Earth.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile
>applications.

A solar grid IS powered by nuclear fusion.

As for local fusion plants? Local fusion is the power source of the future - and always will be. The only really practical fusion reaction, 3He+3He, is very far away from being achievable here on Earth.

Ha! I found it -
I remember reading this and then guffawing.
I couldn't find it to be some hoax, or joke. I may still be wrong.

Looks like fusion may not be as far away as you might think.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,772]

>Looks like fusion may not be as far away as you might think.

Fusion itself isn't far away at all - we are currently starting and sustaining fusion reactions.

But as a practical source of power? We haven't even hit practical breakeven, much less power production. And the D-T fusion we plan on using in near-term reactors is pretty dirty; you'd get a significant amount of nuclear waste with all the consequent disposal problems. And it's a thermal technology which means you still need the cooling towers, water, turbines etc.

That's why helium-3 fusion is important. Helium-3 fusion does not create neutrons (the radiation that produces nuclear waste) - it creates only charged particles, which can be retarded/steered by magnetic fields and turned directly into electricity. No nuclear waste, no turbines, no cooling towers.

And _that_ technology is a long way away; at least an order of magnitude harder than D-T fusion. I hope there is some breakthrough that allows 3He fusion sooner than (say) the next century, but I am doubtful.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Looks like fusion may not be as far away as you might think.

Fusion itself isn't far away at all - we are currently starting and sustaining fusion reactions.

But as a practical source of power? We haven't even hit practical breakeven, much less power production. And the D-T fusion we plan on using in near-term reactors is pretty dirty; you'd get a significant amount of nuclear waste with all the consequent disposal problems. And it's a thermal technology which means you still need the cooling towers, water, turbines etc.

That's why helium-3 fusion is important. Helium-3 fusion does not create neutrons (the radiation that produces nuclear waste) - it creates only charged particles, which can be retarded/steered by magnetic fields and turned directly into electricity. No nuclear waste, no turbines, no cooling towers.

And _that_ technology is a long way away; at least an order of magnitude harder than D-T fusion. I hope there is some breakthrough that allows 3He fusion sooner than (say) the next century, but I am doubtful.

What is the ratio of power in to power out that you think it needs to be?

That ARC reactor is touted to be 1:6 in to out . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 422]

billvon

>In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile
>applications.

A solar grid IS powered by nuclear fusion.

So is coal

[gowlerk 2,114]

brenthutch

In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile applications.

You are partly correct. Solar is fusion power. If you mean controlled fusion here on Earth, I've seen nothing yet to make me believe it's achievable. Maybe someday.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 422]

gowlerk

***In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile applications.

You are partly correct. Solar is fusion power. If you mean controlled fusion here on Earth, I've seen nothing yet to make me believe it's achievable. Maybe someday.

That is what the NYT said about powered flight, the same year it happened.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/germanys-fusion-reactor-creates-hydrogen-plasma-world-first

BTW I'm not implying that we have achieved sustained fusion or will this year. By 2066... Yes.

[kallend 1,853]

turtlespeed

Looks like fusion may not be as far away as you might think.

I remember them saying that in 1957.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

Hi John,

Quote

I remember them saying that in 1957.

And in the early 50's they told us that nuclear power would be so cheap that we would not need meters on our houses. They even made a short film telling us that; I remember seeing it.



Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 212]

JerryBaumchen

Hi John,

Quote

I remember them saying that in 1957.

And in the early 50's they told us that nuclear power would be so cheap that we would not need meters on our houses. They even made a short film telling us that; I remember seeing it.



Jerry Baumchen

And it would have been - had the hippies not shut that program down.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhreeZone 15]

Where did the $40 Billion come from that is building the French design or the multiple billions that have been dropped into the German design so far? All the Germans have to show is about 15 milliseconds worth of plasma for their multi Billion dollars so far. Should the governments continue this spend of money or should they spend it on other programs since clearly private industry will figure this out on their own instead in the next 50 years right?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

Hi turtle,

Quote

had the hippies not shut that program down.

And you know very little about what you type.

I am not any expert but I did spend 30 yrs working in the large electrical transmission business. And my agency was heavily involved in a number of nuclear plants. I think only one is still operational.

Any idea on just what the total costs of cleaning up a shutdown nuclear plant are?

Jerry Baumchen

[skypuppy 1]

speedy

Quote

It will probably plateau around 50-60%, at which point it will simply keep pace with our further increases in power demand.

Why are you so pessimistic? I can see solar providing 100% within 60 years. If Saudi Arabia covered a substantial part of their desert with PV they could use the power to make synthetic liquid fuels.

It's only a question of EROEI. As long a that is positive it's doable.

so you greenies are perfectly ok with destroying all that habitat for desert-dwelling creatures in one fell swoop?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

JerryBaumchen

Hi turtle,

Quote

had the hippies not shut that program down.

And you know very little about what you type.

I am not any expert but I did spend 30 yrs working in the large electrical transmission business. And my agency was heavily involved in a number of nuclear plants. I think only one is still operational.

Any idea on just what the total costs of cleaning up a shutdown nuclear plant are?

Jerry Baumchen

that would be one good reason to re-furbish them and continue using them, wouldn't it? or is that not an option?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kallend 1,853]

skypuppy

***Hi turtle,

Quote

had the hippies not shut that program down.

And you know very little about what you type.

I am not any expert but I did spend 30 yrs working in the large electrical transmission business. And my agency was heavily involved in a number of nuclear plants. I think only one is still operational.

Any idea on just what the total costs of cleaning up a shutdown nuclear plant are?

Jerry Baumchen

that would be one good reason to re-furbish them and continue using them, wouldn't it? or is that not an option?

My *guess* is that the accumulated stress-corrosion, fatigue, regular corrosion and radiation damage to the pressure vessel's innards, cooling system etc. would make this even more expensive.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

Hi puppy,

Quote

or is that not an option?

There has been only one nuclear plant in Oregon, the Trojan plant.

They applied & received many requests to increase the storage of spent rods. I 'think' that they simply could not store any more spent rods at that site.

And of course, those things mentioned by John Kallend.

Your question is probably best answered by a 'it depends.'

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 422]

There is a difference between government support of basic research (which I support) and market distortion (which I oppose).

[speedy 0]

skypuppy

***

Quote

It will probably plateau around 50-60%, at which point it will simply keep pace with our further increases in power demand.

Why are you so pessimistic? I can see solar providing 100% within 60 years. If Saudi Arabia covered a substantial part of their desert with PV they could use the power to make synthetic liquid fuels.

It's only a question of EROEI. As long a that is positive it's doable.

so you greenies are perfectly ok with destroying all that habitat for desert-dwelling creatures in one fell swoop?

It's a better option than destroying the whole planet with nuclear waste. Besides, you would be able to leave a large part of the desert untouched. 50 square miles of PV would produce a heck of a lot of power.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Phil1111 1,099]

brenthutch

***I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It's like back at the onset of the internal combustion engine, someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement

The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.
Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine were invented in the 1800s. The one that works is powering the world the one that doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy.

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[30] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States

"Although their levels of production remained relatively low, there was a particularly rapid expansion in the output of wind and solar energy, which accounted for 10.5 % and 5.5 % respectively of the EU-28’s renewable energy produced in 2013. The remaining shares were 3.1 % for geothermal energy and 0.02 % for tide, wave and ocean energy, the latter being found in only France and the United Kingdom. "
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics

"As many as 115,000 people die in India each year from coal-fired power plant pollution, costing the country about $4.6 billion, according to a groundbreaking new study released today."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-fired-power-in-india-may-cause-more-than-100000-premature-deaths-annually/

"A new study has revealed the staggering cost of China’s dependence on coal to power its economy: 670,000 deaths in one year alone."
http://fortune.com/2014/11/05/the-cost-of-chinas-dependence-on-coal-670000-deaths-a-year/

"California Public Utilities Commission to assume that in the unlikely event it wished to build a coal-fired plant in the area it serves, each ton of sulfur dioxide emitted would be assessed at $23,490, each ton of nitrogen oxides at $31,448, and each ton of carbon dioxide at $33. Assessments are based on how far within the state's air quality standards a region is; since southern California is already violating those standards, virtually all emissions from a new plant would have to be significantly reduced, and the costs would be very high. In Massachusetts the external-cost assessments are lower: $1,700 per ton of sulfur dioxide, $7,200 per ton of nitrogen oxides, and $24 per ton of carbon dioxide.

Such assessments dramatically diminish coal's attractiveness as a generating fuel when utility companies weigh how to meet new demands for power. If Massachusetts external-cost assessments are used in an example, the ton of coal that costs $20 at Southmountain No. 3 and $46 delivered to the Chalk Point station will be priced instead at roughly $200. Robin Walther, a senior economist at Southern California Edison, calculates that if the state utilities commission's highest external-cost estimates were added in, coal would cost seventeen or eighteen cents per kilowatt-hour rather than around 1.8 cents. Not surprisingly, Southern California Edison has taken the position that actual damages, rather than the price of controls, should be the basis for calculating external costs."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/304566/

[turtlespeed 212]

speedy

******

Quote

It will probably plateau around 50-60%, at which point it will simply keep pace with our further increases in power demand.

Why are you so pessimistic? I can see solar providing 100% within 60 years. If Saudi Arabia covered a substantial part of their desert with PV they could use the power to make synthetic liquid fuels.

It's only a question of EROEI. As long a that is positive it's doable.

so you greenies are perfectly ok with destroying all that habitat for desert-dwelling creatures in one fell swoop?

It's a better option than destroying the whole planet with nuclear waste. Besides, you would be able to leave a large part of the desert untouched. 50 square miles of PV would produce a heck of a lot of power.

What about more funding for research into the Newman motor?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jcd11235 0]

turtlespeed

What about more funding for research into the Newman motor?

A fraudulent perpetual motion machine? Great idea! What a promising concept!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[turtlespeed 212]

jcd11235

***What about more funding for research into the Newman motor?

A fraudulent perpetual motion machine? Great idea! What a promising concept!

No - reaearch on how to gain more efficiency through magnetics and higher voltage less amps.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 422]

Depletion deduction = subsidy????
Take an accounting class and get back to me.

[Phil1111 1,099]

brenthutch

Depletion deduction = subsidy????
Take an accounting class and get back to me.

Accounting 101, Accounting 212, And four other University second year accounting classes. Bachelor of Commerce. Over 40 years ago and a self employed businessman for 35, started and built seven business in total.

I'm quoting other sources and your point is????

I'd suggest you discuss the nuances of LIFO,FIFO, and the nuances of costing damage to the environment with Wikipedia, Eurostat, Scientific American,Fortune Magazine and The Atlantic magazine.

[billvon 2,772]

>What is the ratio of power in to power out that you think it needs to be?

You could make money at 1:3 but you'd still have many of the problems that nuclear reactors have today.

One of the problems I see is that you're not comparing fusion to existing nuclear power plants, because there are no existing fusion plants. You have to compare the fusion plants you envision in 20 years to the nuclear (fission) plants we will have in 20 years, and then you have to demonstrate that fusion is still better. At that point you'd have arguments in favor of fusion:
-Less nuclear waste (about 90% less*)

You'd also have arguments in favor of fission:
-Cheaper fuels** (thorium, MOX vs. deuterium and tritium)
-Less complexity
-Higher availability
-Cheaper/faster design (no superconductors or cryogenic systems needed)

(* - current fusion designs have such a high neutron flux that you'd have to replace the chamber lining regularly, and at that point it will be very radioactive)
(** - fusion is WAY more efficient than fission but the fuels are even more expensive)