> You are right. H and D can certainly be considered fuel as well. But you need a very very big "match" to light that fuel.
> before this fuel starts burning you need to heat it to 10,000,000 degrees approximately, and keep it at a ridiculous pressure.
> In fact H, He, Li, Be, ... are all used as fuel by the sun. (it's just that H and He are very abundant).
> So yes, H, D, He, Li, Be are all fuels if you can light the match of nuclear fusion (i.e. make two atoms come close enough that the electric repulsion between the positive nuclei is overcome).
> Not very practical for OSE however. The sun does it beautifully, so why not use its radiation?
> On 1 May 2012 22:24, Angel Imaz <an...@hiruki.eu> wrote:
> Could H2 or deuterium be considered fuel as well?
> Ie fusion, isnt the fuel of the sun as well?
> Best!
> Amgel
> Sent from my iPhone
> On May 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, "Alvaro F. Boirac" <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ... then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
>> << hydrogen>>
>> Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's just a Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
>> You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
>> You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank" (just like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
>> When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the Hydrogen (H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water (H2O) and some electricity (or heat).
>> For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+ travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
>> So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like Denis said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this can be solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
>> On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
>> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
>> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
>> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
>> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
>> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
>> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
>> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
>> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
>> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
>> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
>> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
>> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
>> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
>> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
>> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
>> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
>> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
>> electricity too. So depends what you do.
>> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and edited a
>> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
>> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
>> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
>> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
>> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
>> > Hydrogen:
>> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
>> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be produces
>> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs" question
>> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
>> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
>> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
>> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
>> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
>> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions here..
>> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these q's I
>> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
>> > Will
>> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Will,
>> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
>> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
>> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
>> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
>> >> Overall I would say:
>> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
>> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
>> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
>> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
>> >> )
>> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
>> >> complex organization.
>> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization for
>> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
>> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
>> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
>> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
>> >> ]
>> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high energy
>> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
>> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
>> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
>> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if
>> >>> that
>> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
>> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
> On May 1, 2012, at 11:52 PM, "Alvaro F. Boirac" <alphy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Angel,
> You are right. H and D can certainly be considered fuel as well. But you
> need a very very big "match" to light that fuel.
> before this fuel starts burning you need to heat it to 10,000,000 degrees
> approximately, and keep it at a ridiculous pressure.
> In fact H, He, Li, Be, ... are all used as fuel by the sun. (it's just
> that H and He are very abundant).
> So yes, H, D, He, Li, Be are all fuels if you can light the match of
> nuclear fusion (i.e. make two atoms come close enough that the electric
> repulsion between the positive nuclei is overcome).
> Not very practical for OSE however. The sun does it beautifully, so why
> not use its radiation?
> On 1 May 2012 22:24, Angel Imaz <an...@hiruki.eu> wrote:
>> Could H2 or deuterium be considered fuel as well?
>> Ie fusion, isnt the fuel of the sun as well?
>> Best!
>> Amgel
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, "Alvaro F. Boirac" <alphy...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the
>> trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and
>> we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a
>> ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if
>> all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ...
>> then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing
>> it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
>> << hydrogen>>
>> Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's
>> just a Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
>> You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O
>> into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
>> You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank"
>> (just like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
>> When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the Hydrogen(H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water (H2O) and
>> some electricity (or heat).
>> For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+
>> travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
>> So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like Denis
>> said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this can be
>> solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
>> On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
>>> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
>>> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
>>> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
>>> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
>>> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
>>> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
>>> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
>>> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
>>> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
>>> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
>>> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
>>> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
>>> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
>>> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
>>> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
>>> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
>>> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
>>> electricity too. So depends what you do.
>>> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and
>>> edited a
>>> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
>>> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
>>> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
>>> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
>>> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
>>> > Hydrogen:
>>> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
>>> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be
>>> produces
>>> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs"
>>> question
>>> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the
>>> hydrogen
>>> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
>>> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
>>> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
>>> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
>>> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions
>>> here..
>>> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these
>>> q's I
>>> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
>>> > Will
>>> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Will,
>>> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
>>> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
>>> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
>>> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
>>> >> Overall I would say:
>>> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
>>> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
>>> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
>>> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
>>> >> )
>>> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized
>>> and
>>> >> complex organization.
>>> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government /
>>> civilization for
>>> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
>>> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
>>> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
>>> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
>>> >> ]
>>> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high
>>> energy
>>> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
>>> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
>>> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
>>> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder
>>> if
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>>> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >>>> One small German village has already gone self sufficient and
>>> sells 30
>>> >>>> percent to the grid. Well done I say!
>>> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators
>>> instead?)
>>> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding
>>> some
>>> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
> Hi Alvaro, thanks for the references, comments, insights and advice.
> Best,
> Will
> On 2 May 2012 06:57, Angel Imaz <an...@hiruki.eu> wrote:
>> Yes!
>> Like the smart and evolve plans do!
>> Thank you Alvaro!
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:52 PM, "Alvaro F. Boirac" <alphy...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Angel,
>> You are right. H and D can certainly be considered fuel as well. But
>> you need a very very big "match" to light that fuel.
>> before this fuel starts burning you need to heat it to 10,000,000
>> degrees approximately, and keep it at a ridiculous pressure.
>> In fact H, He, Li, Be, ... are all used as fuel by the sun. (it's just
>> that H and He are very abundant).
>> So yes, H, D, He, Li, Be are all fuels if you can light the match of
>> nuclear fusion (i.e. make two atoms come close enough that the electric
>> repulsion between the positive nuclei is overcome).
>> Not very practical for OSE however. The sun does it beautifully, so why
>> not use its radiation?
>> On 1 May 2012 22:24, Angel Imaz <an...@hiruki.eu> wrote:
>>> Could H2 or deuterium be considered fuel as well?
>>> Ie fusion, isnt the fuel of the sun as well?
>>> Best!
>>> Amgel
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, "Alvaro F. Boirac" <alphy...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the
>>> trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and
>>> we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a
>>> ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if
>>> all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ...
>>> then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing
>>> it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
>>> << hydrogen>>
>>> Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's
>>> just a Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
>>> You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O
>>> into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
>>> You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank"
>>> (just like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
>>> When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the
>>> Hydrogen (H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water
>>> (H2O) and some electricity (or heat).
>>> For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+
>>> travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
>>> So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like
>>> Denis said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this
>>> can be solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
>>> On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
>>>> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
>>>> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
>>>> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
>>>> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
>>>> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
>>>> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
>>>> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
>>>> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
>>>> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
>>>> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
>>>> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
>>>> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
>>>> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
>>>> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
>>>> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
>>>> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
>>>> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
>>>> electricity too. So depends what you do.
>>>> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and
>>>> edited a
>>>> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
>>>> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too.
>>>> I
>>>> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
>>>> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
>>>> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
>>>> > Hydrogen:
>>>> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
>>>> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be
>>>> produces
>>>> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs"
>>>> question
>>>> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the
>>>> hydrogen
>>>> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be
>>>> a
>>>> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
>>>> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing
>>>> the
>>>> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
>>>> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions
>>>> here..
>>>> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these
>>>> q's I
>>>> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
>>>> > Will
>>>> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Hi Will,
>>>> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
>>>> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3
>>>> -
>>>> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
>>>> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
>>>> >> Overall I would say:
>>>> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
>>>> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
>>>> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
>>>> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
>>>> >> )
>>>> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized
>>>> and
>>>> >> complex organization.
>>>> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government /
>>>> civilization for
>>>> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
>>>> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
>>>> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
>>>> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
>>>> >> ]
>>>> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high
>>>> energy
>>>> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
>>>> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
>>>> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more
>>>> fossil
>>>> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder
>>>> if
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>>>> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >>>> One small German village has already gone self sufficient and
>>>> sells 30
>>>> >>>> percent to the grid. Well done I say!
>>>> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators
>>>> instead?)
>>>> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding
>>>> some
>>>> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
On 28 abr, 10:20, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To patent a technology even needs to be proven.
No, this is not like that. The only thing that patent offices check is
that the supposed "invention" has not being patented before by anyone.
Yo can find tons of totally crazy things patented, example:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=... A patent is not a scientific proof of anything.
On 28 abr, 10:33, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you cant say that it works or not till you have the experiment
> on your hands.
Well this is not exactly true. If you check the information of
reliable people that have tried before the same experiment and have
documented everything properly you can say if it works or not. This is
the problem often with this things you find on internet, you can't
find properly documented previous experiments. Probably because of 2
factors:
1) The lack of appropriated scientific methodology
2) The "shame" that could suppose recognize that you have spent money
and time in something false.
Jose, that's why i beg you try to document as best as you can
everything you do and publish it with the most detailed results you
can. This way in the future other people can check your experiment
before, save time and money.
Thanks for the comments. We're currently doing an edit of the thermal
problem, adding a lot more sources, clarifying some arguments, and
stylistic improvements. So please don't hesitate to point out any
other things.
Your definitely right that "not only the trillions in subsidies over
the years" as it is it could be viewed as hyperbole, and that
definitely it needs to be changed or backed up.
I've done a bit of thinking, napkin calculations and research and I
think trillions of subsidies can still be defended.
Though direct subsidies to build the plants may not be that high, when
we count military R&D, government insurance and the waste problem,
which are all subsidized by society, either today or in future, I
think it quickly adds up to trillions.
For military R&D, it's difficult to know how much has actually been
spent, and how much of that we could say benefits civilian power, but
it's definitely not pocket change.
For insurance, Chernobyl is said to have cost 250 billion already and
Fukushima is estimated at 200 billion. And this is only the cost of
disaster management and clean up to the government, if the government
had to pay people damages for now off-limits property and exposure
above (previous) government set safety limits, the cost of irradiated
food that can't be sold etc. it would be a lot more; I'm sure some
economists have made some estimates that would be interesting to dig
up. Also of note, neither the 250 or 200 billion represent a final
resolution to those disasters, so it's still anyone's guess how much
it costs in the end. But it could be that these two accidents alone
will cost more than a trillion dollars, if all costs to society are
included. I seem to remember a estimate that a major nuclear accident
in Germany would cost something like 2 trillion. So if the insurance
to such catastrophes was no subsidized by society, I think the cost
would be significantly more than the cost of the plants.
Then there's the waste problem which no one has any solution for
except to bury it. But, if we bury it (even assuming we do a perfect
job) we have to be sure no one will dig it up, which is impossible to
guarantee. In the future even if people know we put something down
there because "we thought" it was dangerous, they may dig it up
anyways (just as we dug up ancient tombs despite the warnings on them
and flipped over a norse rock that had "don't move this rock" written
over it). Or, even if they understand that it really is dangerous not
just old "anthropocene superstition", people may dig it up precisely
because it is dangerous to use as weapons. Either situation, primary
containment is breached and people may spread the valuable metals all
over the place before it's realized the danger doesn't go away.
Because of this problem, some have suggested it would be better to
"forget about it" and rely on the low probability of someone
"accidentally" digging in the wrong place, but this brings up the
epistemological quandary of "forcing society to forget something". All
this is well presented well in the film "Into Eternity". So again,
considering we have no long term solution and so eventually the cat
will get out of the bag, this future cost to society should also be
included.
The alternative at the moment is to send the 200 000 tons of high
level waste into space, which at even the lowest rate 10 000 USD per
kilo (into low earth orbit, more would be needed to escape earth's
pull ... but let's assume such a massive program would bring down
costs somehow) would cost 2 trillion. And this doesn't take into
account the weight of the presumably sturdy containers we put the
waste in, nor the mid and low level waste of which there's is a lot
more. So I think 2 trillion is a conservative estimate of the cost of
a permanent solution using today's technically feasible technology.
Of course we could always prefer to imagine future technology will
radically bring down costs of a permanent solution (as we've been
imagining since the start of the nuclear industry) but it could also
be argued that costs can only go up since no matter what technology is
used it will take a lot of energy, which is going up in price with the
decline in oil production. Another point is that the 200 000 tons of
high level nuclear waste is a conservative estimate for existing
waste, we're still producing more!
So I think considering all this the subsidy to nuclear fission is
indeed trillions of dollars.
What are your thoughts?
Best
Eerik
On May 2, 7:34 pm, root <alve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 abr, 10:20, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:> To patent a technology even needs to be proven.
> No, this is not like that. The only thing that patent offices check is
> that the supposed "invention" has not being patented before by anyone.
> Yo can find tons of totally crazy things patented, example:http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=...
> A patent is not a scientific proof of anything.
> On 28 abr, 10:33, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:> you cant say that it works or not till you have the experiment
> > on your hands.
> Well this is not exactly true. If you check the information of
> reliable people that have tried before the same experiment and have
> documented everything properly you can say if it works or not. This is
> the problem often with this things you find on internet, you can't
> find properly documented previous experiments. Probably because of 2
> factors:
> 1) The lack of appropriated scientific methodology
> 2) The "shame" that could suppose recognize that you have spent money
> and time in something false.
> Jose, that's why i beg you try to document as best as you can
> everything you do and publish it with the most detailed results you
> can. This way in the future other people can check your experiment
> before, save time and money.
hey guys
is taking me too much time to find the correct position of the electronics
parts...and yoonseo is too busy
so im going to post the information that i have...
please do not make claims about this....they are hidding the free energy as
a battery refresher
so let keep this inside the group
> Thanks for the comments. We're currently doing an edit of the thermal
> problem, adding a lot more sources, clarifying some arguments, and
> stylistic improvements. So please don't hesitate to point out any
> other things.
> Your definitely right that "not only the trillions in subsidies over
> the years" as it is it could be viewed as hyperbole, and that
> definitely it needs to be changed or backed up.
> I've done a bit of thinking, napkin calculations and research and I
> think trillions of subsidies can still be defended.
> Though direct subsidies to build the plants may not be that high, when
> we count military R&D, government insurance and the waste problem,
> which are all subsidized by society, either today or in future, I
> think it quickly adds up to trillions.
> For military R&D, it's difficult to know how much has actually been
> spent, and how much of that we could say benefits civilian power, but
> it's definitely not pocket change.
> For insurance, Chernobyl is said to have cost 250 billion already and
> Fukushima is estimated at 200 billion. And this is only the cost of
> disaster management and clean up to the government, if the government
> had to pay people damages for now off-limits property and exposure
> above (previous) government set safety limits, the cost of irradiated
> food that can't be sold etc. it would be a lot more; I'm sure some
> economists have made some estimates that would be interesting to dig
> up. Also of note, neither the 250 or 200 billion represent a final
> resolution to those disasters, so it's still anyone's guess how much
> it costs in the end. But it could be that these two accidents alone
> will cost more than a trillion dollars, if all costs to society are
> included. I seem to remember a estimate that a major nuclear accident
> in Germany would cost something like 2 trillion. So if the insurance
> to such catastrophes was no subsidized by society, I think the cost
> would be significantly more than the cost of the plants.
> Then there's the waste problem which no one has any solution for
> except to bury it. But, if we bury it (even assuming we do a perfect
> job) we have to be sure no one will dig it up, which is impossible to
> guarantee. In the future even if people know we put something down
> there because "we thought" it was dangerous, they may dig it up
> anyways (just as we dug up ancient tombs despite the warnings on them
> and flipped over a norse rock that had "don't move this rock" written
> over it). Or, even if they understand that it really is dangerous not
> just old "anthropocene superstition", people may dig it up precisely
> because it is dangerous to use as weapons. Either situation, primary
> containment is breached and people may spread the valuable metals all
> over the place before it's realized the danger doesn't go away.
> Because of this problem, some have suggested it would be better to
> "forget about it" and rely on the low probability of someone
> "accidentally" digging in the wrong place, but this brings up the
> epistemological quandary of "forcing society to forget something". All
> this is well presented well in the film "Into Eternity". So again,
> considering we have no long term solution and so eventually the cat
> will get out of the bag, this future cost to society should also be
> included.
> The alternative at the moment is to send the 200 000 tons of high
> level waste into space, which at even the lowest rate 10 000 USD per
> kilo (into low earth orbit, more would be needed to escape earth's
> pull ... but let's assume such a massive program would bring down
> costs somehow) would cost 2 trillion. And this doesn't take into
> account the weight of the presumably sturdy containers we put the
> waste in, nor the mid and low level waste of which there's is a lot
> more. So I think 2 trillion is a conservative estimate of the cost of
> a permanent solution using today's technically feasible technology.
> Of course we could always prefer to imagine future technology will
> radically bring down costs of a permanent solution (as we've been
> imagining since the start of the nuclear industry) but it could also
> be argued that costs can only go up since no matter what technology is
> used it will take a lot of energy, which is going up in price with the
> decline in oil production. Another point is that the 200 000 tons of
> high level nuclear waste is a conservative estimate for existing
> waste, we're still producing more!
> So I think considering all this the subsidy to nuclear fission is
> indeed trillions of dollars.
> What are your thoughts?
> Best
> Eerik
> On May 2, 7:34 pm, root <alve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 28 abr, 10:20, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:> To patent a
> technology even needs to be proven.
> > No, this is not like that. The only thing that patent offices check is
> > that the supposed "invention" has not being patented before by anyone.
> > Yo can find tons of totally crazy things patented, example:
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=...
> > A patent is not a scientific proof of anything.
> > On 28 abr, 10:33, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:> you cant say
> that it works or not till you have the experiment
> > > on your hands.
> > Well this is not exactly true. If you check the information of
> > reliable people that have tried before the same experiment and have
> > documented everything properly you can say if it works or not. This is
> > the problem often with this things you find on internet, you can't
> > find properly documented previous experiments. Probably because of 2
> > factors:
> > 1) The lack of appropriated scientific methodology
> > 2) The "shame" that could suppose recognize that you have spent money
> > and time in something false.
> > Jose, that's why i beg you try to document as best as you can
> > everything you do and publish it with the most detailed results you
> > can. This way in the future other people can check your experiment
> > before, save time and money.
I just want to note that this mailing list is public, so anyone in the
world can google and find the contents here about Bedini.
for those interested in the nuclear side of the debate above Eerik and I
started a document to evaluate the real hidden costs of Nuclear. If you
want to contribute to it here's the doc: http://bit.ly/Iq7Nf5 (just a
draft, but public to anyone). If you add something we need references.
Good luck with the "charging" device, Jose. Let us know how that goes.
On 16 May 2012 09:51, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hey guys
> is taking me too much time to find the correct position of the electronics
> parts...and yoonseo is too busy
> so im going to post the information that i have...
> please do not make claims about this....they are hidding the free energy
> as a battery refresher
> so let keep this inside the group
>> Thanks for the comments. We're currently doing an edit of the thermal
>> problem, adding a lot more sources, clarifying some arguments, and
>> stylistic improvements. So please don't hesitate to point out any
>> other things.
>> Your definitely right that "not only the trillions in subsidies over
>> the years" as it is it could be viewed as hyperbole, and that
>> definitely it needs to be changed or backed up.
>> I've done a bit of thinking, napkin calculations and research and I
>> think trillions of subsidies can still be defended.
>> Though direct subsidies to build the plants may not be that high, when
>> we count military R&D, government insurance and the waste problem,
>> which are all subsidized by society, either today or in future, I
>> think it quickly adds up to trillions.
>> For military R&D, it's difficult to know how much has actually been
>> spent, and how much of that we could say benefits civilian power, but
>> it's definitely not pocket change.
>> For insurance, Chernobyl is said to have cost 250 billion already and
>> Fukushima is estimated at 200 billion. And this is only the cost of
>> disaster management and clean up to the government, if the government
>> had to pay people damages for now off-limits property and exposure
>> above (previous) government set safety limits, the cost of irradiated
>> food that can't be sold etc. it would be a lot more; I'm sure some
>> economists have made some estimates that would be interesting to dig
>> up. Also of note, neither the 250 or 200 billion represent a final
>> resolution to those disasters, so it's still anyone's guess how much
>> it costs in the end. But it could be that these two accidents alone
>> will cost more than a trillion dollars, if all costs to society are
>> included. I seem to remember a estimate that a major nuclear accident
>> in Germany would cost something like 2 trillion. So if the insurance
>> to such catastrophes was no subsidized by society, I think the cost
>> would be significantly more than the cost of the plants.
>> Then there's the waste problem which no one has any solution for
>> except to bury it. But, if we bury it (even assuming we do a perfect
>> job) we have to be sure no one will dig it up, which is impossible to
>> guarantee. In the future even if people know we put something down
>> there because "we thought" it was dangerous, they may dig it up
>> anyways (just as we dug up ancient tombs despite the warnings on them
>> and flipped over a norse rock that had "don't move this rock" written
>> over it). Or, even if they understand that it really is dangerous not
>> just old "anthropocene superstition", people may dig it up precisely
>> because it is dangerous to use as weapons. Either situation, primary
>> containment is breached and people may spread the valuable metals all
>> over the place before it's realized the danger doesn't go away.
>> Because of this problem, some have suggested it would be better to
>> "forget about it" and rely on the low probability of someone
>> "accidentally" digging in the wrong place, but this brings up the
>> epistemological quandary of "forcing society to forget something". All
>> this is well presented well in the film "Into Eternity". So again,
>> considering we have no long term solution and so eventually the cat
>> will get out of the bag, this future cost to society should also be
>> included.
>> The alternative at the moment is to send the 200 000 tons of high
>> level waste into space, which at even the lowest rate 10 000 USD per
>> kilo (into low earth orbit, more would be needed to escape earth's
>> pull ... but let's assume such a massive program would bring down
>> costs somehow) would cost 2 trillion. And this doesn't take into
>> account the weight of the presumably sturdy containers we put the
>> waste in, nor the mid and low level waste of which there's is a lot
>> more. So I think 2 trillion is a conservative estimate of the cost of
>> a permanent solution using today's technically feasible technology.
>> Of course we could always prefer to imagine future technology will
>> radically bring down costs of a permanent solution (as we've been
>> imagining since the start of the nuclear industry) but it could also
>> be argued that costs can only go up since no matter what technology is
>> used it will take a lot of energy, which is going up in price with the
>> decline in oil production. Another point is that the 200 000 tons of
>> high level nuclear waste is a conservative estimate for existing
>> waste, we're still producing more!
>> So I think considering all this the subsidy to nuclear fission is
>> indeed trillions of dollars.
>> What are your thoughts?
>> Best
>> Eerik
>> On May 2, 7:34 pm, root <alve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 28 abr, 10:20, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:> To patent a
>> technology even needs to be proven.
>> > No, this is not like that. The only thing that patent offices check is
>> > that the supposed "invention" has not being patented before by anyone.
>> > Yo can find tons of totally crazy things patented, example:
>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=...
>> > A patent is not a scientific proof of anything.
>> > On 28 abr, 10:33, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:> you cant
>> say that it works or not till you have the experiment
>> > > on your hands.
>> > Well this is not exactly true. If you check the information of
>> > reliable people that have tried before the same experiment and have
>> > documented everything properly you can say if it works or not. This is
>> > the problem often with this things you find on internet, you can't
>> > find properly documented previous experiments. Probably because of 2
>> > factors:
>> > 1) The lack of appropriated scientific methodology
>> > 2) The "shame" that could suppose recognize that you have spent money
>> > and time in something false.
>> > Jose, that's why i beg you try to document as best as you can
>> > everything you do and publish it with the most detailed results you
>> > can. This way in the future other people can check your experiment
>> > before, save time and money.
Hi Jose, nice photos. I beg you keep documenting your work as best as
you can, even making videos and writing notes of every issue you
noticed. That way at least in the future other people will have more
reliable information about these "devices". I just want you to notice
the small detail that the working of this "device" is based on the
existence of an alleged "monopole" and magnetic monopoles do not exist
in nature or at least we're not aware of any in the conditions and how
this course equipment needed, ie, a magnet monopole permanent, of
substantial mass and stable at room temperature without external power
supply.
On 16 mayo, 03:51, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hey guys
> is taking me too much time to find the correct position of the electronics
> parts...and yoonseo is too busy
> so im going to post the information that i have...
> please do not make claims about this....they are hidding the free energy as
> a battery refresher
> so let keep this inside the group
