the world needs hot fusion
Thomas J Wheat
also check out my high tech page:
http://www.geocities.com/s011023/science.html
a production of http://www.ultimateconspiracy.com
this feature article postedf from:
http://www.iter.org/
"Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars. In fusion,
the nuclei of light elements, like hydrogen, fuse together to make
heavier elements - giving off tremendous amounts of energy. more
It takes extremely high temperature and pressure to force the nuclei
together and make them fuse. In the Sun and stars, massive
gravitational forces generate the conditions for fusion to occur
naturally. On Earth these conditions are much harder to achieve, and
alternative methods have to be used. more
Harnessing fusion power on Earth could be one of the best options for
long-term energy supply: more
The fuel and materials needed for a fusion plant are abundant and
essentially inexhaustible. more
The fusion process is inherently safe, and the environmental impact of
fusion power plants is tolerable. more
Conditions for Fusion
In the absence of the massive gravitational forces present in the sun
and stars, the conditions for controlled fusion on Earth can be
created using magnetic forces to confine the fusion fuel while heating
it by a variety of methods. more
Ignition occurs when enough fusion reactions take place for the
process to become self-sustaining (i.e. no heat is needed from outside
the plasma). To achieve this, the fusion fuel must be heated to
temperatures high enough (about 100 million degrees Celsius) to
overcome the natural repulsive forces of nuclei and kept dense enough
and confined for long enough to withstand energy losses. Ignition is
not essential for a fusion power reactor, and a small dependence of
the plasma operation on external heat supply gives added control over
the operating point. more
However it is desirable to operate close to ignition to minimise
external power needs. ITER therefore aims to operate on the verge of
ignition - a high external power amplification, Q > 10 (for ignition Q
= ) is sufficient to demonstrate the principles in such an
experimental device. more
Fusion Fuels
The fuels to be used are deuterium and tritium - two isotopes of
hydrogen. Deuterium occurs naturally in sea water. Tritium does not
occur naturally, but can be bred in a fusion system when the light
element, lithium, absorbs neutrons produced in the fusion reaction.
World resources of lithium are plentiful. more
Fusion Research Programmes and ITER
Scientists around the world have been working since the 1950's to
harness the energy of nuclear fusion for peaceful use. They have made
steady progress in achieving fusion, designing and building many
experimental fusion devices to test their theories and understanding.
more
Current generations of experimental fusion machines have been able to
generate small amounts of energy from fusion. more ITER is expected to
produce energy at the level of a small fusion power plant and to
address the key technical challenges involved in making fusion a
practical energy source. It represents the logical next step for all
the leading programmes and is a necessary precursor to the
demonstration of electricity generation from fusion power. A (7 minute
- 5 MB) film shows how the ITER plant might look.
ITER has a key position in the fusion research programmes of its
partipants. It relies on output from vigorous base programmes in the
Parties. At the same time ITER helps to strengthen those programmes by
focussing on concrete, reactor-relevant issues and by providing a
lively multi-party framework for rigorous consideration and resolution
of the major scientific issues. more
Further information can be found in a compilation of frequently asked
questions.
updated October 2002
-------------------------------
YES we need an international coalition to build this thing!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall N. Rosenbluth
I agree with Thomas Stix and Andrew Sessler on many of their key
conclusions: the potential importance of fusion as one of a very
limited number of future energy possibilities, the great progress that
has already been made, the need to diversify and explore alternate
fusion approaches and basic plasma science, the key importance of
exploiting existing facilities, the opportunities being opened up by
rapid advances in parallel computation, the critical need for a
burning-plasma environment for experimental study and the necessity
for international collaboration.
How to proceed using limited resources involves subjective judgment,
and here I disagree strongly with the Stix/Sessler point of view
regarding the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.
There is not space here to engage in any meaningful discussion of the
very complex physics problems underlying ITER design. The technical
discussion presented by Stix and Sessler is a laundry list of
well-known issues being addressed in the course of the ongoing ITER
Engineering Design Activities (EDA). They do not identify any
showstoppers; nor do they attempt to quantitatively assess the likely
success of the EDA's proposed solutions, which are still evolving
through an international R&D effort aimed at providing a "physics and
engineering basis" for ITER construction by the end of the EDA, two
and one-half years from now. A great number of theoretical and
experimental tasks have been proposed for this period. Many of the
issues are generic to most fusion reactor designs---high-heat-load
divertors, 14-MeV neutron effects, multimegampere disruptions,
confinement at the reactor scale and so on. Many of these issues are
being faced in a realistic way for the first time by ITER designers
with the help of the international fusion community. Stix and Sessler
appear to be prejudging the outcome of the EDA design effort as
unsatisfactory, and even prejudging the political reactions of the
European Community and Japan to this outcome.
In my opinion, Stix and Sessler seriously misstate the recommendations
of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee for ITER review.[1] The
committee's executive summary recommendation is to "Plan for the
review of the ITER EDA and its results and establish criteria for a
decision on future US participation." Clearly, such a final review of
results can only come at the end of the EDA. In appendix G of the
committee's report, mechanisms for this planning are spelled out,
including a proposal that "The U.S. program should consider launching
an assessment of the ITER detail[ed] design [end of 1996] modeled
after the European Domestic Assessment of the ITER Interim design
[1995]."[1] The European assessment was quite favorable and useful in
highlighting certain areas for more intense study. Such US reviews of
intermediate ITER milestones would certainly be important in preparing
the US for the required in-depth final review.
The work of the ITER design team is monitored by a technical advisory
committee of distinguished fusion scientists and engineers from the
four international partners who judged the interim (midpoint) design
to be satisfactory progress towards fulfilling ITER's objectives. The
physics issues are being addressed with the assistance of seven
international expert groups composed of non-ITER personnel. ITER needs
and welcomes more active participation by the worldwide fusion
community.
It is my conviction, shared by my ITER coworkers, that the nonlinear
physics and novel engineering issues of fusion are so complex that
only a real experiment at the approximate parameters required for
ignition will ever resolve them quantitatively. In fact, it is
precisely the existence of the laundry list of physics issues that
justifies a realistic ignition experiment. This has been the position
of the US fusion community for over a decade. It is critical that ITER
be designed with sufficient flexibility, and I believe it has been, to
incorporate new physics knowledge as it evolves in existing facilities
or in early ITER experiments. (Stix and Sessler cite reversed-shear
confinement improvement and alpha channeling as good examples.) Of
course, it may turn out that a new idea is so successful that, with
hindsight, ITER could safely be redesigned to be smaller and less
expensive than the present conventional design. It seems to me,
however, that fusion research requires a test bed such as ITER that we
could use to design a desirable reactor by interpolation rather than
continual extrapolation from undersized experiments. It will always be
possible to argue for indefinite delays in building such a test bed
while awaiting more perfect knowledge.
Thus the issues raised by Stix and Sessler are real and well
recognized, but the conclusions they draw are a subjective judgment as
to what constitutes a reasonable next step. If objective phrases were
substituted for the pejorative terms they use---"premature,"
"genuinely huge," "immense cost," "enormous power," "extremely
stringent," "over-ambitious," "immense emphasis" among others---then
one might reach the same conclusions as most of the international
fusion community has in proposing ITER as its next step.
Conceptual designs similar to ITER's, and with similar objectives,
were earlier proposed by the European Community (Next European Torus)
and Japan (Fusion Experimental Reactor) as national programs, now
superseded by the international ITER. The US fusion research community
has long agreed that a not-too-long-delayed ignition or near-ignition
experiment is crucial for fusion development. There was support in the
1980s in the US for an ITER-style national machine, but there was more
support for a nonsuperconducting short-pulse ignition physics
experiment such as BPX (which, for budgetary reasons, ended up not
being constructed). This line of development was again recommended in
the recent study by the President's Committee of Advisers on Science
and Technology, which proposed an international cryogenic copper,
100-second-pulse experiment, which could meet many ITER physics
objectives at 40% of ITER's cost. In contrast to the views of almost
all my ITER colleagues, this seems to me to be a very reasonable
proposal, but not one that the US can expect to impose on its
partners, who strongly prefer a design incorporating more technology,
especially superconducting magnets, allowing 1000-second pulses,
possibly steady-state operation, and high neutron fluence. This
preference arises naturally, especially in the case of Japan, from a
more urgent perceived energy need and a desire for nondefense-oriented
joint government/industrial high-technology development.
I fear that Stix and Sessler have not come to terms with today's
realities. With the US program now perhaps 15% of the world fusion
program, probably slipping to the 10% level in the near future, we can
no longer dictate the nature of the international fusion program.
Rather, as suggested by the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee, we have
to exploit and nourish our scientific strengths as best we can on our
declining budgets by strengthening theory and computational efforts,
exploring alternate fusion concepts and testing new ideas on existing
facilities or modest new ones.[1] But, what is equally important, we
must seek to contribute to and benefit from the crucial large
experiments existing or being built (alas!) abroad. They include the
JT-60 upgrade tokamak in Japan; the Joint European Torus, which, if
desired, might be upgraded much more plausibly than US facilities to a
short-pulse high-gain (Q = 5) experiment; the German and Japanese
stellarators; Ignitor, should it actually be constructed (as I very
much hope it will); and, of course, most important of all---ITER.
Stix and Sessler allude to a much-discussed hypothetical but quite
plausible scenario in which Japan assumes the major financial role in
constructing ITER, with US support at about its present level of 20%
($55 million) of the annual US fusion budget. Stix and Sessler oppose
this as overreliance by the US on Japan's fusion program. To me, on
the other hand, it would appear to be a wonderful bargain if for 5% of
the cost we could participate in designing and experimenting on
fusion's flagship experiment.
While preserving our scientific strengths with the non-ITER 75-80% of
our fusion budget, we should also
Continue to participate in the EDA to the end (1998), making our
strong national contribution to the attempt to produce a successful
design.
At the end of the EDA, review the design critically and in depth for
technical credibility. Consensus should be possible on technical
credibility, if not on desirability. It is important to note in this
context that "success" for ITER is not sharply defined. The basic
physics and technology objectives could be met for example with a
driven burn at somewhat reduced fusion power, thereby lessening
quantitative concerns about residual physics uncertainties.
Assuming that budgetary constraints preclude full US partnership, try
to be a junior partner in ITER construction abroad, with emphasis on
scientific participation.
Should the other partners decide at some stage that they wish to
explore designs with more limited objectives, be prepared to do so.
If, after the EDA, it becomes clear that ITER will only be a perpetual
paper study and will not be constructed, then get out.
After 46 years of effort and progress, the US fusion community should
think very carefully before turning its back---for whatever
reasons---on an internationally agreed upon experiment designed as the
first exploration of the burning plasma environment.
Reference
1. Fusion Energy Advisory Committee, A Restructured Fusion Energy
Sciences Program, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research,
Washington, DC (27 January 1996). (back)
Charles Cagle
Wheat <thoma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> hot fusion baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> also check out my high tech page:
> http://www.geocities.com/s011023/science.html
> a production of http://www.ultimateconspiracy.com
> this feature article postedf from:
> http://www.iter.org/
>
> "Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars. In fusion,
> the nuclei of light elements, like hydrogen, fuse together to make
> heavier elements - giving off tremendous amounts of energy. more
>
> It takes extremely high temperature and pressure to force the nuclei
> together and make them fuse. In the Sun and stars, massive
> gravitational forces generate the conditions for fusion to occur
> naturally. On Earth these conditions are much harder to achieve, and
> alternative methods have to be used. more
The Fusion Energy Advisory Committee collectively have their heads up
their asses.
There is no data in existence which suggests that nuclear fusion
reactions occur because the interacting nuclei have violently collided.
There is a shit load of theoretical rambling pseudoscience which is
confused with 'evidence' but the reality remains that collisional
fusion is a myth.
That's the primary assumption that has driven three generations of
armies of welfare queens in white coats to spend upwards of $50 billion
taxpayer dollars over the last 51 years but the end result is that they
haven't built a single reactor large or small which can break even by
using engineered processes for colliding fusion fuel nuclei.
The reason it hasn't been done is because it can't be done. The
present modeling of nuclear fusion has never been correct.
Charles Cagle
Jed Rothwell
would produce more radioactive garbage and more risk than advanced fission
reactors. See: R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Los Alamos
National Laboratory, LA-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993.
We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the rate
wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
world in 30 years. Other renewable sources are abundant. In any case, if
cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been, it will
soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any other
souce of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
- Jed
Raziel
"Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@infinite-energy.com> wrote in message
news:3ded0...@nopics.sjc...
> The world needs hot fusion like it needs a hole in the head. Hot fusion
> would produce more radioactive garbage and more risk than advanced fission
> reactors. See: R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
> Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Los Alamos
> National Laboratory, LA-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993.
>
> We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the rate
> wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
> world in 30 years.
that is an absurd statement.
> Other renewable sources are abundant.
another absurd statement.
> In any case, if
> cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been, it
will
> soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any other
> souce of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
>
yet more absurd statements
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the
rate
> > wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
> > world in 30 years.
>
> that is an absurd statement.
No, it is simple arithmetic. When you deny it, you resemble the people in
1908 who said that horses would never replaced by automobiles. They had no
reason to think so. There was no shortage of fuel, and the price of
automobiles was falling rapidly. In 30 years world electricity requirements
will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate of
~4,700 MW per year (nameplate). The average increase per year for the last
decade has been ~25%, and that rate is increasing. It will reach ~3.5
million MW in ~30 years. There are more than enough wind resources in North
America, China, and Europe to power the entire world. Offshore wind
resources in the North Sea could produce four times more energy than Europe
consumes. Wind-poor locations and peak-demand generators can be served with
wind-generated hydrogen fuel. The cost of wind generators is falling
rapidly. Taking into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel, such as
pollution and war, wind is already cheaper than any other source. There are
no technical limitations that would prevent wind from meeting all demand for
electricity.
See:
http://www.windpower.org/core.htm
> > Other renewable sources are abundant.
>
> another absurd statement.
Please note that the sun outputs 386 billion billion megawatts. Space-based
solar energy collection could easily collect enough "renewable" energy to
vaporize the entire planet Earth in a few minutes.
> > In any case, if
> > cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been, it
> will
> > soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any
other
> > source of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
> >
> yet more absurd statements
You are ignorant. I suggest you read the facts at:
- Jed
Raziel
"Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3ded32b1$1...@nopics.sjc...
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the
> rate
> > > wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in
the
> > > world in 30 years.
> >
> > that is an absurd statement.
>
> No, it is simple arithmetic. When you deny it, you resemble the people in
> 1908 who said that horses would never replaced by automobiles. They had no
> reason to think so. There was no shortage of fuel, and the price of
> automobiles was falling rapidly. In 30 years world electricity
requirements
> will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate of
> ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
And you think it can and will continue at that rate?
> The average increase per year for the last
> decade has been ~25%, and that rate is increasing.
The average increase per year in the stock market in the late 90's was that
high as well...
> It will reach ~3.5 million MW in ~30 years.
under your invalid assumptions, perhaps.
> There are more than enough wind resources in North
> America, China, and Europe to power the entire world.
provided of course that you don't mind generating all of your power a long
distance from where it is used.
> Offshore wind
> resources in the North Sea could produce four times more energy than
Europe
> consumes.
produce all you want. how are you going to distribute it? potential
production is useless without distribution.
> Wind-poor locations and peak-demand generators can be served with
> wind-generated hydrogen fuel.
perhaps, but the cost of changing the entire infrastructure will be quite
high.
> The cost of wind generators is falling rapidly.
and?
> Taking into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel, such as
> pollution and war, wind is already cheaper than any other source. There
are
> no technical limitations that would prevent wind from meeting all demand
for
> electricity.
>
There are no technical limitations that prevent alot of things, such as
going to Mars.
Don't get me wrong. Wind is great, solar is great, but they are only pieces
of the puzzle.
> See:
>
> http://www.awea.org/
>
> http://www.windpower.org/core.htm
>
>
> > > Other renewable sources are abundant.
> >
> > another absurd statement.
>
> Please note that the sun outputs 386 billion billion megawatts.
yes it does. but, so?
> Space-based
> solar energy collection could easily collect enough "renewable" energy to
> vaporize the entire planet Earth in a few minutes.
>
ooooook. That is all fine and good, but how do you plan to get it down
here?
>
> > > In any case, if
> > > cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been,
you make the assumption that cold fusion is even possible.
> > it will
> > > soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any
> other
> > > source of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
> > >
> > yet more absurd statements
>
> You are ignorant. I suggest you read the facts at:
>
quite the contrary, people who make grand sweeping statements like those you
have made are ignorant. There is no single source of energy that is the
be-all end-all of electricity production.
> http://lenr-canr.org/
>
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate of
> > ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
>
> And you think it can and will continue at that rate?
Yes. As far as I know, there are no technical, economic or resource
limitations that would prevent this expansion. If fission were expanding at
this rate, and we were building 4.5 new fission reactors per year, no one
would suggest it cannot expand indefinitely, until market saturation is
reached. There is no shortage of uranium, or wind.
> > The average increase per year for the last
> > decade has been ~25%, and that rate is increasing.
>
> The average increase per year in the stock market in the late 90's was
that
> high as well...
Stock markets do not resemble technology. When automobile mass production
began in 1908, and personal computer mass production began circa 1980, there
were no limitations that prevented production from continuing until nearly
everyone in the U.S. who wanted a car (or computer) had one.
> > It will reach ~3.5 million MW in ~30 years.
>
> under your invalid assumptions, perhaps.
These are not my assumptions; they are made by EPRI, the DoE and other
experts. You have not shown why they are invalid.
> > There are more than enough wind resources in North
> > America, China, and Europe to power the entire world.
>
> provided of course that you don't mind generating all of your power a long
> distance from where it is used.
We do not mind doing that. At present, we generate fission power far from
where it is used, and we transport coal and oil halfway across the world in
some cases in order to generate electricity from it. The use of wind power
would greatly reduce the total mass of transported fuel and it will reduce
the size of the overall infrastructure (counting the fuel production
infrastructure: mines, railroads and whatnot).
> > Offshore wind
> > resources in the North Sea could produce four times more energy than
> Europe
> > consumes.
>
> produce all you want. how are you going to distribute it? potential
> production is useless without distribution.
The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building 520
MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
years. In places far from windy locations, hydrogen transport or high
temperature superconducting cables may be feasible. The cost will be high,
but nowhere near as high as the death, destruction, war and terrorism from
oil and coal.
> > Wind-poor locations and peak-demand generators can be served with
> > wind-generated hydrogen fuel.
>
> perhaps, but the cost of changing the entire infrastructure will be quite
> high.
Not really. The infrastructure wears out and has to be replaced every
generation in any case. It may be possible to upgrade and reline natural gas
pipelines to carry hydrogen. In the U.S., underpopulated areas of the
country such as Texas and North Dakota that now produce natural gas and ship
it to population centers happen to have enough wind resources to supply all
of North America with wind generated hydrogen.
> > The cost of wind generators is falling rapidly.
>
> and?
Nothing will prevent it from falling to about half or one-third the cost of
coal, oil, gas and fission power.
> > Taking into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel, such as
> > pollution and war, wind is already cheaper than any other source. There
> are
> > no technical limitations that would prevent wind from meeting all demand
> for
> > electricity.
> >
> There are no technical limitations that prevent alot of things, such as
> going to Mars.
But there is no economic incentive to do so, and we are not at war over the
issue, whereas we *are* at war over oil. If we could defeat Bin Laden and
free the U.S. from Middle East oil by sending a manned mission to Mars,
there would be people on Mars within two years.
> > Space-based
> > solar energy collection could easily collect enough "renewable" energy
to
> > vaporize the entire planet Earth in a few minutes.
> >
> ooooook. That is all fine and good, but how do you plan to get it down
> here?
I do not know much about this, but I believe microwave transmission from
low-orbit collectors has been proposed. I am sure there are many potential
solutions.
> > > > In any case, if
> > > > cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been,
>
> you make the assumption that cold fusion is even possible.
I make the assertion (not assumption) because I know for a fact it is
possible. I have seen and measured cold fusion reactions myself on several
occasions, and I have read, translated and edited hundreds of papers about
it. Whether it can be made into a practical form of energy is an open
question. However, people are remarkably creative and resourceful. They can
do just about anything that can be done.
> > You are ignorant. I suggest you read the facts at:
> >
> quite the contrary, people who make grand sweeping statements like those
you
> have made are ignorant.
You have no evidence for that assertion. You have not critiqued or found
fault with the cold fusion literature. (Or if you have, I have not read your
publications, which is unlikely.) You cannot simply claim that cold fusion
is or is not possible. You have to back up this statement with evidence and
arguments.
> There is no single source of energy that is the
> be-all end-all of electricity production.
If cold fusion can be made practical, it will be the be-all, end-all source
of energy for electricity, transportation, space heating, and all other
sectors.
- Jed
Xavier Llobet
"Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate of
> > > ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
> >
> > And you think it can and will continue at that rate?
>
> Yes. As far as I know, there are no technical, economic or resource
> limitations that would prevent this expansion.
[...]
> The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building 520
> MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> years.
I heard in a meeting that 15% is the upper limit for the contribution of
the wind (or any "rapid" fluctuating source) to the power grid
(instabilities appear above this value), and that Danemark is
downscaling the wind power plants construction plan. Anybody may confirm
or debunk?
--
_xavier
--
Only one "o" in my e-mail address
Jed Rothwell
> > The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building
520
> > MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> > years.
>
> I heard in a meeting that 15% is the upper limit for the contribution of
> the wind (or any "rapid" fluctuating source) to the power grid . . .
Since wind already supplies 25% of the power in some areas, this cannot be
true. Before large scale wind was developed some people thought there might
a limitation of around 15%. They should have known better. Demand fluctuates
considerably when large factory machinery turns on and off and the weather
changes, but this has not been a problem for steady-state baseline fission
reactors. On a very large scale -- state-wide or continental scale -- wind
production does not fluctuate much. The sun warms the air, and the air
always goes someplace. If the wind is not blowing in Northern California it
will be in Southern California. Offshore wind is steadier than wind on land,
so production is more reliable, and the overall lifetime cost of the
equipment is lower. This is why it was possible to power all oceanic
transportation -- millions of tons of ships -- exclusively with wind until
1860. Wind powered sailing ships remained competitive with steam until 1900
for some commodities along some trade routes.
Actually, the biggest problem occurs when the wind blows too much, in
storms, and the turbines have to be feathered. Storms affect other power
sources. For example, one of California's largest fission reactors was shut
down a few years ago when a storm in the Pacific coast tore kelp from the
ocean floor, which clogged the reactor cooling water intake pipe.
I suppose wind production above ~50% of total demand would require some sort
of large buffer such as hydrogen production with dispatchable fuel cells.
The buffers now used to smooth the difference between steady-state fission
production and fluctuating demand would not suffice. Improved communication
and coordination between large scale factory users and power producers can
also smooth out demand spikes. This is being done already, with conventional
generation. The power companies in California have plans to connect to
thousands of houses via Internet, so the power company will be able to
switch off thousands of air conditioners for short periods. (This may
already be implemented.)
> (instabilities appear above this value), and that Denmark is
> downscaling the wind power plants construction plan.
This is a political decision, made by right wing politicians opposed to
environmentalism. It is similar the Bush administration opposition to
improvements in automobile fuel efficiency (CAFE standards). U.S. automobile
fuel efficiency has not improved in 20 years, and in fact it is declining.
Obviously, technology has improved since 1980, and it would be easy to
improve fuel efficiency even in SUVs and other heavy vehicles. In fact,
efficiency could be easily be raised from 20% to 40% using hybrid engines.
They were developed in 1906, and they have been used in most railroad
engines since the late 1940s. Japanese auto manufactures sell hybrid
automobiles, but U.S. manufactures do not. Fuel cell engines using
reformulated gasoline would be ~50% efficient. These and other technologies
could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed worldwide
they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda. They would reduce
pollution, save consumers billions of dollars, reduce energy costs
worldwide, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who die
for lack of energy. However, the administration seems to oppose all
innovation, conservation and efficiency, and it has gutted research funding
for improved automobiles. I suspect this may be because Bush and Cheney have
close ties to the oil industry. As Cheney said: "Conservation may be a sign
of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound,
comprehensive energy policy." -- in a speech in Toronto, Canada, May 1,
2001. Later in 2001 conservation in California cut electric power
consumption drastically, put a quick end to the so-called "crisis," and
helped bankrupt Enron, one of the administration's largest supporters and
campaign contributors, so it turns out Cheney was wrong.
- Jed
Raziel
> Xavier Llobet writes:
>
> > > The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building
> 520
> > > MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> > > years.
> >
> > I heard in a meeting that 15% is the upper limit for the contribution of
> > the wind (or any "rapid" fluctuating source) to the power grid . . .
>
> Since wind already supplies 25% of the power in some areas, this cannot be
> true.
be careful using percentages like this. Just because in 'one area' wind is
prevalent, does not mean that it can be prevalent like that everywhere.
Wind has the same problem as solar, it is NOT constant, and never will be.
Fluctuations must be made up for by alternate sources of power, and the
power grid (and companies) are not going to rely soley on a source of power
that can fluctuate as the wind blows (pardon the pun ;). If wind supplies
25% of power from an area, that is only because it can be backed up by power
coming from other sources in the event of a wind outage. Now there are
methods of 'storing' power, via hydro pumps and such, but to my knowledge
there are very few places where it is viable to do both wind with a hydro
backup at the same site. You will also argue that hydrogen can be used, but
again, if you are going to do that, then you are better off in the long run
just using the wind to generate hydrogen and burning that at power plants.
Perhaps this is the solution you desire?
> Before large scale wind was developed some people thought there might
> a limitation of around 15%. They should have known better. Demand
fluctuates
> considerably when large factory machinery turns on and off and the weather
> changes, but this has not been a problem for steady-state baseline fission
> reactors.
Correct, precicely because they are steady state. Fission reactors are not
affected by changes in the weather. Wind and solar are. Hell, hydro can
be. Something needs to be available to take up the slack.
> On a very large scale -- state-wide or continental scale -- wind
> production does not fluctuate much. The sun warms the air, and the air
> always goes someplace. If the wind is not blowing in Northern California
it
> will be in Southern California. Offshore wind is steadier than wind on
land,
> so production is more reliable, and the overall lifetime cost of the
> equipment is lower.
That doesn't mean that you can necessarily put the power on the grid where
you want it when you want it. You have to have sources available to pick up
the slack locally.
> This is why it was possible to power all oceanic
> transportation -- millions of tons of ships -- exclusively with wind until
> 1860. Wind powered sailing ships remained competitive with steam until
1900
> for some commodities along some trade routes.
>
the key words are 'was' and 'some'. Wind even on the ocean is unreliable.
> Actually, the biggest problem occurs when the wind blows too much, in
> storms, and the turbines have to be feathered. Storms affect other power
> sources. For example, one of California's largest fission reactors was
shut
> down a few years ago when a storm in the Pacific coast tore kelp from the
> ocean floor, which clogged the reactor cooling water intake pipe.
>
Yep, happened right at the peak of the power 'crisis'. Also happened to
happen right when another reactor was down for scheduled maintenance. You
can see right there the need for alternative sources of power. You cannot
always assume you can get the power you need from far-away sources.
> I suppose wind production above ~50% of total demand would require some
sort
> of large buffer such as hydrogen production with dispatchable fuel cells.
not just suppose. It would be a strict requirement.
> The buffers now used to smooth the difference between steady-state fission
> production and fluctuating demand would not suffice. Improved
communication
> and coordination between large scale factory users and power producers can
> also smooth out demand spikes. This is being done already, with
conventional
> generation. The power companies in California have plans to connect to
> thousands of houses via Internet, so the power company will be able to
> switch off thousands of air conditioners for short periods. (This may
> already be implemented.)
>
If I am not mistaken (I may very well be) this was a response to an actual
shortage of capacity in California, a way to lessen the hurt of 'rolling
blackouts'.
>
> > (instabilities appear above this value), and that Denmark is
> > downscaling the wind power plants construction plan.
>
> This is a political decision, made by right wing politicians opposed to
> environmentalism.
one has nothing to do with the other.
> It is similar the Bush administration opposition to
> improvements in automobile fuel efficiency (CAFE standards).
it isn't just the Bush administration that is opposed. American consumers
are opposed. They vote quite regularly with their dollars.
> U.S. automobile
> fuel efficiency has not improved in 20 years, and in fact it is declining.
Heavier vehicles are safer. People want safety.
> Obviously, technology has improved since 1980, and it would be easy to
> improve fuel efficiency even in SUVs and other heavy vehicles. In fact,
> efficiency could be easily be raised from 20% to 40% using hybrid engines.
Those will move into the market. Such technology has to be proven first.
Things liky hybrids cannot just be forced into a market that does not want
them.
> They were developed in 1906, and they have been used in most railroad
> engines since the late 1940s. Japanese auto manufactures sell hybrid
> automobiles, but U.S. manufactures do not.
Market forces are not demanding that they do. Consumers drive this market,
not the government. As much as you may like it, the government cannot tell
people what they have to buy.
> Fuel cell engines using
> reformulated gasoline would be ~50% efficient. These and other
technologies
> could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed worldwide
> they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda.
I am not so sure that is a good thing. Think of someone like Saddam,
suddenly without his source of funds. What would he be willing to do to get
those funds back?
> They would reduce
> pollution, save consumers billions of dollars, reduce energy costs
> worldwide, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who die
> for lack of energy.
Huh? So it all comes down to the children. Isn't that nice.
> However, the administration seems to oppose all
> innovation, conservation and efficiency,
patently untrue. you obviously have bought into all of the anti-Bush
propaganda.
> and it has gutted research funding for improved automobiles.
why exactly should the government fund research that the automakers should
be doing for themselves?
> I suspect this may be because Bush and Cheney have
> close ties to the oil industry.
you are rapidly losing your credibility.
> As Cheney said: "Conservation may be a sign
> of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound,
> comprehensive energy policy." -- in a speech in Toronto, Canada, May 1,
> 2001.
which part of that statement is untrue? you may not want to hear it, but he
speaks the truth. Conservation can only get you so far, and you cannot base
your energy policy on it.
> Later in 2001 conservation in California cut electric power
> consumption drastically, put a quick end to the so-called "crisis," and
> helped bankrupt Enron, one of the administration's largest supporters and
> campaign contributors, so it turns out Cheney was wrong.
>
you seem to have your 'facts' jumbled up. Conservation in California did
not end the 'crisis'. It also did not help bankrup Enron, Enron was already
in a death spiral. For the record, Enron gave as much money to Dems as
Repubs. So, do you care to stick to facts of wind power, or would you like
to spout more left-wing propaganda?
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate
of
> > > ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
> >
> > And you think it can and will continue at that rate?
>
> Yes. As far as I know, there are no technical, economic or resource
> limitations that would prevent this expansion.
I am weary of anyone claiming to be able to sustain exponential expansion
(or even linear expansion) for that kind of time period. You should also be
weary of making such claims.
> If fission were expanding at
> this rate, and we were building 4.5 new fission reactors per year, no one
> would suggest it cannot expand indefinitely, until market saturation is
> reached. There is no shortage of uranium, or wind.
>
If only we were building 4.5 new fission reactors per year. However, if we
were, I think you would find we would run out of sites quite rapidly. NIMBY
kicks in much quicker than market saturation.
>
> > > The average increase per year for the last
> > > decade has been ~25%, and that rate is increasing.
> >
> > The average increase per year in the stock market in the late 90's was
> that
> > high as well...
>
> Stock markets do not resemble technology. When automobile mass production
> began in 1908, and personal computer mass production began circa 1980,
there
> were no limitations that prevented production from continuing until nearly
> everyone in the U.S. who wanted a car (or computer) had one.
>
These are also products with a limited lifespan. Computer and car companies
could not sell millions and millions of units per year if their products
lasted 30+ years. Power plants have to do that.
>
> > > It will reach ~3.5 million MW in ~30 years.
> >
> > under your invalid assumptions, perhaps.
>
> These are not my assumptions; they are made by EPRI, the DoE and other
> experts. You have not shown why they are invalid.
>
other than the general invalidity of anyone claiming linear or exponential
growth over that period of time, no I have not. There are way too many
factors to consider to make such claims 30 years in the future.
>
> > > There are more than enough wind resources in North
> > > America, China, and Europe to power the entire world.
> >
> > provided of course that you don't mind generating all of your power a
long
> > distance from where it is used.
>
> We do not mind doing that. At present, we generate fission power far from
> where it is used, and we transport coal and oil halfway across the world
in
> some cases in order to generate electricity from it.
we don't generate fission power all that far from where it is consumed. And
we transport the coal and oil so that we CAN generate power close to where
it is consumed.
> The use of wind power
> would greatly reduce the total mass of transported fuel and it will reduce
> the size of the overall infrastructure (counting the fuel production
> infrastructure: mines, railroads and whatnot).
>
No doubt using wind power may do some of this. But again, it is only part
of the puzzle.
>
> > > Offshore wind
> > > resources in the North Sea could produce four times more energy than
> > Europe
> > > consumes.
> >
> > produce all you want. how are you going to distribute it? potential
> > production is useless without distribution.
>
> The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building 520
> MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> years.
good for Ireland. But they are not talking about running power lines all
the way across Europe to power Germany. They are talking about running
power to Ireland.
> In places far from windy locations, hydrogen transport or high
> temperature superconducting cables may be feasible.
yes as soon as someone invents a high temperature superconducting cable...
But don't hold your breath.
> The cost will be high,
> but nowhere near as high as the death, destruction, war and terrorism from
> oil and coal.
>
>
> > > Wind-poor locations and peak-demand generators can be served with
> > > wind-generated hydrogen fuel.
> >
> > perhaps, but the cost of changing the entire infrastructure will be
quite
> > high.
>
> Not really. The infrastructure wears out and has to be replaced every
> generation in any case.
it doesn't wear out all at once, and isn't replaced all at once. The
'hydrogen economy' will require parallel infrastructures for years before it
can even get off the ground. that is expensive.
> It may be possible to upgrade and reline natural gas
> pipelines to carry hydrogen.
dunno about that. Hydrogen isn't an easy gas to work with. But I'm sure
there are people with much more knowledge than I working on that sort of
thing.
> In the U.S., underpopulated areas of the
> country such as Texas and North Dakota that now produce natural gas and
ship
> it to population centers happen to have enough wind resources to supply
all
> of North America with wind generated hydrogen.
>
possibly. I will not make that claim without seeing some numbers.
>
> > > The cost of wind generators is falling rapidly.
> >
> > and?
>
> Nothing will prevent it from falling to about half or one-third the cost
of
> coal, oil, gas and fission power.
>
again, possible. Obviously they get cheaper as more are built.
>
> > > Taking into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel, such as
> > > pollution and war, wind is already cheaper than any other source.
There
> > are
> > > no technical limitations that would prevent wind from meeting all
demand
> > for
> > > electricity.
> > >
> > There are no technical limitations that prevent alot of things, such as
> > going to Mars.
>
> But there is no economic incentive to do so, and we are not at war over
the
> issue, whereas we *are* at war over oil.
we are not at war over oil. we may keep strange bed-fellows like the Saudis
because of oil, but we are not going after Bin Laden because of oil. We
only get ~10% of our oil from the middle east anyway, we could easily
produce that domestically if we wanted to.
> If we could defeat Bin Laden and
> free the U.S. from Middle East oil by sending a manned mission to Mars,
> there would be people on Mars within two years.
>
>
> > > Space-based
> > > solar energy collection could easily collect enough "renewable" energy
> to
> > > vaporize the entire planet Earth in a few minutes.
> > >
> > ooooook. That is all fine and good, but how do you plan to get it down
> > here?
>
> I do not know much about this, but I believe microwave transmission from
> low-orbit collectors has been proposed. I am sure there are many potential
> solutions.
>
there are also many more serious problems. there are many technical
problems with this, not to mention global warming issues (yes that is
correct). Solar would be great, specially if it was space based (although
reliability and repair would be serious issues), but it is just not
technically feasable.
>
> > > > > In any case, if
> > > > > cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has
been,
> >
> > you make the assumption that cold fusion is even possible.
>
> I make the assertion (not assumption) because I know for a fact it is
> possible. I have seen and measured cold fusion reactions myself on several
> occasions,
and your evidence is?
> and I have read, translated and edited hundreds of papers about it.
give me 2 of the best citations.
> Whether it can be made into a practical form of energy is an open
> question. However, people are remarkably creative and resourceful. They
can
> do just about anything that can be done.
>
that is true.
>
> > > You are ignorant. I suggest you read the facts at:
> > >
> > quite the contrary, people who make grand sweeping statements like those
> you
> > have made are ignorant.
>
> You have no evidence for that assertion. You have not critiqued or found
> fault with the cold fusion literature. (Or if you have, I have not read
your
> publications, which is unlikely.)
I have not seriously read a cold fusion paper since I was forced to read the
Pons-Fleischman paper in grad school (as an example of how not to write a
scientific publication). Since then, most cold fusion work that I have seen
is very sketchy and crackpot in nature. If you would care to site for me
2-3 of the best articles, I would read them.
> You cannot simply claim that cold fusion
> is or is not possible. You have to back up this statement with evidence
and
> arguments.
>
I have to back it up with evidence if I claim it is possible. But that is
not my claim. I claim that based on the Physics with which I am familiar,
it is not likely to be possible.
>
> > There is no single source of energy that is the
> > be-all end-all of electricity production.
>
> If cold fusion can be made practical, it will be the be-all, end-all
source
> of energy for electricity, transportation, space heating, and all other
> sectors.
>
Every power source has a downside. The trick is to find a balance.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > Since wind already supplies 25% of the power in some areas, this cannot
be
> > true.
>
> be careful using percentages like this. Just because in 'one area' wind
is
> prevalent, does not mean that it can be prevalent like that everywhere.
As I noted, it would require a buffer. It is at 25%+ in some power districts
in Germany and Denmark.
> Wind has the same problem as solar, it is NOT constant, and never will be.
No energy source is constant. Nuclear power plants, for example, have to be
turned off periodically for refueling. This abruptly removes ~1000 MW for
days at a time, a much larger fluctuation than a wind farm experiences.
(Wind turbines are removed from service for maintenance one at a time.) Wind
is much more constant than solar, because the wind blows at night as well as
day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not distributed evenly
around the globe. It is concentrated in some areas, and absent in others,
somewhat like water. Hydroelectric power is possible because flowing water
is found in rivers, not just anywhere. Even during droughts a predictable
amount of water flows. Even during calm seasons, a predicable amount of wind
blows. Improved weather reporting will make wind even more predictable.
> Fluctuations must be made up for by alternate sources of power, and the
> power grid (and companies) are not going to rely soley on a source of
power
> that can fluctuate as the wind blows (pardon the pun ;).
Power demand fluctuates too, but this is not a major problem. Wind power in
a large grid does not fluctuate much from minute to minute. Of course the
wind might drop off at the same moment a demand spike appears, but with
better metering, remote control shut off of air conditions, and other
advanced load control techniques this problem can be addressed. It is
certainly not as bad as the fluctuation from a nuclear power plant scrams,
which occur several times a month, I think. See:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2001/index.
html
> If wind supplies
> 25% of power from an area, that is only because it can be backed up by
power
> coming from other sources in the event of a wind outage.
That is true of all power sources including nuclear and hydroelectricity.
All power plants experience outages, both planned and unanticipated.
> Now there are
> methods of 'storing' power, via hydro pumps and such, but to my knowledge
> there are very few places where it is viable to do both wind with a hydro
> backup at the same site.
As I said, hydrogen fuel would be used for this, in fuel cells or gas
turbines. Actually, there have been tests using an idle wind turbine to
store energy for brief periods, when there is no wind. The prop is feathered
and rotated, like a flywheel.
> You will also argue that hydrogen can be used, but
> again, if you are going to do that, then you are better off in the long
run
> just using the wind to generate hydrogen and burning that at power plants.
No, this would waste a considerable amount of energy in the conversion
process, so it would require much more equipment (turbines, electrolysis
cells, and so on). See: PG&E, "Hydrogen and Electricity as Carriers of Solar
and Wind Energy for the 1990s and Beyond," 1990, and NREL, "Hydrogen Program
Plan, FY 1993 - FY 1997." In 1990, conventional electrolysis efficiency was
65%, and it was expected to reach 75% in 2020. Fuel cell efficiency was 40%
in 1990. Most are still ~40%, but some exotic fuel cells and gas turbines
reach 50 ~ 60% by now. Anyway, overall storage & recovery comes to ~39% best
case.
If the cost of wind turbine electricity falls to one-third of the cost of
coal and gas, this might be economically viable, but it will be some time
before that happens. It is, as I said, just about equal to coal and gas now,
if you ignore the cost of killing tens of thousands of people and millions
of birds with coal pollution per year.
> Perhaps this is the solution you desire?
Only for locations without enough wind, such as the Georgia and most parts
of Japan.
> > considerably when large factory machinery turns on and off and the
weather
> > changes, but this has not been a problem for steady-state baseline
fission
> > reactors.
>
> Correct, precisely because they are steady state. Fission reactors are
not
> affected by changes in the weather.
Except when they are affected by the weather. See the scram reports. Quite a
number of incidents are caused by weather and other ambient conditions.
In any case, I am not suggesting that wind power would work perfectly with
today's system, without innovations, new methods of buffering, new
Internet-based load control systems and so on. Of course wind would require
a large investment in these and other related technologies. However, the
cost would be much lower than the cost of a war for oil, or a dozen more
terrorist attacks paid for with oil profits.
> Wind and solar are. Hell, hydro can
> be. Something needs to be available to take up the slack.
Yes, hydrogen is a good choice. You can store large amount locally where the
turbines are located for a modest cost, or ship it across the country more
efficiently than other gas or liquid fuel, and more efficiently than
electricity, since the caloric content is high.
> That doesn't mean that you can necessarily put the power on the grid where
> you want it when you want it. You have to have sources available to pick
up
> the slack locally.
Yes, investment and innovation would be needed, but they are technically
feasible, and probably economical. (But you never know that until you try.)
> the key words are 'was' and 'some'. Wind even on the ocean is unreliable.
But not on all the oceans, over an area the size of northern Europe or
Ireland.
The power companies in California have plans to connect to
> > thousands of houses via Internet, so the power company will be able to
> > switch off thousands of air conditioners for short periods. (This may
> > already be implemented.)
> >
> If I am not mistaken (I may very well be) this was a response to an actual
> shortage of capacity in California, a way to lessen the hurt of 'rolling
> blackouts'.
It was done on an ad hoc, emergency basis. I believe it worked well, so the
technique and the Internet hookups are now being developed more carefully,
in a planned program with mass produced meters and so on. Consumers and the
power company learned that turning off an air conditioner for 20 minutes in
a house with no occupant at home does not inconvenience anyone.
> > It is similar the Bush administration opposition to
> > improvements in automobile fuel efficiency (CAFE standards).
>
> it isn't just the Bush administration that is opposed. American consumers
> are opposed. They vote quite regularly with their dollars.
I think the public has not been properly educated. They have not been
motivated by leadership. Japanese consumers often respond to patriotic calls
for conservation.
> > U.S. automobile
> > fuel efficiency has not improved in 20 years, and in fact it is
declining.
>
> Heavier vehicles are safer. People want safety.
Actually, a lightweight airframe can absorb much more punishment than a
steel automobile body, but it costs a great deal more. As I noted, heavier
vehicles can be made more efficient than they are. Large truck and railroad
engines are much more efficient than SUV engines.
> > Obviously, technology has improved since 1980, and it would be easy to
> > improve fuel efficiency even in SUVs and other heavy vehicles. In fact,
> > efficiency could be easily be raised from 20% to 40% using hybrid
engines.
>
> Those will move into the market. Such technology has to be proven first.
As I mentioned, hybrid engines were patented in 1906 and have been used
almost everywhere in North American railroads since the late 1940s. They
have been "proven" for 60 years!
> Things liky hybrids cannot just be forced into a market that does not want
> them.
What the market wants depends partly on leadership and inspiration. Toyota
and Honda hybrids are selling like hotcakes.
> > They were developed in 1906, and they have been used in most railroad
> > engines since the late 1940s. Japanese auto manufactures sell hybrid
> > automobiles, but U.S. manufactures do not.
>
> Market forces are not demanding that they do. Consumers drive this
market. . .
Market forces are important. Economics cannot be finessed or ignored.
However, society and people's actions and emotions are a great deal more
complicated than simple economics dictate. In the 1960s, people everywhere
in Japan simultaneously stopped using most incandescent lights, and switched
over using a kind round, compact fluorescent lights at home. That was
somewhat more economical, but people were frugal back than and seldom left
lights burning anyway. The reason they switched, en mass, was because
government and industry educated them, advertised, and appealed to their
sense of patriotism and community. In the U.S., to this day incandescent
lights are common.
> not the government. As much as you may like it, the government cannot
tell
> people what they have to buy.
Oh Yes It Can! The government gives massive price supports and unfair
advantages to coal, oil and fission power. The fission power industry is
exempt from accident insurance, unlike any other industry or private
individual. If it had to pay premiums to cover the cost of another Three
Mile Island, it would go out of business overnight. The taxpayer covers the
risk.
> > could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed
worldwide
> > they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda.
>
> I am not so sure that is a good thing. Think of someone like Saddam,
> suddenly without his source of funds. What would he be willing to do to
get
> those funds back?
Not a problem! If he stops channeling millions of dollars to his supporters,
one of his henchmen will shoot him dead in week.
> > They would reduce
> > pollution, save consumers billions of dollars, reduce energy costs
> > worldwide, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who
die
> > for lack of energy.
>
> Huh? So it all comes down to the children. Isn't that nice.
Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much higher
rate than adults do. That isn't nice at all, and it sure as hell is not a
joke. Ask a third world parent how she feels watching a child die from
diarrhea because she cannot afford a few kilograms of kerosene to sterilize
water and cook food properly. Third world families are forced to use candles
and kerosene for light, and they spend roughly as much money for that as the
entire foreign aid budget of all first-world nations. CFL electric lights
produce ~1000 times more light per joule of energy than kerosene but they
cannot afford electricity. Do you find that funny too?
> > However, the administration seems to oppose all
> > innovation, conservation and efficiency,
>
> patently untrue. you obviously have bought into all of the anti-Bush
> propaganda.
Actually, the previous administration also blocked efforts at conservation,
as far as I know. The CAFE standards were not changed under Clinton. Both
parties are to blame.
> > and it has gutted research funding for improved automobiles.
>
> why exactly should the government fund research that the automakers should
> be doing for themselves?
Half the funding came from the automakers. They were the ones who asked the
government to gut the project. They do not want efficiency either,
apparently. Perhaps they hope to hand over a larger market share to Toyota
and Honda.
> > I suspect this may be because Bush and Cheney have
> > close ties to the oil industry.
>
> you are rapidly losing your credibility.
Okay, what is your theory? Why do you think they oppose conservation? What
do you make of Cheney's statement?
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > Yes. As far as I know, there are no technical, economic or resource
> > limitations that would prevent this expansion.
>
> I am weary of anyone claiming to be able to sustain exponential expansion
> (or even linear expansion) for that kind of time period. You should also
be
> weary of making such claims.
Explosive exponential expansion in markets has been common since the
industrial revolution began. Look at railroads from 1850 to 1870. Look at
automobiles from 1908 to 1929 -- they went from essentially 0% of the market
to 99%, replacing almost all horses. Look at telegraphs, minicomputers,
microcomputers, jet engines (replacing large prop airplanes), hybrid diesel
replacing steam locomotives (1949 to 1959). Thirty years is long enough for
wind power to replace nearly all generators. Of course it would make no
sense to shut down hydroelectricity (5%) or the fission reactors that are
paid for and still in good condition, but I doubt there will be many of them
left in 30 years.
> If only we were building 4.5 new fission reactors per year. However, if
we
> were, I think you would find we would run out of sites quite rapidly.
NIMBY
> kicks in much quicker than market saturation.
It is not a problem with wind turbines in the North Sea or North Dakota. I
will grant, it would become an issue if there were as many turbines as there
are long-haul trucks in North America. Most people would prefer wind
turbines to coal fired plants, coal mines, trains and so on.
> These are also products with a limited lifespan. Computer and car
companies
> could not sell millions and millions of units per year if their products
> lasted 30+ years. Power plants have to do that.
Yes, that is my point. That is why it will take at least 30 years for wind
to replace other generators. That is why wind cannot replace all generation
next year. (Plus the fact that the equipment could not be manufactured that
quickly, obviously! Realistically, it would replace ~90% in 30 years, and
the remaining 10% in 50 to 100 years. That is the pattern for things like
steam engines replacing sail, hybrid locomotives replacing steam
locomotives, and other big, expensive, live-lived equipment.
> > We do not mind doing that. At present, we generate fission power far
from
> > where it is used, and we transport coal and oil halfway across the world
> in
> > some cases in order to generate electricity from it.
>
> we don't generate fission power all that far from where it is consumed.
And
> we transport the coal and oil so that we CAN generate power close to where
> it is consumed.
As I recall about a third of the U.S. population can generate wind power
close by. Very close, in some cases. For the rest, moving hydrogen around
should not be more expensive than moving coal and natural gas.
> > The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building
520
> > MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> > years.
>
> good for Ireland. But they are not talking about running power lines all
> the way across Europe to power Germany.
German is well positioned to generate power from wind. It is the world's
largest producer, and it produces 3.5% of its present consumption from wind.
It plans to replace all nuclear power with wind soon. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1765054.stm
> > In places far from windy locations, hydrogen transport or high
> > temperature superconducting cables may be feasible.
>
> yes as soon as someone invents a high temperature superconducting cable...
> But don't hold your breath.
Hydrogen pipelines have been use since the 1930s in Europe, for industrial
apps (not fuel).
> > Not really. The infrastructure wears out and has to be replaced every
> > generation in any case.
>
> it doesn't wear out all at once, and isn't replaced all at once.
Of course not! That's why it will 30 years to replace it with wind.
> The
> 'hydrogen economy' will require parallel infrastructures for years before
it
> can even get off the ground. that is expensive.
Yes, hydrogen would be expensive. Wind for local use does not have that
problem.
> > Nothing will prevent it from falling to about half or one-third the cost
> of
> > coal, oil, gas and fission power.
> >
> again, possible. Obviously they get cheaper as more are built.
On the other hand, so would fission, but it is politically unacceptable. Gas
and coal have probably been optimized already, to a larger extent. Wind has
just begun many potential improvements.
> > I make the assertion (not assumption) because I know for a fact it is
> > possible. I have seen and measured cold fusion reactions myself on
several
> > occasions,
>
> and your evidence is?
You will have to read the literature. I will not to sum it up in a few
paragraphs.
> > and I have read, translated and edited hundreds of papers about it.
>
> give me 2 of the best citations.
Here are four: Melvin Miles (ret. China Lake), Edmund Storms (ret. Los
Alamos), Michael McKubre (SRI), Yasuhiro Iwamura (Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries).
> I have not seriously read a cold fusion paper since I was forced to read
the
> Pons-Fleischmann paper in grad school . . .
Several thousand have been published since then. You cannot judge the issue
based on the third paper on the subject published in 1989. (The first two
were in 1927 as I recall.)
> I have to back it up with evidence if I claim it is possible. But that is
> not my claim. I claim that based on the Physics with which I am familiar,
> it is not likely to be possible.
Cold fusion is based on experiments, not theory. You cannot disprove it by
citing a theory; you have to find errors in the experimental techniques.
Most of the techniques were developed in the 19th century, and are very well
understood. The signal to noise ratio in the best experiments is very high;
sigma 70 to 100 in some cases.
> > If cold fusion can be made practical, it will be the be-all, end-all
> source
> > of energy for electricity, transportation, space heating, and all other
> > sectors.
> >
> Every power source has a downside. The trick is to find a balance.
There have been long periods in human history when one technology dominated,
or was used exclusively. Wind power was the only form of ocean going
transportation, for example. Railroads dominated long-distance
transportation from 1850 to 1920. Coal was the dominant chemical fuel,
displacing wood, until oil came along. Cold fusion works on a very small
scale (suitable for batteries, pacemakers and the like), and there is no
reason to think it cannot work on a large scale. It generates very low
levels of heat sometimes, but in some cases it generates enough concentrated
heat to melt ceramic proton conductors. These are big ifs, but *if* it can
be made safe and controlled, and if it does not require significant amounts
of precious metals, I see no reason why it cannot meet the full range of
energy demands, large and small scale. Perhaps it will be used as precursor
for things like hydrogen fuel in automotive or aerospace transportation. In
any case, it will be far cheaper than any alternative.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
on-line library. There are some other good authors who are not in the
library, and many good papers by those authors we do not have. We have only
100 papers, including some that are not good. We have to include some of the
screwballs and anti-cold fusion fanatics, to be fair.
- Jed
Bill Snyder
Where's the water heater, Jeddikins?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > Since wind already supplies 25% of the power in some areas, this
cannot
> be
> > > true.
> >
> > be careful using percentages like this. Just because in 'one area' wind
> is
> > prevalent, does not mean that it can be prevalent like that everywhere.
>
> As I noted, it would require a buffer. It is at 25%+ in some power
districts
> in Germany and Denmark.
>
>
> > Wind has the same problem as solar, it is NOT constant, and never will
be.
>
> No energy source is constant. Nuclear power plants, for example, have to
be
> turned off periodically for refueling. This abruptly removes ~1000 MW for
> days at a time, a much larger fluctuation than a wind farm experiences.
These "abrupt" removals are highly scheduled. Refueling a fission plant is
not something that happens by surprise. It is scheduled months in advance
allowing for other reactors or other sources to make up the load.
> (Wind turbines are removed from service for maintenance one at a time.)
do you think nuke plants are not?
> Wind is much more constant than solar, because the wind blows at night as
well as
> day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not distributed
evenly
> around the globe.
in this respect wind has an advantage over solar.
> It is concentrated in some areas, and absent in others,
> somewhat like water. Hydroelectric power is possible because flowing water
> is found in rivers, not just anywhere. Even during droughts a predictable
> amount of water flows. Even during calm seasons, a predicable amount of
wind
> blows. Improved weather reporting will make wind even more predictable.
>
I don't think weather reporting will have anything to do with it ;)
>
> > Fluctuations must be made up for by alternate sources of power, and the
> > power grid (and companies) are not going to rely soley on a source of
> power
> > that can fluctuate as the wind blows (pardon the pun ;).
>
> Power demand fluctuates too, but this is not a major problem.
It is if you cannot meet your peak demand. Even now many power districts
run diesel generators to meet peak loading requirements. Problem is in some
places these generators that are only supposed to be used to meet peak load,
are being run to meet basic load.
> Wind power in
> a large grid does not fluctuate much from minute to minute. Of course the
> wind might drop off at the same moment a demand spike appears, but with
> better metering, remote control shut off of air conditions, and other
> advanced load control techniques this problem can be addressed.
That is not a solution. One must be able to meet the peak demand, not cap
demand. If you cannot meet peak demand, then some other source must be
included to augment the base power. What you are advocating is basically a
rolling blackout when wind cannot supply the power needed.
> It is certainly not as bad as the fluctuation from a nuclear power plant
scrams,
> which occur several times a month, I think. See:
>
>
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2001/index.
> html
>
But do these plants run at full capacity? Or are other reactors/generators
able to pick up the slack for short times?
>
> > If wind supplies
> > 25% of power from an area, that is only because it can be backed up by
> power
> > coming from other sources in the event of a wind outage.
>
> That is true of all power sources including nuclear and hydroelectricity.
> All power plants experience outages, both planned and unanticipated.
>
Yes they do. And this must be taken into account. Multiple sources must be
available.
>
> > Now there are
> > methods of 'storing' power, via hydro pumps and such, but to my
knowledge
> > there are very few places where it is viable to do both wind with a
hydro
> > backup at the same site.
>
> As I said, hydrogen fuel would be used for this, in fuel cells or gas
> turbines.
How much of its power would the wind generator need to use to generate
hydrogen? Is this even economically feasable?
> Actually, there have been tests using an idle wind turbine to
> store energy for brief periods, when there is no wind. The prop is
feathered
> and rotated, like a flywheel.
>
interesting. but under a load, how long can a single generator run?
>
> > You will also argue that hydrogen can be used, but
> > again, if you are going to do that, then you are better off in the long
> run
> > just using the wind to generate hydrogen and burning that at power
plants.
>
> No, this would waste a considerable amount of energy in the conversion
> process, so it would require much more equipment (turbines, electrolysis
> cells, and so on).
then how is it economical to use some of the wind power to generate hydrogen
for 'storage'?
> See: PG&E, "Hydrogen and Electricity as Carriers of Solar
> and Wind Energy for the 1990s and Beyond," 1990, and NREL, "Hydrogen
Program
> Plan, FY 1993 - FY 1997." In 1990, conventional electrolysis efficiency
was
> 65%, and it was expected to reach 75% in 2020. Fuel cell efficiency was
40%
> in 1990. Most are still ~40%, but some exotic fuel cells and gas turbines
> reach 50 ~ 60% by now. Anyway, overall storage & recovery comes to ~39%
best
> case.
>
which leads me to believe that using some of your wind power to generate
hydrogen for use during a wind outage, or even during peaking, is probably
not feasable right now. Seems you would have to build your wind farm well
over peak demand.
> If the cost of wind turbine electricity falls to one-third of the cost of
> coal and gas, this might be economically viable, but it will be some time
> before that happens. It is, as I said, just about equal to coal and gas
now,
> if you ignore the cost of killing tens of thousands of people and millions
> of birds with coal pollution per year.
>
That cost is theoretically included in the price of oil and gas now.
>
> > Perhaps this is the solution you desire?
>
> Only for locations without enough wind, such as the Georgia and most parts
> of Japan.
>
>
> > > considerably when large factory machinery turns on and off and the
> weather
> > > changes, but this has not been a problem for steady-state baseline
> fission
> > > reactors.
> >
> > Correct, precisely because they are steady state. Fission reactors are
> not
> > affected by changes in the weather.
>
> Except when they are affected by the weather. See the scram reports. Quite
a
> number of incidents are caused by weather and other ambient conditions.
>
They are, but not on the scale of wind or solar.
> In any case, I am not suggesting that wind power would work perfectly with
> today's system, without innovations, new methods of buffering, new
> Internet-based load control systems and so on. Of course wind would
require
> a large investment in these and other related technologies. However, the
> cost would be much lower than the cost of a war for oil, or a dozen more
> terrorist attacks paid for with oil profits.
>
Wind is a piece of the puzzle, nothing more.
>
> > Wind and solar are. Hell, hydro can
> > be. Something needs to be available to take up the slack.
>
> Yes, hydrogen is a good choice. You can store large amount locally where
the
> turbines are located for a modest cost,
how long can you store it? Hydrogen tends to escape.
> or ship it across the country more efficiently than other gas or liquid
fuel,
how so?
that isn't a solution. that is a band aid to address a lack of capacity.
nothing more.
> in a planned program with mass produced meters and so on. Consumers and
the
> power company learned that turning off an air conditioner for 20 minutes
in
> a house with no occupant at home does not inconvenience anyone.
>
that may be true, but it is still a band aid. People who want to pay to
have their air conditioner on while they are not at home should be able to.
Problem in California was that the power companies were not allowed to
charge these people more for the expensive power they were using.
>
> > > It is similar the Bush administration opposition to
> > > improvements in automobile fuel efficiency (CAFE standards).
> >
> > it isn't just the Bush administration that is opposed. American
consumers
> > are opposed. They vote quite regularly with their dollars.
>
> I think the public has not been properly educated.
about a great many things....
> They have not been motivated by leadership. Japanese consumers often
respond to patriotic calls
> for conservation.
>
Japan has a far different culture than we do.
>
> > > U.S. automobile
> > > fuel efficiency has not improved in 20 years, and in fact it is
> declining.
> >
> > Heavier vehicles are safer. People want safety.
>
> Actually, a lightweight airframe can absorb much more punishment than a
> steel automobile body, but it costs a great deal more.
Yes. Airplanes cost $60M, cars cost $20k
> As I noted, heavier
> vehicles can be made more efficient than they are. Large truck and
railroad
> engines are much more efficient than SUV engines.
>
They could be. But the government has no place in forcing a company to do
so. Specially when it is not in the company's interest to do it. Right
now, the people do not want it. When the people do want it, the companies
will produce it. it is a simple market fact.
>
> > > Obviously, technology has improved since 1980, and it would be easy to
> > > improve fuel efficiency even in SUVs and other heavy vehicles. In
fact,
> > > efficiency could be easily be raised from 20% to 40% using hybrid
> engines.
> >
> > Those will move into the market. Such technology has to be proven
first.
>
> As I mentioned, hybrid engines were patented in 1906 and have been used
> almost everywhere in North American railroads since the late 1940s. They
> have been "proven" for 60 years!
>
a rail car and an automobile are far different beasts. Hybrids are
expensive. They are still being sold at a loss by the companies that make
them, and subsidized by the government. They are a great idea, and will get
cheaper as more are produced, but right now, they are just not popular in
the market.
>
> > Things liky hybrids cannot just be forced into a market that does not
want
> > them.
>
> What the market wants depends partly on leadership and inspiration. Toyota
> and Honda hybrids are selling like hotcakes.
>
only because they are subsidized so they can be sold below cost, and are a
tax writeoff. I will tell you one thing. If I have to commute in traffic
for 30-40 minutes, I would much rather sit in my car than one of those
little hybrids. My car is much more comfortable, has a better ride, handles
better, and is more responsive. When they build a hybrid that can compete
with that, I will buy one.
>
> > > They were developed in 1906, and they have been used in most railroad
> > > engines since the late 1940s. Japanese auto manufactures sell hybrid
> > > automobiles, but U.S. manufactures do not.
> >
> > Market forces are not demanding that they do. Consumers drive this
> market. . .
>
> Market forces are important. Economics cannot be finessed or ignored.
> However, society and people's actions and emotions are a great deal more
> complicated than simple economics dictate. In the 1960s, people everywhere
> in Japan simultaneously stopped using most incandescent lights, and
switched
> over using a kind round, compact fluorescent lights at home. That was
> somewhat more economical, but people were frugal back than and seldom left
> lights burning anyway. The reason they switched, en mass, was because
> government and industry educated them, advertised, and appealed to their
> sense of patriotism and community. In the U.S., to this day incandescent
> lights are common.
>
because they are superior in many applications. you cannot compare the
Japanese culture to American culture. Americans are much much more
individualist than the Japanese. It is like comparing apples and
watermelons.
>
> > not the government. As much as you may like it, the government cannot
> tell
> > people what they have to buy.
>
> Oh Yes It Can! The government gives massive price supports and unfair
> advantages to coal, oil and fission power. The fission power industry is
> exempt from accident insurance, unlike any other industry or private
> individual.
there are reasons for fission to be exempt from accident insurance. mostly
having to do with our fucked up tort law.
> If it had to pay premiums to cover the cost of another Three
> Mile Island, it would go out of business overnight. The taxpayer covers
the
> risk.
>
TMI is a joke. Talk about something that is grossly overplayed. In some
ways it is great that TMI is the poster-boy for US fission. If people were
actually not scared and ignorant of fission and TMI, we would have many more
fission plants today.
>
> > > could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed
> worldwide
> > > they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda.
> >
> > I am not so sure that is a good thing. Think of someone like Saddam,
> > suddenly without his source of funds. What would he be willing to do to
> get
> > those funds back?
>
> Not a problem! If he stops channeling millions of dollars to his
supporters,
> one of his henchmen will shoot him dead in week.
>
I would hope you are right, but he may just start a war to take more land
that is worth something.
>
> > > They would reduce
> > > pollution, save consumers billions of dollars, reduce energy costs
> > > worldwide, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who
> die
> > > for lack of energy.
> >
> > Huh? So it all comes down to the children. Isn't that nice.
>
> Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much higher
> rate than adults do.
Where?
> That isn't nice at all, and it sure as hell is not a
> joke. Ask a third world parent how she feels watching a child die from
> diarrhea because she cannot afford a few kilograms of kerosene to
sterilize
> water and cook food properly.
Nature is a bitch.
> Third world families are forced to use candles
> and kerosene for light, and they spend roughly as much money for that as
the
> entire foreign aid budget of all first-world nations. CFL electric lights
> produce ~1000 times more light per joule of energy than kerosene but they
> cannot afford electricity. Do you find that funny too?
>
Sounds like a problem for their government. You seem to be missing a simple
point. Free electricity for all is not necessarily a good thing. It
promotes overpopulation in areas that cannot support it. Free power may not
at all be good for the world because of human overpopulation alone.
>
> > > However, the administration seems to oppose all
> > > innovation, conservation and efficiency,
> >
> > patently untrue. you obviously have bought into all of the anti-Bush
> > propaganda.
>
> Actually, the previous administration also blocked efforts at
conservation,
> as far as I know. The CAFE standards were not changed under Clinton. Both
> parties are to blame.
>
The CAFE standards are bad standards. Both administrations did exactly what
they should have done... nothing.
>
> > > and it has gutted research funding for improved automobiles.
> >
> > why exactly should the government fund research that the automakers
should
> > be doing for themselves?
>
> Half the funding came from the automakers. They were the ones who asked
the
> government to gut the project. They do not want efficiency either,
> apparently. Perhaps they hope to hand over a larger market share to Toyota
> and Honda.
>
If they do, then that is their death knell. Then again, if you ever go to
flyover country, you will see very few cars that are not GM, Ford, or Chevy.
Japanese cars are much more popular in the liberal NE and West coast.
>
> > > I suspect this may be because Bush and Cheney have
> > > close ties to the oil industry.
> >
> > you are rapidly losing your credibility.
>
> Okay, what is your theory? Why do you think they oppose conservation?
they don't.
>What do you make of Cheney's statement?
>
Cheney was exactly right. you cannot base an energy policy on conservation.
Production and capacity are paramount. Conservation can lower the amount of
production and capacity you need, but since in many cases we are already
running at or near capacity, we need to add production and capacity.
Typically you do not want to run more than 60% or so capacity, and you
definitly do not want peak demand to exceed capacity. If those things
happen conservation can only get you so far before you need to add capacity.
The US, despite conservation efforts, is woefully lacking in both production
and capacity.
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > Yes. As far as I know, there are no technical, economic or resource
> > > limitations that would prevent this expansion.
> >
> > I am weary of anyone claiming to be able to sustain exponential
expansion
> > (or even linear expansion) for that kind of time period. You should
also
> be
> > weary of making such claims.
>
> Explosive exponential expansion in markets has been common since the
> industrial revolution began. Look at railroads from 1850 to 1870. Look at
> automobiles from 1908 to 1929 -- they went from essentially 0% of the
market
> to 99%, replacing almost all horses. Look at telegraphs, minicomputers,
> microcomputers, jet engines (replacing large prop airplanes), hybrid
diesel
> replacing steam locomotives (1949 to 1959). Thirty years is long enough
for
> wind power to replace nearly all generators. Of course it would make no
> sense to shut down hydroelectricity (5%) or the fission reactors that are
> paid for and still in good condition, but I doubt there will be many of
them
> left in 30 years.
>
>
of a new technology. Wind is not a new technology, it has just been refined
to the point where it may be economic. I would like to see wind farms come
online and show what they can do. It just seems to me that many of the
estimates I have heard from wind advocates are a bit far fetched.
>
>
>
>
> > If only we were building 4.5 new fission reactors per year. However, if
> we
> > were, I think you would find we would run out of sites quite rapidly.
> NIMBY
> > kicks in much quicker than market saturation.
>
> It is not a problem with wind turbines in the North Sea or North Dakota.
do you have something against people in ND? Maybe we should cover the
entire state of Nevada with solar panels to power SoCal while we are at it.
:)
> I will grant, it would become an issue if there were as many turbines as
there
> are long-haul trucks in North America. Most people would prefer wind
> turbines to coal fired plants, coal mines, trains and so on.
>
Probably. Depends on how loud they are and how many precious birds they
kill. Although if they kill Canadien geese, I am all for them!!
>
>
>
> > These are also products with a limited lifespan. Computer and car
> companies
> > could not sell millions and millions of units per year if their products
> > lasted 30+ years. Power plants have to do that.
>
> Yes, that is my point. That is why it will take at least 30 years for wind
> to replace other generators. That is why wind cannot replace all
generation
> next year. (Plus the fact that the equipment could not be manufactured
that
> quickly, obviously! Realistically, it would replace ~90% in 30 years, and
> the remaining 10% in 50 to 100 years. That is the pattern for things like
> steam engines replacing sail, hybrid locomotives replacing steam
> locomotives, and other big, expensive, live-lived equipment.
>
wind farm still take space. space is a commodity. most plants take up far
less space than a wind farm.
>
>
> > > We do not mind doing that. At present, we generate fission power far
> from
> > > where it is used, and we transport coal and oil halfway across the
world
> > in
> > > some cases in order to generate electricity from it.
> >
> > we don't generate fission power all that far from where it is consumed.
> And
> > we transport the coal and oil so that we CAN generate power close to
where
> > it is consumed.
>
> As I recall about a third of the U.S. population can generate wind power
> close by. Very close, in some cases. For the rest, moving hydrogen around
> should not be more expensive than moving coal and natural gas.
>
possibly.
>
> > > The North Sea is close to most population centers. Ireland is building
> 520
> > > MW of offshore wind power, which will supply 10% of its power in a few
> > > years.
> >
> > good for Ireland. But they are not talking about running power lines
all
> > the way across Europe to power Germany.
>
> German is well positioned to generate power from wind. It is the world's
> largest producer, and it produces 3.5% of its present consumption from
wind.
> It plans to replace all nuclear power with wind soon. See:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1765054.stm
>
good for them. Let the Germans go first. If it works we can follow suit.
>
> > > In places far from windy locations, hydrogen transport or high
> > > temperature superconducting cables may be feasible.
> >
> > yes as soon as someone invents a high temperature superconducting
cable...
> > But don't hold your breath.
>
> Hydrogen pipelines have been use since the 1930s in Europe, for industrial
> apps (not fuel).
>
perhaps, but how long were they? miles, hundreds of miles? Hydrogen is
very dangerous.
Those are names not citations. Give me 2 papers to read. The best 2 you
have to offer.
>
> > I have not seriously read a cold fusion paper since I was forced to read
> the
> > Pons-Fleischmann paper in grad school . . .
>
> Several thousand have been published since then. You cannot judge the
issue
> based on the third paper on the subject published in 1989. (The first two
> were in 1927 as I recall.)
>
>
> > I have to back it up with evidence if I claim it is possible. But that
is
> > not my claim. I claim that based on the Physics with which I am
familiar,
> > it is not likely to be possible.
>
> Cold fusion is based on experiments, not theory.
you must have some theory, or how can you make any claims as to what is
happening?
> You cannot disprove it by
> citing a theory; you have to find errors in the experimental techniques.
I would have to read the papers to make that judgement.
> Most of the techniques were developed in the 19th century, and are very
well
> understood. The signal to noise ratio in the best experiments is very
high;
> sigma 70 to 100 in some cases.
>
so?
>
> > > If cold fusion can be made practical, it will be the be-all, end-all
> > source
> > > of energy for electricity, transportation, space heating, and all
other
> > > sectors.
> > >
> > Every power source has a downside. The trick is to find a balance.
>
> There have been long periods in human history when one technology
dominated,
> or was used exclusively. Wind power was the only form of ocean going
> transportation, for example. Railroads dominated long-distance
> transportation from 1850 to 1920. Coal was the dominant chemical fuel,
> displacing wood, until oil came along. Cold fusion works on a very small
> scale (suitable for batteries, pacemakers and the like), and there is no
> reason to think it cannot work on a large scale.
except that there is little reason to think that it works at all.
> It generates very low
> levels of heat sometimes, but in some cases it generates enough
concentrated
> heat to melt ceramic proton conductors.
seems as if you have no idea what is actually going on.
> These are big ifs, but *if* it can
> be made safe and controlled, and if it does not require significant
amounts
> of precious metals,
if... if i could slow an H bomb down a few orders of magnitude...
> I see no reason why it cannot meet the full range of
> energy demands, large and small scale.
I see no reason why it will work. hot fusion has a much greater chance of
becoming economically viable.
> Perhaps it will be used as precursor
> for things like hydrogen fuel in automotive or aerospace transportation.
In
> any case, it will be far cheaper than any alternative.
>
you assume.
Raz
Dieter Britz
> Xavier Llobet writes:
[...]
>>(instabilities appear above this value), and that Denmark is
>>downscaling the wind power plants construction plan.
>
>
> This is a political decision, made by right wing politicians opposed to
> environmentalism. It is similar the Bush administration opposition to
(Kind of you to correct his actual words; he wrote "Danemark"). I have
not responded, even though I live in DK, because I wanted to know more
before I did. But: things are even more complicated than this. Wind
power has always been a favourite with the environmentalists, and in
fact it was started here in DK by a very left-wing outfit, now very
much out of favour (Tvind, you might have heard of their boss, Amdi
Petersen, who was arrested in the US and eventually sent to DK). But
now, there are other people, environmentalists in their own way, who
oppose wind mills in their neighbourhood. And, there is money in them,
so there are investors trying to talk politicians into letting them
put up very tall windmills where they should by rights be banned (they
have succeeded). As usual, as soon as finance gets into the act, the
issues shift. Reminds me of Mark Twain's autobiography, in which he
reports that it was not the people actually digging out the silver
in Nevada who made a lot of money, but financiers and lurk artists,
as we say in Australia.
ANother factor that undoubtedly plays a part here is that now DK
has a lot of North Sea gas and oil, and thus less motivation to use
alternative sources. That will come.
> reformulated gasoline would be ~50% efficient. These and other technologies
> could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed worldwide
> they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda. They would reduce
You are dreaming. The US is not the only customer in the world, you
know. Nice thought, though.
--
Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db
Jed Rothwell
> Where's the water heater, Jeddikins?
All liquid cold fusion cells heat water.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> And even you must admit that these explosions were caused by the invention
> of a new technology.
Not very new, really. Automobiles had been around for 25 years when mass
production began in 1908. Microcomputers were similar mini and mainframes.
They were an incremental improvement, rather than radical. The hybrid diesel
railroad engines that pushed aside steam engines had been in development for
about 40 years.
> Wind is not a new technology, it has just been refined
> to the point where it may be economic.
But it is now undergoing rapid changes and improvements thanks to
breakthroughs in aerospace and computers.
> wind farm still take space. space is a commodity. most plants take up
far
> less space than a wind farm.
They do take up space, and this is a problem (except for offshore
installations). But they are quite as bad as you might think compared to
coal or fission. You have to factor in the space taken up mines, fuel
production facilities, railroads and so on.
> > Hydrogen pipelines have been use since the 1930s in Europe, for
industrial
> > apps (not fuel).
> >
> perhaps, but how long were they? miles, hundreds of miles? Hydrogen is
> very dangerous.
130 miles. (P. Hoffman, "Tomorrow's Energy," p. 205. I do not think hydrogen
is as dangerous as people think. Hoffman discusses this issue in detail.
That pipeline has not had a serious accident in 50 years of operation; NASA
has hauled tons of liquid H2 for years, over hundreds of miles. NASA and SRI
did a study of 96 serious barge and tanker-trailer accidents with H2, and
found it was as safe or safer than other fuels. (Hoffman, chapter 11)
> > Here are four: Melvin Miles (ret. China Lake), Edmund Storms (ret. Los
> > Alamos), Michael McKubre (SRI), Yasuhiro Iwamura (Mitsubishi Heavy
> > Industries).
> >
> Those are names not citations. Give me 2 papers to read. The best 2 you
> have to offer.
Two papers would not be enough. I suggest you read everything by those
authors in our library, and also the paper by Fritz Will. (I wish I had more
from Will.)
> > Cold fusion is based on experiments, not theory.
>
> you must have some theory, or how can you make any claims as to what is
> happening?
The theory we rely is conventional thermodynamics. We assume that
isoperibolic, flow, Seebeck and other calorimeter types work correctly. We
assume that x-ray detectors, mass spectometers and so on work correctly
according to theory and the manufacturer's specifications. Of course,
sometimes they do not, but the results have been so many times in many labs,
some have been cross-checked in blind tests at multiple labs, and many
different instrument types have been used, so instrument errors are ruled
out.
> > You cannot disprove it by
> > citing a theory; you have to find errors in the experimental techniques.
>
> I would have to read the papers to make that judgement.
Why? How can a nuclear theory prove that flow calorimeters do not work?
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> These "abrupt" removals are highly scheduled.
Not the scrams described at that Gov't website.
> > (Wind turbines are removed from service for maintenance one at a time.)
>
> do you think nuke plants are not?
Not when the reactor is refueled.
> > blows. Improved weather reporting will make wind even more predictable.
> >
> I don't think weather reporting will have anything to do with it ;)
PG&E and others with large wind installations say weather prediction makes a
great deal of difference.
> > It is certainly not as bad as the fluctuation from a nuclear power plant
> scrams,
> > which occur several times a month, I think. See:
> >
> >
>
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2001/index.
> > html
> >
> But do these plants run at full capacity?
I believe so. Nuclear plants are run at full capacity as much as possible.
The plants are extremely expensive and the fuel is cheap, so it makes
economic sense to run them as baseline generators, at full capacity. Other
generator types are phased in and out as needed.
> > As I said, hydrogen fuel would be used for this, in fuel cells or gas
> > turbines.
>
> How much of its power would the wind generator need to use to generate
> hydrogen? Is this even economically feasible?
It is not economical now, but if the present trends continue it may be in 20
years or so.
> > No, this would waste a considerable amount of energy in the conversion
> > process, so it would require much more equipment (turbines, electrolysis
> > cells, and so on).
>
> then how is it economical to use some of the wind power to generate
hydrogen
> for 'storage'?
When the wind blows at night or at other times with low demand, the wind
generator would put aside ~40% of the energy, to be used when demand peaks,
rather than wasting 100% of it. That is different from putting aside *all*
of the energy as hydrogen, and using it elsewhere.
> > in 1990. Most are still ~40%, but some exotic fuel cells and gas
turbines
> > reach 50 ~ 60% by now. Anyway, overall storage & recovery comes to ~39%
> best
> > case.
> >
> which leads me to believe that using some of your wind power to generate
> hydrogen for use during a wind outage, or even during peaking, is probably
> not feasible right now. Seems you would have to build your wind farm well
> over peak demand.
If it is over peak demand, then obviously it makes economic sense to
generate and store hydrogen for use elsewhere (in space heating, for
example). The electrolysis and storage costs are moderate. In any case, at
present there is a great deal of other generating capacity, which will not
wear out for 20 or 30 years. There is no need to start off with a wind
generating system that would work well on a stand alone basis. You can build
that up over time, as new technology evolves.
> > Yes, hydrogen is a good choice. You can store large amount locally where
> the
> > turbines are located for a modest cost,
>
> how long can you store it? Hydrogen tends to escape.
This is not a problem, according to NASA and others with extensive
experience handling hydrogen. It used to be a problem. Embrittlement is
still an issue with steel containers. (Hoffman, chapter 9)
> > or ship it across the country more efficiently than other gas or liquid
> fuel,
>
> how so?
The caloric content is high. I mean the ratio of mass to energy. You move
fewer tons compared to other gas, liquid or solid fuels. Also, pipelines are
more compact and energy efficient than railroad trains (used for coal and
uranium ore).
> > They have not been motivated by leadership. Japanese consumers often
> respond to patriotic calls
> > for conservation.
> >
> Japan has a far different culture than we do.
It does not seem so different to me. The surface differences stand out when
you are new to the culture, but after you get used to it, similarities
dominate one's impressions. In any case, people are people, and human nature
is the same everywhere.
> They could be. But the government has no place in forcing a company to do
> so.
The government is giving lavish support to fossil fuels and nuclear power,
making fuel cheap, and distorting the market. If it will not stop
subsidizing inefficient, polluting energy production, then it should at
least devote some funding to research.
> now, the people do not want it. When the people do want it, the companies
> will produce it. it is a simple market fact.
The market is never simple, in my experience.
> because they are superior in many applications. you cannot compare the
> Japanese culture to American culture.
Sure you can!
> Americans are much much more
> individualist than the Japanese.
I do not think so. That is mainly a myth, or a fad. Americans acted (or
appeared to be) conformist in the 1950s, and then in the 1960s and 70s it
became fashionable for them to act more individualistic. I do not think they
actually changed much. Japanese culture does encourage conformism, and
people go through the motions of conforming, but it is often an act, and
Americans are often less iconoclastic than they think themselves to be.
> TMI is a joke. Talk about something that is grossly overplayed.
It was a financial disaster. It nearly bankrupted the company. No utility
will take the risk of another financial disaster on that scale.
> In some
> ways it is great that TMI is the poster-boy for US fission.
Not in my opinion. I wrote a fairly long article about in Infinite Energy
magazine, issue 40, p. 42.
> > Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much
higher
> > rate than adults do.
>
> Where?
In two-thirds of the world.
> >What do you make of Cheney's statement?
> >
> Cheney was exactly right. you cannot base an energy policy on
conservation.
Over the last 200 years, the energy efficiency of every industry and mode of
transport has increased dramatically. In the last 20 years these trends have
accelerated in most industries, and the productivity in real dollars per
joule of energy has increased. The U.S. produces far more dollars pre joule
than China, and Italy and Japan produce twice as much per joule as the U.S.:
Russia 72,133 Btu per dollar of GDP
China 34,514 Btu/$
U.S. 12,638 Btu/$
U.K. 8,365 Btu/$
Italy 6,700 Btu/$
Japan 6,523 Btu/$
Per capita consumption of energy in the U.S. has hardly increased in the
last 50 years, despite a fantastic increase in consumption. (From 229 to 350
million Btu per annum - http://www.eia.doe.gov/)
Conservation and efficiency have always been the key to productivity and
improved quality of life. No improvements have more dramatic or have had
more impact on people's lives than the improvements in energy efficiency.
Energy policy has always been based on conservation, and it has worked
splendidly. Since we are still far from the thermodynamic limits for most
industrial processes, we can anticipate even more improvements.
Of course, if cold fusion can be commercialized, conservation will suddenly
become irrelevant.
> Production and capacity are paramount.
If that were so, we would consume 10 to 50 times more energy than we did 50
years ago.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> (Kind of you to correct his actual words; he wrote "Danemark").
I make many spelling, typing and voice input errors myself, so I try to
correct obvious typos as a courtesy to others.
I have
> not responded, even though I live in DK, because I wanted to know more
> before I did. But: things are even more complicated than this.
Yes, it is complicated and nuanced. I should not try to summarize the
situation in a paragraph, but one cannot write a thesis every time.
> But
> now, there are other people, environmentalists in their own way, who
> oppose wind mills in their neighbourhood.
This is an important issue. But I think the wave of the future in wind power
will be offshore development. It is actually cheaper in the long run than
land systems. Wind towers are unsightly to some people, but this is less of
an issue at sea. Of course there are environmental concerns offshore too.
> > reformulated gasoline would be ~50% efficient. These and other
technologies
> > could easily reduce U.S. oil consumption below imports. Employed
worldwide
> > they would soon bankrupt Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda. They would
reduce
>
> You are dreaming. The US is not the only customer in the world, you
> know. Nice thought, though.
I said "employed worldwide" these technologies would bankrupt the dictators.
However, it would require a coordinated political act of will. I should have
said: "If the consuming nations wish to, they could bankrupt Saddam Hussein
and the Al-Qaeda." Most oil is used in transportation. If we improve
automotive efficiency from 20% to 40%, and if all major nations then agree
to boycott Iraq (or some other major producer), they could buy exclusively
from Russia, Venezuela, Mexico and other politically neutral countries, and
starve out Hussein.
- Jed
Peter Hanely
> "Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@infinite-energy.com> wrote in message
> news:3ded0...@nopics.sjc...
>
>>The world needs hot fusion like it needs a hole in the head. Hot fusion
>>would produce more radioactive garbage and more risk than advanced fission
>>reactors. See: R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
>>Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Los Alamos
>>National Laboratory, LA-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993.
>>
>>We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the rate
>>wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
>>world in 30 years.
>
>
> that is an absurd statement.
Fusion reactors would produce some radioactive waste from neutron
bombardment of the liner, but far less than a fission reactor.
>
>
>>Other renewable sources are abundant.
>
>
> another absurd statement.
>
>
>>In any case, if
>>cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been, it
>
> will
>
>>soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any other
>>souce of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
>>
>
> yet more absurd statements
>
> Raz
>
>
In principle, alternitive energy (solar, wind, ...) has an immense
amount of power to offer. Far more than mankind has any real use for.
In practice, this energy is diffuse and somewhat expensive to collect.
Raziel
process is a chemical process not a nuclear one though.
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > These "abrupt" removals are highly scheduled.
>
> Not the scrams described at that Gov't website.
>
maintenance, etc. Those are highly scheduled operations.
>
> > > (Wind turbines are removed from service for maintenance one at a
time.)
> >
> > do you think nuke plants are not?
>
> Not when the reactor is refueled.
>
when Diablo is refueling, that it produces zero energy?
>
> > > blows. Improved weather reporting will make wind even more
predictable.
> > >
> > I don't think weather reporting will have anything to do with it ;)
>
> PG&E and others with large wind installations say weather prediction makes
a
> great deal of difference.
>
>
> > > It is certainly not as bad as the fluctuation from a nuclear power
plant
> > scrams,
> > > which occur several times a month, I think. See:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2001/index.
> > > html
> > >
> > But do these plants run at full capacity?
>
> I believe so. Nuclear plants are run at full capacity as much as possible.
> The plants are extremely expensive and the fuel is cheap, so it makes
> economic sense to run them as baseline generators, at full capacity. Other
> generator types are phased in and out as needed.
>
>
> > > As I said, hydrogen fuel would be used for this, in fuel cells or gas
> > > turbines.
> >
> > How much of its power would the wind generator need to use to generate
> > hydrogen? Is this even economically feasible?
>
> It is not economical now, but if the present trends continue it may be in
20
> years or so.
>
capacity to pump water up a hill to run through a hydro generator during
peak times or when it is down or whatever, that process has a % efficiency
(somewhere nearing ~80% I have heard). What is the efficiency of taking
excess energy, making hydrogen, then burning that hydrogen? you quote 39%
below, I believe. If so, that would not be feasable, as you would be
wasting 61% of your unused capacity.
>
> > > No, this would waste a considerable amount of energy in the conversion
> > > process, so it would require much more equipment (turbines,
electrolysis
> > > cells, and so on).
> >
> > then how is it economical to use some of the wind power to generate
> hydrogen
> > for 'storage'?
>
> When the wind blows at night or at other times with low demand, the wind
> generator would put aside ~40% of the energy, to be used when demand
peaks,
how? hydrogen? if hydrogen is only 39% efficient, that is a large waste of
excess capacity.
> rather than wasting 100% of it. That is different from putting aside *all*
> of the energy as hydrogen, and using it elsewhere.
>
It is. But hydrogen is still very wasteful compared to hydro.
indeed it is.
>
> > > or ship it across the country more efficiently than other gas or
liquid
> > fuel,
> >
> > how so?
>
> The caloric content is high. I mean the ratio of mass to energy. You move
> fewer tons compared to other gas, liquid or solid fuels. Also, pipelines
are
> more compact and energy efficient than railroad trains (used for coal and
> uranium ore).
>
>
> > > They have not been motivated by leadership. Japanese consumers often
> > respond to patriotic calls
> > > for conservation.
> > >
> > Japan has a far different culture than we do.
>
> It does not seem so different to me. The surface differences stand out
when
> you are new to the culture, but after you get used to it, similarities
> dominate one's impressions. In any case, people are people, and human
nature
> is the same everywhere.
>
The Japanese are much less individualistic as a culture.
>
> > They could be. But the government has no place in forcing a company to
do
> > so.
>
> The government is giving lavish support to fossil fuels and nuclear power,
> making fuel cheap, and distorting the market. If it will not stop
> subsidizing inefficient, polluting energy production, then it should at
> least devote some funding to research.
>
> > now, the people do not want it. When the people do want it, the
companies
> > will produce it. it is a simple market fact.
>
> The market is never simple, in my experience.
>
>
> > because they are superior in many applications. you cannot compare the
> > Japanese culture to American culture.
>
> Sure you can!
nice selective snip.
>
>
> > Americans are much much more
> > individualist than the Japanese.
>
> I do not think so. That is mainly a myth, or a fad. Americans acted (or
> appeared to be) conformist in the 1950s, and then in the 1960s and 70s it
> became fashionable for them to act more individualistic. I do not think
they
> actually changed much. Japanese culture does encourage conformism, and
> people go through the motions of conforming, but it is often an act, and
> Americans are often less iconoclastic than they think themselves to be.
>
>
> > TMI is a joke. Talk about something that is grossly overplayed.
>
> It was a financial disaster. It nearly bankrupted the company. No utility
> will take the risk of another financial disaster on that scale.
>
It was. And the reason it was is because of hysteria caused by an ignorant
media preaching to an ignorant public. One cannot insure against ignorance
of the public, nor can one insure against ignorance and bad reporting from
the media. Fission still suffers from an ignorant public and ignorant media
making the public hysteric.
>
> > In some
> > ways it is great that TMI is the poster-boy for US fission.
>
> Not in my opinion. I wrote a fairly long article about in Infinite Energy
> magazine, issue 40, p. 42.
>
If TMI is the worst nulcear disaster in US history, we are doing pretty damn
good.
>
> > > Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much
> higher
> > > rate than adults do.
> >
> > Where?
>
> In two-thirds of the world.
>
perhaps these parts of the world are overpopulated?
>
> > >What do you make of Cheney's statement?
> > >
> > Cheney was exactly right. you cannot base an energy policy on
> conservation.
>
> Over the last 200 years, the energy efficiency of every industry and mode
of
> transport has increased dramatically. In the last 20 years these trends
have
> accelerated in most industries, and the productivity in real dollars per
> joule of energy has increased. The U.S. produces far more dollars pre
joule
> than China, and Italy and Japan produce twice as much per joule as the
U.S.:
>
> Russia 72,133 Btu per dollar of GDP
> China 34,514 Btu/$
> U.S. 12,638 Btu/$
> U.K. 8,365 Btu/$
> Italy 6,700 Btu/$
> Japan 6,523 Btu/$
>
> Per capita consumption of energy in the U.S. has hardly increased in the
> last 50 years, despite a fantastic increase in consumption. (From 229 to
350
> million Btu per annum - http://www.eia.doe.gov/)
>
> Conservation and efficiency have always been the key to productivity and
> improved quality of life.
that is a nonsensical statement. Conservation has nothing to do with it.
Efficiency and productivity improve quality of life.
> No improvements have more dramatic or have had
> more impact on people's lives than the improvements in energy efficiency.
maybe.
> Energy policy has always been based on conservation, and it has worked
> splendidly.
no, it has not been based on conservation. Conservation has been a part of
energy policy.
> Since we are still far from the thermodynamic limits for most
> industrial processes, we can anticipate even more improvements.
>
> Of course, if cold fusion can be commercialized, conservation will
suddenly
> become irrelevant.
>
>
> > Production and capacity are paramount.
>
> If that were so, we would consume 10 to 50 times more energy than we did
50
> years ago.
>
no. because we do increase efficiency, and we do conserve. But
conservation is not the basis of policy. Conservation and efficiency allow
you to get more blood out of the turnip so to speak. conservation can only
go so far, there is a minimum amount of energy people need, and when
production and capacity fall below this minimum they must be increased,
further conservation cannot help. It is very simple. If you have a cup of
water, you can drink it in one gulp, or you can sip it. Either way,
eventually it is empty, and you will need to fill the cup.
Raz
Bill Snyder
So does my coffeepot, but I don't tout it as a new energy source.
Jed Rothwell
> > > > You cannot disprove it by
> > > > citing a theory; you have to find errors in the experimental
> techniques.
> > >
> > > I would have to read the papers to make that judgement.
> >
> > Why? How can a nuclear theory prove that flow calorimeters do not work?
> >
> It has nothing whatever to do with that. A nuclear theory can prove that
a
> process is a chemical process not a nuclear one though.
I do not see what you mean. Take a cell that produces x-rays and thousands
of times more heat than an equivalent mass of the best chemical fuel. After
the reaction stops, you find no trace of chemical ash in it, whereas you do
find tritium and new elements with isotopic ratios far different from those
seen in nature. You are looking at experimental proof that a nuclear
reaction occurred. That is what cold fusion experiments reveal. Theory plays
no role in this judgment. No theory can "prove" this process is chemical.
The question is, can a theory explain this cold fusion reaction? I do not
know enough about theory to judge this issue. Some experts say theory can
explain it, other say it cannot. Here is one thing I am sure of though: if a
theory predicts this reaction cannot occur, that theory must be wrong. When
theory conflicts with high-sigma, widely replicated experiments, theory
always loses, experiments always win. That is the bedrock basis of the
scientific method. If you start picking and choosing data based on your
theory, and throwing away established facts because you cannot image how to
explain them, or you invent wild, ad hoc, handwaving "explanations" to
dismiss hundreds of experiments, you invite chaos. You are practicing a form
of voodoo religion, not science.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> >All liquid cold fusion cells heat water.
>
> So does my coffeepot, but I don't tout it as a new energy source.
If your coffee pot starts outputing 101 watts more than you input, and the
excess heat continues until it adds up to 294 MJ, then you should tout it as
a new energy source. That much energy coming from a device the size of a
coffee pot cannot be caused by a chemical reaction. That is what the
coffee-pot sized reflux boiler at IMRA did. See Roulette, Roulette and Pons.
- Jed
Bill Snyder
Then where's the water heater?
Tom Kunich
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the
> rate
> > > wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
> > > world in 30 years.
> >
> > that is an absurd statement.
>
> will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate).
CONTINUOUS!
> Wind is now increasing at the rate of
> ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
PEAK SUPPLY! Don't you understand the difference? A simple drive
through the Altamont Pass area of the San Francisco Bay area will
demonstrate that:
1) Altamont Pass is one of the highest average wind areas in the US
and certainly on the Pacific coast. Yet these windmills are idle over
90% of the time.
2) The environmental problems are plain by a walk among the windmills.
Dead bird, particularly raptors abound. There seems to be no way of
getting these birds to recognize the danger.
3) The downwind noise polution is so strong that the residents of
Tracy which is 20 miles away complain. In this same vein, the visual
polution is staggering. The hill after hill after hill after hill
after hill lines and lines of windmills has changed some beautiful
terrain into some of the ugliest.
4) The cost of electricity generated by normal means is so low that
windmills are entirely cost prohibitive. They cannot successfully
compete with any other source of power save direct solar conversion
without massive government infusions of capital. They would have never
been installed in the first place without the 80's activists getting
immense tax benefits to companies that financed these boondoggles.
I'm sure that there are some areas of the globe in which windpower
makes economic sense. Used in the middle of the Sahel I'm sure that
they would be superior to other power generation forms. But your
suggestions that wind power is going to replace normal generation is
comical.
Jed Rothwell
> > Not the scrams described at that Gov't website.
> >
> you weren't talking about those. you were talking about refueling,
> maintenance, etc. Those are highly scheduled operations.
I mentioned both types of events. My point is that when a reactor is
scramed, it does shut down completely, depriving the network of much more
power than a typical unscheduled problem at a wind farm.
In a sense, the drop-offs in wind power are now "scheduled" too. They are
scheduled by mother nature. With better weather prediction, we know days in
advance that the wind will drop off and alternative sources should be made
ready. In other words, for example, we know that next week there will a lot
of extra wind, so it would be a good time to schedule maintenance on the
nuclear reactor. Seasonal variations are also predictable in many areas. It
is not so different from knowing that a reactor core is scheduled to be
refueled.
> > It is not economical now, but if the present trends continue it may be
in
> 20
> > years or so.
> >
> That wasn't the question. If you have a facility that uses its extra
> capacity to pump water up a hill to run through a hydro generator during
> peak times or when it is down or whatever, that process has a % efficiency
> (somewhere nearing ~80% I have heard).
Yes, that is the best method. If a wind farm is located near hills or
mountains suitable for this kind of storage, that would be the preferred
method. For locations far away from hills, too much power would be lost in
transmission to the hydro generator, and the extra power lines might be too
expensive, so hydrogen storage may be more cost-effective. Hydrogen storage
can be very cheap -- or even free, with naturally occurring storage, such as
depleted gas fields. An aquifer 20 miles west of Paris stores 7 billion
cubic feet of "hydrogen-rich town gas." (Hoffman, p. 200)
> What is the efficiency of taking
> excess energy, making hydrogen, then burning that hydrogen? you quote 39%
> below, I believe.
That's a rough approximation, based on a 1990 PG&E study, updated with
recent claims about fuel cells.
> If so, that would not be feasible, as you would be
> wasting 61% of your unused capacity.
It would only be useful for temporary local storage, for a few hours per day
on average. Expensive, inefficient diesel generators are used for this
purpose now. They are roughly 30% efficient.
> > When the wind blows at night or at other times with low demand, the wind
> > generator would put aside ~40% of the energy, to be used when demand
> peaks,
>
> how? hydrogen? if hydrogen is only 39% efficient, that is a large waste
of
> excess capacity.
It may be better than conventional dispatchable peak generating systems, as
I said, although it is difficult to compare them.
> The Japanese are much less individualistic as a culture.
That has not been my observation.
> > It was a financial disaster. It nearly bankrupted the company. No
utility
> > will take the risk of another financial disaster on that scale.
> >
> It was. And the reason it was is because of hysteria caused by an
ignorant
> media preaching to an ignorant public.
The clean up costs nearly bankrupted the company, not the hysteria.
> > > > Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much
> > higher
> > > > rate than adults do.
> > >
> > > Where?
> >
> > In two-thirds of the world.
> >
> perhaps these parts of the world are overpopulated?
Some are, but many are not. Some live in harsh dictatorships, such as North
Korea. Whether the cause is political, economic or social, the proximate
cause of death is often lack of energy, and the victims are mainly children.
We can ameliorate the problem even if we do not find a way to rid the world
of dictators. The toll from starvation, filthly water and easily prevented
infectious disease is roughly 50,000 people per week. Inexpensive, pollution
free energy would save millions of lives.
> > Conservation and efficiency have always been the key to productivity and
> > improved quality of life.
>
> that is a nonsensical statement. Conservation has nothing to do with it.
> Efficiency and productivity improve quality of life.
There is no practical difference between conservation and efficiency. The
two mean the same thing in most contexts: Reduced waste. Not using resources
unnecessarily.
> > > Production and capacity are paramount.
> >
> > If that were so, we would consume 10 to 50 times more energy than we did
> 50
> > years ago.
> >
> no. because we do increase efficiency, and we do conserve. But
> conservation is not the basis of policy.
It IS the basis of policy in every industry on earth! Obviously! Why do you
think steel makers, computer chip manufactures and everyone else now uses a
fraction of the energy they did a generation ago? It is not the basis of the
Clinton or Bush administration policy, but it should be. It is far cheaper
than finding new resources.
> Conservation and efficiency allow
> you to get more blood out of the turnip so to speak. conservation can
only
> go so far, there is a minimum amount of energy people need . . .
Of course. There are thermodynamic limits and practical limits. We could
reduce consumption by a factor of 3 to 5 in most industries within these
limits. There are also innovations that do an end run around this limits, by
rewriting the rules. For example, the energy used to mill and polish a
manufactured item may be reduced by improving the engine in the grinding
machine, but you might instead rewrite the rules, and eliminate this energy
use completely, with a new manufacturing technique that produces a part
exactly to specification, with no milling or polishing. Automobile
efficiency might be increased from 20% to 40% or 60%. Or we might rewrite
the rules with improved Internet video telepresence and satellite offices.
Most people might then prefer to walk a few blocks to work. This would save
thousands of times more energy than the best automobile technology. It would
also eliminate time wasted commuting, perhaps millions of man years per
year, and solve the traffic problem.
In any case, energy is the most abundant resource in the solar system. There
is no way we can ever begin to run out. However, as Arthur C. Clarke wrote
in "Profiles of the Future:" "If, as is perfectly pos貞ible, we are short of
energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We
will be like Stone age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed."
- Jed
Tom Kunich
> (Wind turbines are removed from service for maintenance one at a time.) Wind
> is much more constant than solar, because the wind blows at night as well as
> day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not distributed evenly
> around the globe.
The Morgan Company (I believe) built the first modern windmill just
prior to WW II. They operated it though the war and, I think, until
1949 gathering data and comparing power production prices.
They showed wind power to be so lucrative that they shut down the
windmill and released ALL of their patents into the public domain.
That ought to give you some sort of idea of what they found.
I have been told by the maintenance workers at Windpower that as much
as 25% of the windmills are broken down at any one time. Certainly
they don't produce measureable power for 90% of the time.
Tom Kunich
> > well as day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not
> > distributed evenly around the globe.
>
> in this respect wind has an advantage over solar.
Wrong, significant solar radiation falls on most areas for most of the
year. Wind is usually only during certain seasons. Moreover, the more
sun the better. But windmills require wind in the speed area of
between 14 and 20 mph. Below that and there is insufficient power.
Above that and the windmill must be shut down to prevent overspeeding
and destruction. On the biggest windmills the blades are approaching
the speed of sound near the tips at full output and you do not want
one of these to come apart and throw a 120 foot blade.
> Cheney was exactly right. you cannot base an energy policy on conservation.
> Production and capacity are paramount. Conservation can lower the amount of
> production and capacity you need, but since in many cases we are already
> running at or near capacity, we need to add production and capacity.
> Typically you do not want to run more than 60% or so capacity, and you
> definitly do not want peak demand to exceed capacity. If those things
> happen conservation can only get you so far before you need to add capacity.
> The US, despite conservation efforts, is woefully lacking in both production
> and capacity.
There is a problem of demand always meeting supply. Why should an
industrial building install expensive insulation or expensive
temperature control designs when heating and cooling is cheap?
We are using far too much energy per capita and that will have to
change because energy doesn't grow on trees (.......).
Jed Rothwell
> > > Wind is much more constant than solar, because the wind blows at night
as
> > > well as day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not
> > > distributed evenly around the globe.
> >
> > in this respect wind has an advantage over solar.
>
> Wrong, significant solar radiation falls on most areas for most of the
> year.
Right, yes. That's the problem. Solar energy and total wind energy are equal
(because solar energy converts to wind), but the wind is concentrated in a
few places, so in windy places power density is higher than solar. (And in
other places it is much lower.) It resembles falling rain versus rivers.
Rain falls nearly everywhere in small amounts. A turbine that collects
rainwater as it falls in a small area would not produce useful levels of
power. But when rain is concentrated in a river, it *can* power a turbine.
Wind is concentrated in rivers of air. See:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/
> Wind is usually only during certain seasons.
In optimum sites it is fairly strong year round, and predictable.
Fortunately, it is often strongest when it is most needed.
> There is a problem of demand always meeting supply. Why should an
> industrial building install expensive insulation or expensive
> temperature control designs when heating and cooling is cheap?
Heating and cooling is only cheap because the government is subsidizing
fossil fuels, and encouraging waste. The biggest subsidy is the upcoming
$200 billion Gulf War Round II.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> I have been told by the maintenance workers at Windpower that as much
> as 25% of the windmills are broken down at any one time.
Perhaps you should research more formal, authoritative sources, rather than
taking their word for it. Statistics published by SRI, NREL the AWEA and
other sources show that wind installations are more reliable than fission,
coal and other conventional alternatives. That is, they require fewer
man-hours of maintenance per megawatt hour of production. This stands to
reason; they operate at more moderate speeds and temperatures. See, for
example:
http://www.awea.org/faq/reliab.html
"Modern wind turbines can be extremely reliable, with the percentage of time
that many systems are available to produce power (often called
"availability") often being 99% and more."
> Certainly
> they don't produce measureable power for 90% of the time.
They produce power 30 to 60% of the time. No one would install a megawatt
wind turbine in a location that with less wind than that. Overall average
production is 23% of nameplate power in Germany, 26% in Denmark, and 34% in
Wales. Nameplate capacity for the average U.S. nuclear plant is 1,013 MW,
and actual output is quoted ranging from 88% to 94%, or roughly 920 MW.
Source: Danish Wind Industry Association, http://www.windpower.dk/core.htm,
Existing Capacity and Planned Capacity Additions at U.S. Electric Utilities
by Energy Source, 1999, Energy Information Administration, DoE
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > In 30 years world electricity requirements
> > will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate).
>
> CONTINUOUS!
No, nameplate. Not continuous, and not peak either. There is never a time
when every generator in the world is running at the full rated "nameplate"
capacity. At night demand is a fraction of the daylight peak. Generators
seldom run at 100% of nameplate capacity even during peak periods.
> > Wind is now increasing at the rate of
> > ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate).
>
> PEAK SUPPLY! Don't you understand the difference?
Yes, I do. You apparently do not understand the term "nameplate."
Actually, as it happens, I massaged that 3.5 million MW projection slightly
up to adjust for the difference between typical nameplate and actual
performance with wind versus conventional generators. I came up with the 30
year projection in a spreadsheet as follows:
I assume wind power growth will slow down to 25% on average, not the actual
growth of 28% for the last 10 years, and nothing like the explosive growth
of railroads, automobiles, televisions, and computers in their early stages.
I converted wind (nameplate) into wind (actual - 28% of nameplate), and I
converted world projected (nameplate) into world projected (actual - 60% of
nameplate). The spreadsheet showed wind crossing the 100% line sometime
between 2028 and 2036, depending on a few assumptions. That's simplistic,
but it is better than guessing.
> A simple drive
> through the Altamont Pass area of the San Francisco Bay area will
> demonstrate that:
>
> 1) Altamont Pass is one of the highest average wind areas in the US
> and certainly on the Pacific coast. Yet these windmills are idle over
> 90% of the time.
That is nonsense! No active wind farm in the world is idle that much. The
worst ones achieve 23% of nameplate performance, according the German and
U.S. DoEs. The average is 28%.
> 2) The environmental problems are plain by a walk among the windmills.
> Dead bird, particularly raptors abound. There seems to be no way of
> getting these birds to recognize the danger.
More nonsense. Coal generators, jet aircraft at airports, and glass faced
office buildings kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind generators.
Birds are evolved to avoid whacking into moving objects, such as tree
branches waving in the wind.
> 3) The downwind noise pollution is so strong that the residents of
> Tracy which is 20 miles away complain.
It would have be as noisy as a battlefield! In any case, modern wind
turbines are far quieter than the ones at Altamont. See:
http://www.windpower.dk/faqs.htm
"Large, modern wind turbines have become very quiet. At distances above 200
metres, the swishing sound of rotor blades is usually masked completely by
wind noise in the leaves of trees or shrubs. . . .
Mechanical noise has virtually disappeared from modern wind turbines. This
is due to better engineering with more concern about avoiding vibrations.
Other technical improvements include elastically dampened fastenings and
couplings of the major components in the nacelle, and to a certain extent
sound insulation. Finally, the basic components themselves, including
gearboxes, have developed considerably over the years. . . ."
Kunich's message reads exactly like the anti-wind propaganda published by
oil and coal lobbyists.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> >> So does my coffeepot, but I don't tout it as a new energy source.
> >
> >If your coffee pot starts outputing 101 watts more than you input, and
the
> >excess heat continues until it adds up to 294 MJ, then you should tout it
as
> >a new energy source. That much energy coming from a device the size of a
> >coffee pot cannot be caused by a chemical reaction. That is what the
> >coffee-pot sized reflux boiler at IMRA did. See Roulette, Roulette and
Pons.
>
> Then where's the water heater?
Do you speak language? I said: See Roulette, Roulette and Pons.
- Jed
Bill Snyder
Will they sell me a water heater, with a guarantee, if I do? Or is
this just the same old Rothwell BS? (Never mind, rhetorical
question.)
Jed Rothwell
> >Do you speak language? I said: See Roulette, Roulette and Pons.
>
> Will they sell me a water heater, with a guarantee, if I do? Or is
> this just the same old Rothwell BS? (Never mind, rhetorical
> question.)
No, this is the same old Bill Snyder BS. You cannot buy a tokamak reactor or
a cloned sheep, but you would never claim these objects do not exist because
they are not for sale. You would not denounce Taleyarkhan because Oak Ridge
does not sell copies of his experiment. (Actually, YOU might denounce him
for that reason, but normal people would not.) Brookhaven Lab will not sell
you one of their microfabricated machines, but I suppose you still grant the
machines exist. There is a long list of scientific experimental objects that
everyone agrees do exist, which are not for sale for various reasons.
Examples include thermonuclear bombs, supercomputers, the Space Shuttle, and
the Mars explorer. Cold fusion devices cost the developers tens of thousands
of dollars and years of difficult labor. They are not for sale, but you can
look at pictures of them on LENR-CANR.org if you would like, in the section
titled "A Look At Experiments." Please note of the equipment shown there
costs $40,000 to $200,000, and you usually cannot observe the cold fusion
effect without it.
You apply this absurd "can't buy it" standard to deny cold fusion, and to
cold fusion alone. You would never apply it to any other discovery, because
even your fellow skeptics would say you are crazy.
- Jed
Bill Snyder
Nope. I apply this "can't buy it, 'cause it doesn't exist" standard
to many other quackeries: astrology, spiritualism, scientology,
dowsing, Flat Earth, Face on Mars, alien abductions, crop circles, the
Living Elvis . . .
Gordon D. Pusch
> Tom Kunich writes:
>
>>>> Wind is much more constant than solar, because the wind blows at night
>>>> as
>>>> well as day, in all seasons of the year, and because wind is not
>>>> distributed evenly around the globe.
>>>
>>> in this respect wind has an advantage over solar.
>>
>> Wrong, significant solar radiation falls on most areas for most of the
>> year.
>
> Right, yes. That's the problem. Solar energy and total wind energy are
> equal (because solar energy converts to wind),
Sorry, wrong. The atmosphere is a heat-engine of _ABYSMALLY_ low
efficiency. Only a small fraction of the solar energy that falls
on the Earth is converted into wind energy; the overhelming majority
is simply reflected or re-radiated back into space --- as should be
blindinly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> but the wind is concentrated in a few places, so in windy places power
> density is higher than solar.
Antarctica at night during the winter, for example...
> (And in other places it is much lower.)
This case is the _NORM_, not the exception.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > > > Children below age 5 die from dirty water and lack of heat at much
> > > higher
> > > > > rate than adults do.
> > > >
> > > > Where?
> > >
> > > In two-thirds of the world.
> > >
> > perhaps these parts of the world are overpopulated?
>
> Some are, but many are not. Some live in harsh dictatorships, such as
North
> Korea. Whether the cause is political, economic or social, the proximate
> cause of death is often lack of energy, and the victims are mainly
children.
Lack of energy has little to do with these sorts of things. Humans got
along quite fine before electricity was in wide use.
> We can ameliorate the problem even if we do not find a way to rid the
world
> of dictators. The toll from starvation, filthly water and easily prevented
> infectious disease is roughly 50,000 people per week. Inexpensive,
pollution
> free energy would save millions of lives.
>
At what cost? What is the cost to the ecosystem of human overpopulation?
What good would it really do to help people if you give a dictator cheap
energy? answer: none. It would only make the dictator stronger, and
possibly the situation worse for the people. Starvation and disease are
naturally occuring phenomena designed by Mother Nature to limit populations.
Humans are no different, just in some cases we adapt quicker.
You are confusing Government energy policy with industrial energy policy.
Government policy should be based on insuring that energy demands are met.
Industry policy will be based on the bottom line. Don't confuse the two,
they are different, apples and oranges.
>
> > Conservation and efficiency allow
> > you to get more blood out of the turnip so to speak. conservation can
> only
> > go so far, there is a minimum amount of energy people need . . .
>
> Of course. There are thermodynamic limits and practical limits. We could
> reduce consumption by a factor of 3 to 5 in most industries within these
> limits. There are also innovations that do an end run around this limits,
by
> rewriting the rules. For example, the energy used to mill and polish a
> manufactured item may be reduced by improving the engine in the grinding
> machine, but you might instead rewrite the rules, and eliminate this
energy
> use completely, with a new manufacturing technique that produces a part
> exactly to specification, with no milling or polishing. Automobile
> efficiency might be increased from 20% to 40% or 60%. Or we might rewrite
> the rules with improved Internet video telepresence and satellite offices.
> Most people might then prefer to walk a few blocks to work. This would
save
> thousands of times more energy than the best automobile technology. It
would
> also eliminate time wasted commuting, perhaps millions of man years per
> year, and solve the traffic problem.
>
And all these are industry policies that are aimed at cost savings. They
have nothing to do with the production of energy.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > Right, yes. That's the problem. Solar energy and total wind energy are
> > equal (because solar energy converts to wind),
>
> Sorry, wrong. The atmosphere is a heat-engine of _ABYSMALLY_ low
> efficiency. Only a small fraction of the solar energy that falls
> on the Earth is converted into wind energy; the overhelming majority
> is simply reflected or re-radiated back into space . . .
I meant the solar energy actually captured on the ground, not that which is
re-radiated. (Obviously the amount captured varies from place to place - but
the total captured world-wide equals the total energy in wind.) This is not
my observation. It was made by Prof. K. S. Deffeyes:
"The power per square foot in the sunshine is essentially identical to the
power per square foot in the wind. At first, I thought that was just an
accident, but solar energy may crank up the wind velocity until the average
energy density in the wind equals the average solar energy density." -
"Hubbert's Peak," (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001) p. 183
The average power per square foot of wind is very low, but since wind is not
distributed evenly worldwide the local power can be quite high. In a
hurricane it can be high enough to blow down large buildings or capsize the
biggest ships. Solar energy never concentrates to that extent. That's a good
thing! It would cook everyone and ignite gigantic fires.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > Some are, but many are not. Some live in harsh dictatorships, such as
> North
> > Korea. Whether the cause is political, economic or social, the proximate
> > cause of death is often lack of energy, and the victims are mainly
> children.
>
> Lack of energy has little to do with these sorts of things. Humans got
> along quite fine before electricity was in wide use.
Actually, humans did not get alone fine. They died in horrendous numbers
from easily prevented diseases. The people dying today do not need
electricity: they could use fuel for fire (kerosene or firewood). They need
fuel to boil water for tea, baby formula, and to cook food. Electricity
could substitute, but it is not necessary. (Electricity for lighting would
save huge amounts of fuel, but that is another story.) People lack fuel
because they live in urban areas where firewood is not available. Poor
people in rural areas who depend on firewood have severely deforested large
areas.
> > We can ameliorate the problem even if we do not find a way to rid the
> world
> > of dictators. The toll from starvation, filthly water and easily
prevented
> > infectious disease is roughly 50,000 people per week. Inexpensive,
> pollution
> > free energy would save millions of lives.
> >
> At what cost? What is the cost to the ecosystem of human overpopulation?
I believe you have that backward. If we could save 50,000 children a week
from untimely death by infectious disease, that would not increase the
population. It did in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but nowadays, with
widespread access to contraception, improved education of women, and old age
pensions, the opposite effect occurs. People have many children today
because children often die unexpectedly. In the third world, children are
the only reliable form of Social Security insurance. When all of the
children die, parents starve in their old age. So they have several children
to ensure that at least one will survive. However, when parents can be
reasonably sure that children will survive, and when they have some hope of
income even without surviving children, they tend to have 2 or 3 children
instead.
The dynamics that drive Malthusian population explosions, and natural
populations of wild animals, no longer apply to human society. The best way
to prevent a population explosion now is to *lower* infant mortality.
Fortunately, that is also the moral thing to do, and it saves a bunch of
money.
> What good would it really do to help people if you give a dictator cheap
> energy? answer: none. It would only make the dictator stronger, and
> possibly the situation worse for the people.
That has not been the case with other enabling technologies, in information,
communication and transportation. The Chinese dictatorship fears fax
machines, computers and automobiles for good reason. Giving people the means
to generate their own energy -- with cold fusion or small wind and water
turbines -- would weaken dictators. It would give people light to read
books, and the means to keep themselves healthy and independent of
authority. It would not ensure freedom, but it would help.
> Starvation and disease are
> naturally occurring phenomena designed by Mother Nature to limit
populations.
> Humans are no different, just in some cases we adapt quicker.
Humans are completely different now -- or they can be. The natural
Malthusian laws no longer apply to us, because we have invented
contraception and education, and we can eliminate most disease. In societies
where contraception is banned and it is crime to educate women, the iron
laws of Mother Nature come back into force, and people are once again no
better off than rabbits.
> And all these are industry policies that are aimed at cost savings. They
> have nothing to do with the production of energy.
Cost savings and energy conservation are two sides of the same coin. Energy
is a major cost factor in nearly every industry, so conserving it is always
a major goal. The continual increases in energy efficiency is one of the
largest contributing factors to economic growth.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> >You apply this absurd "can't buy it" standard to deny cold fusion, and to
> >cold fusion alone. You would never apply it to any other discovery,
because
> >even your fellow skeptics would say you are crazy.
>
> Nope. I apply this "can't buy it, 'cause it doesn't exist" standard
> to many other quackeries: astrology, spiritualism, scientology,
> dowsing, Flat Earth, Face on Mars, alien abductions, crop circles, the
> Living Elvis . . .
Ah, I see. That is an interesting method. It reduces mental effort. Let me
see if I understand your technique. You divide reported phenomena into two
categories:
1. CF, astrology, spiritualism, etc. These are dismissed because they are
"not for sale." (Never mind the fact that astrology and spiritualism *are*
supposedly for sale.)
2. Hot fusion, cloning, micromachines. You accept these, even though they
are not for sale.
You decide in advance which of these you will apply your standard to, and
which you will not. That saves you the trouble of reading peer-reviewed
journal papers and doing physics.
The only problem with your system the rest of us cannot know, in advance,
which phenomena we should *reject* because it is not for sale, and which
phenomena we should *accept* even though it is not for sale. As far as we
can tell, you are applying the standard at random, and you only pretending
this is the standard. How can we safely apply your method, when you yourself
reject it most of the time? Your choices seem to have no connection to the
normal, conventional standards such as reproducibility, signal to noise
ratio, or even the reputations of the journals and researchers.
I think your system is weak. You illustrate the danger of applying a
whimsical, arbitrary, personal standard. Your method is really no better
than consulting an Ouija board, or tossing a coin. I recommend the
experimental method instead. People who want to know whether a phenomena is
real should look carefully at experimental results.
Anyway, I encourage you to continue preaching this Ouija board "not for
sale" cult. It makes you look bad. I wish that Richard Schultz would repeat
his outrageous claim that ordinary chemistry might produce 85 MJ from 100
grams of fuel. Nothing I can say, and no argument of mine, can make you
people look as stupid as what you yourselves say. In that sense your "not
for sale" standard is a masterpiece!
- Jed
Bill Snyder
<jedro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder writes:
>
>> >You apply this absurd "can't buy it" standard to deny cold fusion, and to
>> >cold fusion alone. You would never apply it to any other discovery,
>because
>> >even your fellow skeptics would say you are crazy.
>>
>> Nope. I apply this "can't buy it, 'cause it doesn't exist" standard
>> to many other quackeries: astrology, spiritualism, scientology,
>> dowsing, Flat Earth, Face on Mars, alien abductions, crop circles, the
>> Living Elvis . . .
>
>Ah, I see. That is an interesting method. It reduces mental effort. Let me
>see if I understand your technique. You divide reported phenomena into two
>categories:
>1. CF, astrology, spiritualism, etc. These are dismissed because they are
>"not for sale." (Never mind the fact that astrology and spiritualism *are*
>supposedly for sale.)
You're BSing again, Rotsmell, and as stupidly as usual. I said,
"can't buy it, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST." (Emphasis added for the
benefit of CF touts and other subliterates, and for the inconvenience
of the occasional lying SOB.)
>2. Hot fusion, cloning, micromachines. You accept these, even though they
>are not for sale.
I perforce "accept" hot fusion because it is KNOWN TO EXIST (emphasis
again added in the probably-futile hope that the brain-damaged will
have difficulty in overlooking it). Given where you've got your head
inserted, it's understandable that you wouldn't have noticed the
object commonly known as "the Sun." In that case, ask the US
Department of Defense about a gadget called the H--bomb. These both
exhibit the phenomenon you call "hot fusion." It is real. It exists.
I stated no opinion on cloning or micromachines; here you are simply
fabricating.
(Although I do in fact believe that cloning -- which, by the way, *is*
for sale -- is thoroughly real. Whether I "accept" micromachines
depends on whether we're talking about what exists already, or what
may exist in the future. Using your terminology, I presume I "accept"
the former, and am open-minded about the latter. I suppose I could
reject them on some sort of quasi-religious or financial grounds --
like, just for instance, people who try to deny the existence of
pre-existing data because it contradicts their pet crankery and cash
cow -- but I don't.)
>You decide in advance which of these you will apply your standard to, and
>which you will not.
Lie-yerr, Lie-yerr, pants on fie-yerr..
> That saves you the trouble of reading peer-reviewed journal papers and doing physics.
As I am not a physicist, I would be saved much of that trouble in any
event. Nor do I believe that someone who reads articles he plainly
can't understand is much better-informed than someone who doesn't read
them.
[remaining bullshit snipped]
Jed Rothwell
> You're BSing again, Rotsmell, and as stupidly as usual. I said,
> "can't buy it, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST."
Ah! I see. Of couse. Replicated, high-sigma experiments prove it does exist,
but you overrule experiments. I presume you do this with your left hand
while you operate the Ouija board with your right hand.
Thanks all the same, but I'll stick to the scientific method. I have no
choice, really. I can't come begging you to reveal the light of truth and
decide arbitrarily which experiment is true, which is false. How do I know
which instruments we can believe? I cannot tell which calorimeters are under
the remote control of the CIA or UFOs -- as you no doubt believe. Unlike
you, I am not omniscient. The only means I know to judge reality is to
perform an experiment.
> > That saves you the trouble of reading peer-reviewed journal papers and
doing physics.
>
> As I am not a physicist . . .
Indeed not! You are meta-physicist. You tower above mere physicists. You can
sense the truth even when experiments contradict you. You know that high
temperatures do not exist, even though thermocouples register them. You can
tell by intuition that isotopic ratios measured repeatedly and independently
by three of the best instruments in the world are incorrect.
It must be awesome to have your powers -- to be able to contradict nature
itself! To stand in serene opposition of thousands of thermocouples, x-ray
detectors, mass spectrometers . . . You must use your supernatural abilities
carefully, for the good of society.
, I would be saved much of that trouble in any
> event. Nor do I believe that someone who reads articles he plainly
> can't understand is much better-informed than someone who doesn't read
> them.
Good Heavens! You & your expert friends have ESP as well? Second sight,
perhaps? Does this knowledge come to you in dreams? I stand in awe. I did
not know it is possible for a person to be "better informed" about a paper
he has not read. You can contradict the conclusions expressed by the authors
of these papers, without reading the papers. You can be "better-informed"
about these papers than I can, even without reading them?!? This is an
awesome accomplishment. Can you also cure disease by the laying on of hands?
- Jed
Tom Clarke
> Bill Snyder writes:
>
> > You're BSing again, Rotsmell, and as stupidly as usual. I said,
> > "can't buy it, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST."
>
> Ah! I see. Of couse. Replicated, high-sigma experiments prove it does exist,
Which replicated experiments were those?
Tom Clarke
Jed Rothwell
> > > do you think nuke plants are not?
> >
> > Not when the reactor is refueled.
> >
> so no nuke plants anywhere have multiple reactors? are you telling me
that
> when Diablo is refueling, that it produces zero energy?
Just to clarify: I believe individual reactors range from 250 MWt to 1000
MWt. Wind turbines range from 0.5 to 2.5 MW. They are gathered in groups, in
"wind farms." During scheduled maintenance, they are removed from service
one at a time, to reduce service disruptions. (Also maintenance is scheduled
for days when little wind is predicted anyway. This saves money, and I
suppose it must be tricky to turn off a machine that generates as much power
as a large helicopter engine!)
In other words, when you turn off the largest single wind turbine you remove
a hundred times less power from the grid as when you turn off the smallest
nuclear reactor.
The graphs on this page, derived from NRC data, show that in most states
nuclear power reactors are used for baseline production. That is, they
produce a larger share of actual power than their percent of capacity. See:
http://nuclearhistory.tripod.com/stat.html
In Missouri, for example, nuclear plants are 7% of the nameplate capacity,
but they produce 14% of the electricity. Industry publications say this is
because the equipment is expensive but the fuel is cheap.
- Jed
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
>> > And all these are industry policies that are aimed at cost savings.
They
> > have nothing to do with the production of energy.
>
> Cost savings and energy conservation are two sides of the same coin.
Energy
> is a major cost factor in nearly every industry, so conserving it is
always
> a major goal. The continual increases in energy efficiency is one of the
> largest contributing factors to economic growth.
>
policy. The two are not the same. Industry strives to lower costs through
efficiency and conservation, government policy is to make sure that the
energy is there when needed, regardless of what industry is doing. Even if
industry conserves and becomes as efficient as possible, if the energy is
not available when needed, industry, and the economy, stop.
Raz
Bill Snyder
<jedro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder writes:
>
>> You're BSing again, Rotsmell, and as stupidly as usual. I said,
>> "can't buy it, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST."
>
>Ah! I see. Of couse. Replicated, high-sigma experiments prove it does exist,
>but you overrule experiments. I presume you do this with your left hand
>while you operate the Ouija board with your right hand.
>
>Thanks all the same, but I'll stick to the scientific method. I have no
>choice, really.
That's really priceless. You've outdone yourself.
> I can't come begging you to reveal the light of truth and
>decide arbitrarily which experiment is true, which is false. How do I know
>which instruments we can believe? I cannot tell which calorimeters are under
>the remote control of the CIA or UFOs -- as you no doubt believe.
I always wear my tinfoil cap shiny-side out; which do you prefer?
> Unlike
>you, I am not omniscient. The only means I know to judge reality is to
>perform an experiment.
But of _course_ you're omniscient. You must be. Without any actual
background in physics or chemistry or instrumentation or experimental
protocols or statistics or -- well, let's cut this short -- without
even the ability to perform addition beyond 10 with your shoes on, you
can neverthless analyze complex experiments and pronounce that the
ones that support CF are correct -- all of them, even when they
contradict one another, _mirabile visu_! -- and that the ones which
brand it a figment it are wrong.
>> > That saves you the trouble of reading peer-reviewed journal papers and
>doing physics.
>>
>> As I am not a physicist . . .
>
>Indeed not! You are meta-physicist. You tower above mere physicists. You can
>sense the truth even when experiments contradict you. You know that high
>temperatures do not exist, even though thermocouples register them. You can
>tell by intuition that isotopic ratios measured repeatedly and independently
>by three of the best instruments in the world are incorrect.
I don't claim to tower above "mere physicists" -- rather the contrary,
if anything -- but I think I can support a claim that I tower above
ignorant, bigoted fools in general, and one in particular.
I'm an engineer who's worked with a variety of instruments, which puts
me ahead of you. I've actually done flow calorimetry and gotten it
right, which puts me ahead of you. I recognize that every instrument
is designed to work only within a certain domain, which puts me ahead
of you. I know that typically its accuracy will vary even within that
domain, which puts me ahead of you. I recognize that instruments must
be calibrated, which puts me ahead of you. I understand the
difference between an off-the-shelf meter and a piece of custom-built
instrumentation, which puts me ahead of you. I know that considerable
care must be taken in handling low-level signal like those from, say,
thermocouples, which puts me ahead of you. I comprehend that there's
a difference between, "the value is" and "the instrument indicates,"
which puts me ahead of you. I am further able to distinguish between
"accuracy" and "precision," which puts me ahead of you. I am even
aware that there are multiple sources of error in a typical
measurement, which puts me ahead of you. I know that a small error in
measuring a rate does not cease to be an error merely because one
integrates it over time into a superficially impressive-looking
total, which puts me ahead of you.
Is that enough, or should we go on to the really complicated stuff,
like why you shouldn't stick a meter designed to read DC or 60 Hz AC
on the input leads of a device whose characteristics you don't know,
make no attempt whatsoever to check for high-frequency noise, and then
expect anyone to take your readings seriously? Or why you only impugn
your own intelligence and/or honesty by designing a gadget with
separate liquid flows for the "working path" and the "calibration
path?" Or . . .
>Can you also cure disease by the laying on of hands?
Sort of, but only in a very limited way, I'm afraid. I have on a
couple of occasions cured a mild case of stupidity with a good swift
kick in the ass. But that treatment doesn't work on serious
retardation, megalomania, or delusions, so I fear you're SOL.
Raziel
> Bill Snyder writes:
>
> > >You apply this absurd "can't buy it" standard to deny cold fusion, and
to
> > >cold fusion alone. You would never apply it to any other discovery,
> because
> > >even your fellow skeptics would say you are crazy.
> >
> > Nope. I apply this "can't buy it, 'cause it doesn't exist" standard
> > to many other quackeries: astrology, spiritualism, scientology,
> > dowsing, Flat Earth, Face on Mars, alien abductions, crop circles, the
> > Living Elvis . . .
>
> Ah, I see. That is an interesting method. It reduces mental effort. Let me
> see if I understand your technique. You divide reported phenomena into two
> categories:
>
> 1. CF, astrology, spiritualism, etc. These are dismissed because they are
> "not for sale." (Never mind the fact that astrology and spiritualism *are*
> supposedly for sale.)
>
> 2. Hot fusion, cloning, micromachines. You accept these, even though they
> are not for sale.
>
claimed in a hot fusion device to get more energy out than was put in. What
they do claim is that there are significant numbers of thermonuclear events,
fusions, that release significant numbers of fast neutrons, and that these
neutrons carry a significant fracation of energy, on order of 50% of what
was put in. You claim to have a thermonuclear device in a coffee can that
produces more energy that is put in. If hot fusion could make this same
claim, they would be building a test reactor (for producing electricity, as
opposed to ITER which will never and is not designed to produce
electricity).
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> Yes, but again, don't equate cost saving goals of industry with government
> policy. The two are not the same.
No doubt there are differences, but I am not sure I undestand the
distinction you are making.
> Industry strives to lower costs through
> efficiency and conservation, government policy is to make sure that the
> energy is there when needed, regardless of what industry is doing.
This is also industry policy. Obviously coal and electric power companies
work to secure reliable sources of fuel, but so do steel companies,
telephone companies and others. In the U.S. and Japan companies increasingly
generate their own electricity, sometimes from local, renewable sources, or
from things like scrap wood from their own factories. All corporations in
which energy is a major cost have in interest in securing energy supplies.
> Even if
> industry conserves and becomes as efficient as possible, if the energy is
> not available when needed, industry, and the economy, stop.
Naturally, yes. However, I still do not understand why you make a
distinction between reducing demand and increasing supplies. The two have
the same effect economically, but reducing demand has been far more cost
effective, and it has been practiced on a much larger scale throughout
history.
As I mentioned, since 1950 U.S. per capita energy consumption has risen
modestly by a factor of 1.5, while real GDP has increased by factor of 3.
Actually, energy consumption rose from 229 MBtu/year to 361 MBtu/year 1978,
and then it fell to 350 MBtu/year in 2000, even though the economy expanded
at record levels. Since 1800, it would have been physically impossible to
"expand supplies" at a rate even close to the rate at which conservation has
reduced demand. The industrial revolution would have petered out long ago if
we had been forced to increase supplies in proportion to economic growth. If
we had not drastically and continually reduced energy consumption since
1800, the U.S. would have used up all of the fossil fuel in the world long
ago, the way it used up the coal in Pennsylvania.
In the U.S. there is no more oil anyway. No significant new U.S. oil fields
have been discovered since 1970, and there are none left to discover.
Discovery peaked at 8 billion barrels per year in 1930, it fell to 2 billion
barrels in 1950, and it has been effectively zero ever since 1970.
(Deffeyes, p. 138) That is the discovery rate, not the extraction rate. U.S.
extraction peaked in 1970 at 9.4 MMbbl/d and has fallen to 5 MMbbl/d.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> No one has ever claimed to have a working hot fusion device.
Right, only tokamaks and nuclear bombs. Cold fusion cells sometimes produce
a heck of a lot more energy than tokamaks. (See below.)
> No one has yet
> claimed in a hot fusion device to get more energy out than was put in.
You mean on an engineering basis. Strictly speaking, they do put out more
than the input energy, but the excess is only a tiny fraction of the total
input energy, and it only lasts a few seconds. I believe the world record
was the PPPL in 1994, which output about 5 MW for about 1 second. (Fig. 1,
PPPL-2977 - my eyeball estimate).
> What
> they do claim is that there are significant numbers of thermonuclear
events,
> fusions, that release significant numbers of fast neutrons, and that these
> neutrons carry a significant fracation of energy, on order of 50% of what
> was put in.
Right. Briefly, output power is 150% of input power, or 50% excess. Even if
you could continue the reaction indefinitely (not just for one second), that
would not be enough excess heat to convert back into electricity, to keep
the whole thing going in a "self-sustaining" reaction. I believe that would
require ~500% excess (5 times more output than input) to be at all
practical.
> You claim to have a thermonuclear device in a coffee can that
> produces more energy that is put in.
It isn't my device. It belongs to the Toyota Corporation. I have no idea
where it is now. Also, it cannot be thermonuclear! The temperatures are
modest. At least they are on the macroscopic scale. Also the reaction
produces millions of times fewer neutrons per joule than a thermonuclear D-D
reaction would.
> If hot fusion could make this same
> claim, they would be building a test reactor (for producing electricity,
as
> opposed to ITER which will never and is not designed to produce
> electricity).
Naturally, so would the cold fusion scientists, if they could make the
gadgets work reliably, and if they had any funding. Most of them pay for the
equipment themselves, or friends like me pay for it. Have a look at the
devices here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm
. . . and you will see that even a tiny cold fusion reactor cost tens of
thousands of dollars.
All the experiments I know of cost between $40,000 and $20 million. Since
there is such strong political opposition to cold fusion, there is no
likelihood we could get the money to develop a test reactor. Most CF
researcher feel that if they could get 1% of the plasma fusion budget they
would develop a practical device in a few years. When I see what they have
accomplished on a shoestring, I am inclined to agree. Of course it is
impossible to predict these things with assurance.
Anyway, measured in terms of energy output, cold fusion left plasma fusion
in the dust years ago. Hot fusion produced 6 MW for 1 second; ~6 MJ total.
Cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of megajoules, albeit seldom
at power levels above ~100 watts. Cold fusion also has a much more promising
input to output ratio: in the best experiments, zero energy is input, and
output continues for hours or days.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> But of _course_ you're omniscient. You must be. Without any actual
> background in physics or chemistry or instrumentation or experimental
> protocols or statistics or -- well, let's cut this short -- without
> even the ability to perform addition beyond 10 with your shoes on, you
> can neverthless analyze complex experiments and pronounce that the
> ones that support CF are correct . . .
Not me! The AUTHORS make these claims, not me. In my opinion, some of them
are right. You claim that all of the authors are wrong. You think you know
more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than people like Miles,
Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms or Oriani and 500 others. You think you can
dismiss their papers without even reading them.
You always try to pin everything on me, and make this personal. It isn't
about Jed Rothwell. Rothwell may well be the biggest idiot in history. He
may be as bad as you say, or worse! But he has nothing to do with any of
this, and his judgment, knowledge and skills are totally irrelevant.
> I don't claim to tower above "mere physicists" -- rather the contrary,
> if anything -- but I think I can support a claim that I tower above
> ignorant, bigoted fools in general, and one in particular.
You have not read these papers. How do you know the authors are ignorant,
bigoted fools? I may be one, but I did not write a single one of the papers,
or perform the experiments.
> I'm an engineer who's worked with a variety of instruments, which puts
> me ahead of you.
But not ahead of Mizuno, Ohmori or Will. You do not know more about theory
than Schwinger, Kim or Hagelstein.
> I've actually done flow calorimetry and gotten it
> right, which puts me ahead of you. I recognize that every instrument
> is designed to work only within a certain domain, which puts me ahead
> of you.
But you are not ahead of the people working on cold fusion at Mitsubishi,
Hitachi, Toyota, Honda, the NRL, SRI and Los Alamos. They designed the
instruments, and manufactured them. They are among the leading manufacturers
of the mass spectrometers, x-ray detectors and other instruments used in
these experiments.
- Jed
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > Yes, but again, don't equate cost saving goals of industry with
government
> > policy. The two are not the same.
>
> No doubt there are differences, but I am not sure I undestand the
> distinction you are making.
>
actions of consumers to reduce expendatures, and actions of producers to
make sure product is available to consumers?
>
> > Industry strives to lower costs through
> > efficiency and conservation, government policy is to make sure that the
> > energy is there when needed, regardless of what industry is doing.
>
> This is also industry policy.
yes, but this is consumer policy not producer policy.
> Obviously coal and electric power companies
> work to secure reliable sources of fuel,
indeed. it allows them to produce their product cheaper.
> but so do steel companies, telephone companies and others.
of course, every company tries to buy the products it consumes at the lowest
possible price. But what does that have to do with government policy?
> In the U.S. and Japan companies increasingly
> generate their own electricity, sometimes from local, renewable sources,
or
> from things like scrap wood from their own factories.
I see, that is why the Aluminum industry in WA state shut down during the
'energy crisis', because they produce their own electricity. Nope, sorry.
Don't confuse companies that sell back their energy contracts to the grid
with companies that produce energy. And don't overestimate the number of
companies that supplement their energy supply with internal sources. While
that may happen, it is not at all a widespread phenomena.
> All corporations in
> which energy is a major cost have in interest in securing energy supplies.
>
Yes, they are consumers. They need energy to produce their product. They
also want to minimize the money spent on what they consume. But this has
nothing whatever to do with Government energy policy which is purely aimed
at assuring that industry, and therefore the economy, have an ample energy
supply.
>
> > Even if
> > industry conserves and becomes as efficient as possible, if the energy
is
> > not available when needed, industry, and the economy, stop.
>
> Naturally, yes. However, I still do not understand why you make a
> distinction between reducing demand and increasing supplies.
because the two are fundamentally different. Originally we were talking
about government policy. You seem to think the government can base energy
policy on demand reduction. Demand reduction is a choice that industry
makes, not something the government can or should mandate. Government
policy must be focused on insuring that supply is available regardless of
demand.
> The two have the same effect economically,
Maybe in a very small set of cases. Presently, our demand can easily
outpace supply. In some parts of the US non-peak utilization is over 75%,
and peak utilization is ~100% of capacity. It does not take much (storm
that scrams Diablo, limited rainfall in the NW...) to knock out some
capacity, and push demand above supply. Now, conservation can help, but
when power demand regularly runs at near capacity, clearly capacity needs to
be increased. Government policy should be based on insuring that capacity
is available. Consumer price protections like those in California where
consumers pay a fixed rate regardless of usage regardless of cost to
providers make this problem worse (since they give no incentive to
conserve). If you want government to push conservation as a short-term fix,
fine, but long-term policy must be based on production and distribution.
Our power needs are not going down, and currently they are increasing faster
than supply.
> but reducing demand has been far more cost
> effective, and it has been practiced on a much larger scale throughout
> history.
>
only because it is horribly expensive to add any new capacity (due in large
part to enviro-regs and NIMBY lawsuits).
> As I mentioned, since 1950 U.S. per capita energy consumption has risen
> modestly by a factor of 1.5, while real GDP has increased by factor of 3.
> Actually, energy consumption rose from 229 MBtu/year to 361 MBtu/year
1978,
> and then it fell to 350 MBtu/year in 2000, even though the economy
expanded
> at record levels. Since 1800, it would have been physically impossible to
> "expand supplies" at a rate even close to the rate at which conservation
has
> reduced demand. The industrial revolution would have petered out long ago
if
> we had been forced to increase supplies in proportion to economic growth.
If
> we had not drastically and continually reduced energy consumption since
> 1800, the U.S. would have used up all of the fossil fuel in the world long
> ago, the way it used up the coal in Pennsylvania.
>
> In the U.S. there is no more oil anyway.
you are grossly wrong.
> No significant new U.S. oil fields
> have been discovered since 1970, and there are none left to discover.
again, you are grossly wrong. to make such a statement destroys any
credibility you had on the matter.
> Discovery peaked at 8 billion barrels per year in 1930, it fell to 2
billion
> barrels in 1950, and it has been effectively zero ever since 1970.
> (Deffeyes, p. 138) That is the discovery rate, not the extraction rate.
U.S.
> extraction peaked in 1970 at 9.4 MMbbl/d and has fallen to 5 MMbbl/d.
>
If you want to talk about extraction, then yes, the US has not done any new
drilling in some time. But that is not for lack of trying. ANWR rings a
bell, as does off-shore drilling in FL and CA. The US tries to tap new
reserves, the envrio-nazis just don't allow it.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > In the U.S. and Japan companies increasingly
> > generate their own electricity, sometimes from local, renewable sources,
> or
> > from things like scrap wood from their own factories.
>
> I see, that is why the Aluminum industry in WA state shut down during the
> 'energy crisis', because they produce their own electricity.
I did not say that all industries generate their own electricity. I'll bet
the Aluminum industry in WA wishes it did!
> > but reducing demand has been far more cost
> > effective, and it has been practiced on a much larger scale throughout
> > history.
> >
> only because it is horribly expensive to add any new capacity (due in
large
> part to enviro-regs and NIMBY lawsuits).
When I say "has been" I mean it has been since James Watt improved
Newcomen's steam engine. There were no enviro-regs back then.
> > In the U.S. there is no more oil anyway.
>
> you are grossly wrong.
Perhaps, but my sources are impeccable. The footnotes on p. 200 are a little
unclear . . . I think Deffeyes' graph came from the International Petroleum
Encyclopedia (6) or the U.S. Geological survey (4). Anyway, all government
and industry sources I have seen agree on this. The graph I cited shows
field with more than 100 million barrels in the lower 48 states. Can you
cite some other source that conflicts with it?
> > No significant new U.S. oil fields
> > have been discovered since 1970, and there are none left to discover.
>
> again, you are grossly wrong. to make such a statement destroys any
> credibility you had on the matter.
You mean it destroys the credibility of the International Petroleum
Encyclopedia and the USGS. Perhaps.
> If you want to talk about extraction, then yes, the US has not done any
new
> drilling in some time. But that is not for lack of trying. ANWR rings a
> bell, as does off-shore drilling in FL and CA. The US tries to tap new
> reserves, the envrio-nazis just don't allow it.
The graph I refer to shows the discovery of new reserves. There are none
left. All reserves are accounted for; they are old reserves, or existing
reserves. No significant new reserves (defined as a field over over 100
million barrels) have been discovered in the lower 48 since 1970. That's
what I meant. Perhaps I did not make it clear.
Most of the experts I have read say there is no more oil to be found.
Improved extraction techniques may recover more from the fields that have
already been discovered, but there are no other significant fields. I think
it would be more correct for you to say "if the U.S. tries to tap all
existing reserves . . ." If the U.S. does this, it will run out of oil
sooner than it would otherwise, in 20 years instead of 30 or 40. That might
not be a wise thing to do.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > The two have the same effect economically,
>
> Maybe in a very small set of cases. Presently, our demand can easily
> outpace supply. In some parts of the US non-peak utilization is over 75%,
> and peak utilization is ~100% of capacity. It does not take much (storm
> that scrams Diablo, limited rainfall in the NW...) to knock out some
> capacity, and push demand above supply. Now, conservation can help, but
> when power demand regularly runs at near capacity, clearly capacity needs
to
> be increased.
I do not understand why you think so. This is not at all clear. Our economic
competitors produce nearly twice as much GDP per KWH as we do. Why not buy
machines from them instead of building new power plants? Their factory
machine tools, lights, dishwashing machines, and airconditioners use far
less energy than ours do. Yes, we could increase capacity, but it would be
cheaper and faster to simply chuck out a few million lightbulbs (as they
burn out) and replace them with CFLs, toss out a bunch of obsolete
refrigerators, and cut unnecessary consumption. That is what we have always
done in the past. No sacrifice is called for. No one would be
inconvenienced. No NIMBY suits would be filed. It would be fast and cost
effective. I cannot understand why anyone would consider building more power
plants when it would be cheaper to buy new machines, we could shut down half
the power plants we have already! As one expert (Fickett) in Sci. Am put it,
the CFL ". . . is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."
What is the point of consuming two or three times more electricity than we
need? It is like burning money. Light generated with CFL bulbs is just as
good as light from incandescent bulbs. A head of lettuce cooled with an
efficient refrigerator is just as cool as one from a 20-year-old clunker. A
fab plants in silicon valley cut energy consumption from 627 kW per wafer in
1994 to 90 kW in 2000, with easy improvements that paid for themselves in
months. (Electronic Buyers' News, December 2000.) If they all did that, it
would be like building several power plants practically overnight.
- Jed
Bill Snyder
<jedro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder writes:
>
>> But of _course_ you're omniscient. You must be. Without any actual
>> background in physics or chemistry or instrumentation or experimental
>> protocols or statistics or -- well, let's cut this short -- without
>> even the ability to perform addition beyond 10 with your shoes on, you
>> can neverthless analyze complex experiments and pronounce that the
>> ones that support CF are correct . . .
>
>Not me! The AUTHORS make these claims, not me. In my opinion, some of them
>are right. You claim that all of the authors are wrong. You think you know
>more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than people like Miles,
>Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms or Oriani and 500 others. You think you can
>dismiss their papers without even reading them.
[rest of tiresome list snipped]
Ah, the appeal to authority. If it's a matter of credentials and
number of votes, what about the much larger number of
equally-qualified folks who say they're wrong?
And if it's a matter of facts, one doesn't need a half-dozen PhD's,
nor, indeed, any at all to recognize a basic and rather foolish
mistake when he sees it. Common sense suffices for distrusting
grandiose claims about what goes on behind closed doors, unaccompanied
by reproducible experiments or hard data. Mere sanity is enough to
prompt extreme skepticism, after a baker's dozen years of big talk and
no action, after one "proof" after another after another which gets
loudly touted, and then less loudly mentioned, and then discreetly
swept under the rug while the next "proof" takes center stage.
So where's that water heater I keep asking about? You remember, the
one that Fleischmann -- who still gets a place on your list above, I
see -- promised us back in 1989? Does _he_ know more than I do,
Jeddikins -- about where the water heater is, I mean? Hmmm?
Jed Rothwell
> Ah, the appeal to authority. If it's a matter of credentials and
> number of votes, what about the much larger number of
> equally-qualified folks who say they're wrong?
All of the people I know who say they are wrong have not read the papers.
They have not given specific, technical reasons to doubt the results. (Or if
they have, I have not seen their published critiques.)
> And if it's a matter of facts, one doesn't need a half-dozen PhD's,
> nor, indeed, any at all to recognize a basic and rather foolish
> mistake when he sees it.
You have not seen it. You have to read the papers and then write a critique.
Common sense suffices for distrusting
> grandiose claims about what goes on behind closed doors, unaccompanied
> by reproducible experiments or hard data.
The doors are open, the experiments are reproducible, that data is hard. You
cannot dispute that assertion because you refuse to look.
- Jed
Charles Cagle
<A0711C9F02E0E1BF.4219F027...@lp.airnews.net>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@iadfw.net> wrote:
> I perforce "accept" hot fusion because it is KNOWN TO EXIST (emphasis
> again added in the probably-futile hope that the brain-damaged will
> have difficulty in overlooking it). Given where you've got your head
> inserted, it's understandable that you wouldn't have noticed the
> object commonly known as "the Sun." In that case, ask the US
> Department of Defense about a gadget called the H--bomb. These both
> exhibit the phenomenon you call "hot fusion." It is real. It exists.
Fusion occurs in hot plasmas, yes. But it does not occur in any single
instance because the interacting particles collided into one another
with high velocities. That's is the fiction that hot fusioneers
(armies of welfare queens in white coats) have used to bilk the
lawmakers into appropriating around $50 billion dollars over the last
three generations (1951-2002).
You demonstrate your own 'brain damage' by adhering to the dimwitted
conclusions of fools like yourself concerning the operation of the sun.
Never has it been demonstrated in the laboratory or elsewhere that the
dynamic collisional interaction of protons with protons in the core of
the sun will lead to their fusion. So, Mr. Snyder, it seems that if
anyone has his head up his ass, it has to be you for believing in
processes which have never been observed in any laboratory on Earth.
Hot fusion, you blithering ignoramus, is thought to exist but it is not
'KNOWN TO EXIST' as you insist. So, it looks like you're the person
who is 'brain damaged' you loud mouthed braying jackass of a fool.
The H-Bomb is not a hot fusion device either, you imbecile. Fusion
events are produced by descrete relationships which occur between
interacting nuclei. The hard x-rays and gamma rays of the fission
'igniter' portion of the bomb are converted into a soft x-ray flux that
passes through the fusion fuel (lithium deuteride) rod. The soft
x-rays are quantum scale time dilation structures which are large
enough to overlap two fusion fuel nuclei at once and the effect of
putting two such simple atoms in the same momentum space is that
Maxwell's equations then predicts (not that you've ever had the brains
to work this out for yourself, you incompetent jackass) that charge
particles which overlap in the same momentum space will behave opposite
to the expectations of Coulomb's law. A photon is a quantum scale
gravitational gradient structure. Because you are a dimwitted arrogant
son of a bitch it is likely that you'll never grasp this fact.
CC.
Designori
the UK and Europe. With the average load of about 10w instead of the average
incandescent bulb's 60/100 watts they represent a huge saving of energy
across the nation as a whole.
The simple step of requiring/encouraging Americans to adopt the compact
fluorescent bulb would seem to be overdue. I can't do the math myself, but
it must have the potential to save the equivalent of the output of several
major power stations.
There are elements which will excite the phosphors in fluorescent bulbs and
make them into usable light sources which need no electricity at all. This
seems on the surface to be a very useful idea, as long as the elements are
contained. Perhaps they could be "glassified" in the same way that nuclear
waste is encapsulated in solid glass (at Capenhurst in the UK) along with
the fluorescent powder. They would still function and the radioactive
element could not be spread or inhaled in a breakage (which would be
difficult to do to a solid lump of glass)
Indeed, some light sources of this (cold light) type were made and used by
the British Coal Board in their mines many years ago, and apparently what
remnants can still be seen are still shining after all these years.
It seems such a good idea that one is forced to enquire what drawbacks
prevent this useful and environmentally beneficial device from being
manufactured.
Maybe fusion wouldn't be needed.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
[snipped in its entirety]
Cagle, it's obvious to everybody but you that you're insane. Go check
yourself into an institution, and stop bugging people who never
bothered you with your PHYSICS from GOD.
Dave Oldridge
news:asuaqf$u3hi9$1...@ID-162187.news.dfncis.de:
> The compact fluorescent lightbulb has really caught on in Japan and
> now in the UK and Europe. With the average load of about 10w instead
> of the average incandescent bulb's 60/100 watts they represent a huge
> saving of energy across the nation as a whole.
I have two in my bedroom and two more in the living room along with a
40w flourescent fixture. Those are rarely ever turned off. But in the
winter (now) I don't mind running some incandescant lights continuous
as well, since their energy just contributes to the heating which this
year is entirely from electricity, the price of propane being about 20%
more per joule.
Fusion (hot or cold) does have the potential for a small unit cost per
kwh though and that would make it economically attractive once the
basic research is done. Fission's unit cost is not that low compared
with hydro, wind, tide or even fossil fuel plants (especially natural
gas).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Jed Rothwell
> The simple step of requiring/encouraging Americans to adopt the compact
> fluorescent bulb would seem to be overdue. I can't do the math myself, but
> it must have the potential to save the equivalent of the output of several
> major power stations.
See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/lighting/chap3.html#begin
Quote:
"Potential aggregate U.S. household energy savings for replacement of all
incandescent bulbs used more than 4 hours per day amounts to 31.7 billion
kWh annually. [15] This assumes that the average incandescent bulb is 75
watts and is replaced by a 26-watt compact fluorescent bulb. Thirty-eight
percent of this savings, or 12 billion kWh, would come from replacing the
44.1 million bulbs used 12 or more hours per day and 62 percent, or 19.7
billion kWh, would come from replacing the 196.6 million lights used 4 to 12
hours per day. These potential energy savings are 35 percent of the
electricity used for lighting in 1993 (91 billion kWh)."
Note that the cost of the bulbs has fallen from $22 to $14 since that
projection was made.
You could never require them but there are many ways to encourage them.
Actually, they are now for sale even in grocery stores, a big change from a
few years ago.
> Maybe fusion wouldn't be needed.
Hot fusion is not needed. The human race may survive without cold fusion,
but cold fusion would solve many problems, reduce costs radically, and help
open up the solar system to exploration and colonization.
- Jed
Raziel
>
> "Raziel" <m...@vrwc.org> wrote in message
> news:asqv1v$164c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>
> > No one has ever claimed to have a working hot fusion device.
>
> Right, only tokamaks and nuclear bombs. Cold fusion cells sometimes
produce
> a heck of a lot more energy than tokamaks. (See below.)
>
>
> > No one has yet
> > claimed in a hot fusion device to get more energy out than was put in.
>
> You mean on an engineering basis. Strictly speaking, they do put out more
> than the input energy, but the excess is only a tiny fraction of the total
> input energy, and it only lasts a few seconds. I believe the world record
> was the PPPL in 1994, which output about 5 MW for about 1 second. (Fig. 1,
> PPPL-2977 - my eyeball estimate).
>
power TFTR did not produce more power than it consumed.
>
> > What
> > they do claim is that there are significant numbers of thermonuclear
> events,
> > fusions, that release significant numbers of fast neutrons, and that
these
> > neutrons carry a significant fracation of energy, on order of 50% of
what
> > was put in.
>
> Right. Briefly, output power is 150% of input power, or 50% excess.
no. output power is 50% of input power. 50% loss.
> Even if
> you could continue the reaction indefinitely (not just for one second),
that
> would not be enough excess heat to convert back into electricity, to keep
> the whole thing going in a "self-sustaining" reaction. I believe that
would
> require ~500% excess (5 times more output than input) to be at all
> practical.
>
Not quite correct, but I could correct semantics all day.
>
> > You claim to have a thermonuclear device in a coffee can that
> > produces more energy that is put in.
>
> It isn't my device. It belongs to the Toyota Corporation. I have no idea
> where it is now. Also, it cannot be thermonuclear!
Very good, now you are getting somewhere.
> The temperatures are modest.
define modest. Modest to me is a few million degrees K.
> At least they are on the macroscopic scale. Also the reaction
> produces millions of times fewer neutrons per joule than a thermonuclear
D-D
> reaction would.
>
Tell me exactly what reaction you think you are getting. Example:
D+D = x + y energy
state all reactions and their probabilities.
>
> > If hot fusion could make this same
> > claim, they would be building a test reactor (for producing electricity,
> as
> > opposed to ITER which will never and is not designed to produce
> > electricity).
>
> Naturally, so would the cold fusion scientists, if they could make the
> gadgets work reliably, and if they had any funding. Most of them pay for
the
> equipment themselves, or friends like me pay for it. Have a look at the
> devices here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm
>
> . . . and you will see that even a tiny cold fusion reactor cost tens of
> thousands of dollars.
>
> All the experiments I know of cost between $40,000 and $20 million. Since
> there is such strong political opposition to cold fusion, there is no
> likelihood we could get the money to develop a test reactor.
When you have no explanation based in Physics, what do you expect?
> Most CF
> researcher feel that if they could get 1% of the plasma fusion budget they
> would develop a practical device in a few years.
1% of the fusion budget is about $1.5 million per year.
> When I see what they have
> accomplished on a shoestring, I am inclined to agree. Of course it is
> impossible to predict these things with assurance.
>
yea, specially when there is very little Physics to back you up ;)
> Anyway, measured in terms of energy output, cold fusion left plasma fusion
> in the dust years ago. Hot fusion produced 6 MW for 1 second; ~6 MJ total.
> Cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of megajoules, albeit
seldom
> at power levels above ~100 watts. Cold fusion also has a much more
promising
> input to output ratio: in the best experiments, zero energy is input, and
> output continues for hours or days.
>
I can hook up a car battery and do that.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > input energy, and it only lasts a few seconds. I believe the world
record
> > was the PPPL in 1994, which output about 5 MW for about 1 second. (Fig.
1,
> > PPPL-2977 - my eyeball estimate).
> >
> A whole hell of a lot more than 5MW was put in. Even if you exclude beam
> power TFTR did not produce more power than it consumed.
Just out of curiosity, how much? This paper does not make that clear. (Input
power is not relevant to this paper.)
> > The temperatures are modest.
>
> define modest. Modest to me is a few million degrees K.
100 deg C. It is a reflux boiling cell at atmospheric pressure. Some
theorists believe the temperatures at the reaction sites may be much higher,
on a microscopic scale, because the metal is sometimes vaporized and sprayed
out, leaving holes about 10 microns across.
> Tell me exactly what reaction you think you are getting.
It isn't me, it is the Toyota Corporation, and I have not got the slightest
idea what nuclear reaction they are getting. You would have to ask a
theorist. All I know is that chemical reactions do not product hundreds of
megajoules of heat from a gram of metal, and no chemical ash.
> Example:
>
> D+D = x + y energy
>
> state all reactions and their probabilities.
As I said, you would have to ask a theorist for that. However, I note that
the "probabilities" defined by present day theory may be incorrect. If a
theory indicates the probabilities of the observed reactions and reactions
are low, obviously that theory is wrong or inapplicable, because the
reactions are occurring. That is established by experiment.
> When you have no explanation based in Physics, what do you expect?
I expect scientists to obey the fundamental dictate of the scientific
method, which is that truth is established by experiment, not by theory.
Julian Schwinger explained this in his papers in the library at
LENR-CANR.org. There is presently no generally accepted explanation for high
temperature super, the varying rates at which radioactive elements decay, or
human intelligence, but all scientists believe these phenomena exist because
they are proven to exist in experiment and by observation.
> > Most CF
> > researcher feel that if they could get 1% of the plasma fusion budget
they
> > would develop a practical device in a few years.
>
> 1% of the fusion budget is about $1.5 million per year.
Yes. That is $1.5 million more than CF now gets.
> > When I see what they have
> > accomplished on a shoestring, I am inclined to agree. Of course it is
> > impossible to predict these things with assurance.
> >
> yea, specially when there is very little Physics to back you up ;)
There are hundreds of physics experiments to back up this claim. As for
theory, I cannot judge whether it backs it up or not, but theory is never
required to justify or back up experiments. It always works the other way
around. At least, Schwinger and I say so, and the textbooks all say so. I
find it strange that some modern scientists have forgotten this.
> > Cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of megajoules, albeit
> seldom
> > at power levels above ~100 watts. Cold fusion also has a much more
> promising
> > input to output ratio: in the best experiments, zero energy is input,
and
> > output continues for hours or days.
> >
> I can hook up a car battery and do that.
No you cannot. A car battery holds ~3 MJ, not hundreds of megajoules. I
suppose that is a flippant joke, but if you are serious, you are missing the
point, and you need a remedial lesson in the concept of "orders of
magnitude." A car battery is far larger and heavier than a cold fusion
device. A small car battery weights 13 kg, whereas the cold fusion devices
that produce hundreds of megajoules usually weigh 1 or 2 grams. Overall, the
CF devices are 13,000 times lighter but they can produce ~100 times more
energy (and probably more). Thus, they produce ~1.3 million times more
energy than a battery, and perhaps ~10,000 times more than the best possible
chemical fuel. That is one of the reasons we know they are not chemical
devices.
- Jed
Raziel
known for some time that oil is not rotting dinosaurs, but is actually
produced by a different process not embraced by the US oil exploration
industry. Some Russian scientists have reproduced the process in the lab
and have been able to make oil (I say oil but that is just the term I will
use for complex hydrocarbon chains that oil is refined into). The process
involves Iron Oxide and several other common components of the Earth's crust
mixed at the right temp and pressure. It is quite interesting work and can
explain why some 'dry' oilfields are producing again. The US industry is
just starting to come around to this new theory, and have made discoveries
based on it (looking in places that were previously thought not to be a
possibility under theory). Unfortunately I do not speak or read Russian,
and I have been unable to locate an English version of any of these papers
(Hell, I can't even get information out of the titles or abstracts). But,
one of the chief scientists was on NPR last month, if you are interested in
what he had to say.
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > The two have the same effect economically,
> >
> > Maybe in a very small set of cases. Presently, our demand can easily
> > outpace supply. In some parts of the US non-peak utilization is over
75%,
> > and peak utilization is ~100% of capacity. It does not take much (storm
> > that scrams Diablo, limited rainfall in the NW...) to knock out some
> > capacity, and push demand above supply. Now, conservation can help, but
> > when power demand regularly runs at near capacity, clearly capacity
needs
> to
> > be increased.
>
> I do not understand why you think so. This is not at all clear.
basic math? If you run at > 75% capacity all the time, and demand >100%
capacity at peak, it is time to raise capacity. You do not want to run all
the time at that high a % of capacity. At 75% there is not enough extra
capacity to cover a demand spike, or an outage somewhere. Even with
conservation, knocking that number down to 60% (a 20% reduction) you still
need to add capacity.
> Our economic competitors
we have some?
> produce nearly twice as much GDP per KWH as we do.
so? we have more available.
> Why not buy machines from them instead of building new power plants?
who says they use different machines?
> Their factory machine tools, lights, dishwashing machines, and
airconditioners use far
> less energy than ours do.
I somehow doubt that.
> Yes, we could increase capacity, but it would be
> cheaper and faster to simply chuck out a few million lightbulbs (as they
> burn out) and replace them with CFLs,
in certain applications yes. But in many applications incandescents are far
superior, and CF's are completely impractical.
> toss out a bunch of obsolete refrigerators, and cut unnecessary
consumption.
sure, tell that to people that can't make their house payment. "Umm, sorry
sir, refrigerator police, you have to buy a new 'fridge, we will be taking
your old one now, tough luck on the house payment". I don't think so.
> That is what we have always done in the past.
and we will slowly do now.
> No sacrifice is called for. No one would be inconvenienced.
except the millions of people who have to go out an buy a new 'fridge. I'm
sure the appliance companies love your idea.
> No NIMBY suits would be filed. It would be fast and cost
> effective. I cannot understand why anyone would consider building more
power
> plants when it would be cheaper to buy new machines,
You assume it would be cheaper to buy new machines. I highly doubt that.
You are talking trillions of dollars to replace machines, vs billions to
build new plants.
> we could shut down half the power plants we have already!
hah. you should be a commeidan. better yet, tell that to the people in
California during the next rolling blackout.
> As one expert (Fickett) in Sci. Am put it,
> the CFL ". . . is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."
>
> What is the point of consuming two or three times more electricity than we
need?
define need.
> It is like burning money. Light generated with CFL bulbs is just as
> good as light from incandescent bulbs.
in certain applications yes, in others no.
> A head of lettuce cooled with an
> efficient refrigerator is just as cool as one from a 20-year-old clunker.
sure, but are you advocating a massive government buy back of refrigerators
so that the 'poor' can afford to get new ones?
> A fab plants in silicon valley cut energy consumption from 627 kW per
wafer in
> 1994 to 90 kW in 2000, with easy improvements that paid for themselves in
months.
so? That is a decision they decided to make to reduce their costs.
> (Electronic Buyers' News, December 2000.) If they all did that, it
> would be like building several power plants practically overnight.
>
You are in a dream land. Where do you think all this money is going to be
generated?
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > input energy, and it only lasts a few seconds. I believe the world
> record
> > > was the PPPL in 1994, which output about 5 MW for about 1 second.
(Fig.
> 1,
> > > PPPL-2977 - my eyeball estimate).
> > >
> > A whole hell of a lot more than 5MW was put in. Even if you exclude
beam
> > power TFTR did not produce more power than it consumed.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how much? This paper does not make that clear.
(Input
> power is not relevant to this paper.)
>
was 100MW or on that order, and even without counting beam power TFTR was
still at best produced ~50% of its input power. If you want to see the top
tokamak performance, look at JET. Excluding beam power, JET has reached
something like 90% breakeven (scientific breakeven) and holds all of the
tokamak records.
>
> > > The temperatures are modest.
> >
> > define modest. Modest to me is a few million degrees K.
>
> 100 deg C. It is a reflux boiling cell at atmospheric pressure. Some
> theorists believe the temperatures at the reaction sites may be much
higher,
> on a microscopic scale, because the metal is sometimes vaporized and
sprayed
> out, leaving holes about 10 microns across.
>
>
> > Tell me exactly what reaction you think you are getting.
>
> It isn't me, it is the Toyota Corporation, and I have not got the
slightest
> idea what nuclear reaction they are getting.
that seems to be a common theme among CF advocates.
> You would have to ask a
> theorist. All I know is that chemical reactions do not product hundreds of
> megajoules of heat from a gram of metal, and no chemical ash.
>
Hundreds of MJ from a gram of metal? What metal? Burning H gives about
240kJ if I recall.
>
> > Example:
> >
> > D+D = x + y energy
> >
> > state all reactions and their probabilities.
>
> As I said, you would have to ask a theorist for that. However, I note that
> the "probabilities" defined by present day theory may be incorrect. If a
> theory indicates the probabilities of the observed reactions and reactions
> are low, obviously that theory is wrong or inapplicable, because the
> reactions are occurring. That is established by experiment.
>
>
> > When you have no explanation based in Physics, what do you expect?
>
> I expect scientists to obey the fundamental dictate of the scientific
> method, which is that truth is established by experiment, not by theory.
Yes, but that does not mean that the interpretation of the data is correct.
CF people tend to want to force their interpretation into the nuclear realm,
when there is no theory to explain this, and in fact, contradictory theory,
when there is or may be chemical theory to explain the phenomena.
> Julian Schwinger explained this in his papers in the library at
> LENR-CANR.org. There is presently no generally accepted explanation for
high
> temperature super, the varying rates at which radioactive elements decay,
or
> human intelligence, but all scientists believe these phenomena exist
because
> they are proven to exist in experiment and by observation.
>
>
> > > Most CF
> > > researcher feel that if they could get 1% of the plasma fusion budget
> they
> > > would develop a practical device in a few years.
> >
> > 1% of the fusion budget is about $1.5 million per year.
>
> Yes. That is $1.5 million more than CF now gets.
>
If you want someone to give you money, you need to be able to show that it
has a reasonable chance of working. Theory would be helpful here. Since
you have no theory, only irreproducable experiments, you will have a hard
time convincing anyone to give you anything.
>
> > > When I see what they have
> > > accomplished on a shoestring, I am inclined to agree. Of course it is
> > > impossible to predict these things with assurance.
> > >
> > yea, specially when there is very little Physics to back you up ;)
>
> There are hundreds of physics experiments to back up this claim.
that is questionable.
> As for theory, I cannot judge whether it backs it up or not, but theory is
never
> required to justify or back up experiments.
It is when you want someone to pay you to do research.
> It always works the other way
> around. At least, Schwinger and I say so, and the textbooks all say so. I
> find it strange that some modern scientists have forgotten this.
>
Fact of life. When you want someone to pay for your research, you better be
able to justify it.
>
> > > Cold fusion experiments have produced hundreds of megajoules, albeit
> > seldom
> > > at power levels above ~100 watts. Cold fusion also has a much more
> > promising
> > > input to output ratio: in the best experiments, zero energy is input,
> and
> > > output continues for hours or days.
> > >
> > I can hook up a car battery and do that.
>
> No you cannot. A car battery holds ~3 MJ, not hundreds of megajoules. I
> suppose that is a flippant joke,
indeed ;)
> but if you are serious, you are missing the
> point, and you need a remedial lesson in the concept of "orders of
> magnitude." A car battery is far larger and heavier than a cold fusion
> device. A small car battery weights 13 kg, whereas the cold fusion devices
> that produce hundreds of megajoules usually weigh 1 or 2 grams.
you say hundreds of MJ for a gram, but shouldn't a gram of D produce 10's of
GJ? Orders of magnitude difference.
> Overall, the
> CF devices are 13,000 times lighter but they can produce ~100 times more
> energy (and probably more). Thus, they produce ~1.3 million times more
> energy than a battery, and perhaps ~10,000 times more than the best
possible
> chemical fuel. That is one of the reasons we know they are not chemical
> devices.
>
you think they are not chemical devices. But if they were nuclear they
should produce 100 times more than you claim they do.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > It isn't me, it is the Toyota Corporation, and I have not got the
> slightest
> > idea what nuclear reaction they are getting.
>
> that seems to be a common theme among CF advocates.
Yes, and also among people studying high temperature superconducting, human
intelligence and any other new field of science. We do not know things until
we research them. If we had the answers at the beginning, it wouldn't be
research.
> > You would have to ask a
> > theorist. All I know is that chemical reactions do not product hundreds
of
> > megajoules of heat from a gram of metal, and no chemical ash.
> >
> Hundreds of MJ from a gram of metal? What metal? Burning H gives about
> 240kJ if I recall.
My point exactly. No chemical reaction could even begin to explain the
excess heat. It has to be a nuclear reaction. Also, chemical reactions do
not produce x-rays, tritium, neutrons and so on, whereas cold fusion
reactions do.
> > I expect scientists to obey the fundamental dictate of the scientific
> > method, which is that truth is established by experiment, not by theory.
>
> Yes, but that does not mean that the interpretation of the data is
correct.
The interpretation is very simple and no one has challenged it, as far as I
know. The interpretation is that megajoules per mole of material, x-rays,
transmutations mean a nuclear reaction is occurring, by definition. Can you
think of any other interpretation?
> CF people tend to want to force their interpretation into the nuclear
realm,
> when there is no theory to explain this, and in fact, contradictory
theory,
> when there is or may be chemical theory to explain the phenomena.
What chemical theory? Name one! Describe a chemical process that produces
hundreds of megajoules per mole of fuel, x-rays and the other effects
observed in CF cells. People who say that CF might be chemical should be
held to the same standards of rigor as those who say it is a nuclear effect.
> If you want someone to give you money, you need to be able to show that it
> has a reasonable chance of working. Theory would be helpful here. Since
> you have no theory . . .
*I* have no theory, and I know nothing about theory, but many CF researchers
do have theories. I refer you to the literature.
>, only irreproducible experiments . . .
Many reproducible experiments have been published. See F. Will, for example.
> > There are hundreds of physics experiments to back up this claim.
>
> that is questionable.
No it isn't. You in particular cannot question it, because it appears you
have not read the literature. (Or if you have, you have forgotten some key
details, such as the fact that Will et al. described reproducible
experiments.) You cannot claim that research is "irreproducible" or
"questionable" unless you have read the papers and you can point to specific
irreproducible and questionable aspects of it. Just waving your hands and
saying "it is questionable" does not make it questionable.
> you say hundreds of MJ for a gram, but shouldn't a gram of D produce 10's
of
> GJ? Orders of magnitude difference.
I said: "~100 times more energy (and probably more)." No one knows the upper
limit. No CF cell has been run until the fuel is exhausted. That would
probably take decades, or centuries.
> > chemical fuel. That is one of the reasons we know they are not chemical
> > devices.
> >
> you think they are not chemical devices. But if they were nuclear they
> should produce 100 times more than you claim they do.
As I said, there is no reason to think they could not produce 100 times
more. In the Toyota experiment that would take 12,300 days (33.7 years).
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > Why not buy machines from them instead of building new power plants?
>
> who says they use different machines?
I do. Anyone familiar with European and Japanese machines knows this.
> > Their factory machine tools, lights, dishwashing machines, and
> airconditioners use far
> > less energy than ours do.
>
> I somehow doubt that.
You have no basis to doubt it. Look at the statistics from the DoE or any
industry organization.
> > toss out a bunch of obsolete refrigerators, and cut unnecessary
> consumption.
>
> sure, tell that to people that can't make their house payment. "Umm,
sorry
> sir, refrigerator police, you have to buy a new 'fridge, we will be taking
> your old one now, tough luck on the house payment". I don't think so.
Why not? It would cost less than paying the electric bill. If the people
cannot afford the capital investment, let them pay for the refrigerator the
same way they pay for their share of the electric generators: a little at
time, a few dollars at month.
> > No sacrifice is called for. No one would be inconvenienced.
>
> except the millions of people who have to go out an buy a new 'fridge.
I'm
> sure the appliance companies love your idea.
These millions have a choice. They can (collectively) buy a new electric
power plant, or they can buy new refrigerators. The latter would be cheaper.
It would have been done years ago if the government were not distorting the
market and subsidizing waste.
> You assume it would be cheaper to buy new machines. I highly doubt that.
But again, you have no evidence for your beliefs, only faith. Faith alone
does not make fact. Even the electric power companies say that 20 or 30 year
old equipment is not cost effective.
> You are talking trillions of dollars to replace machines, vs billions to
> build new plants.
Nonsense. If that were the case, we would still be using refrigerators make
in 1950. If it were not cheaper to replace inefficient machines, no one
would do it.
> > As one expert (Fickett) in Sci. Am put it,
> > the CFL ". . . is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."
> >
> > What is the point of consuming two or three times more electricity than
we
> need?
>
> define need.
I like EPRI's answer: "Is the mission of [a power utility] the production
and sale of electricity, or is it the profitable production of customer
satisfaction? Utilities that take the latter view believe that if
electricity costs more than efficiency, then customers will eventually
realize they can save kilowatt-hours and money and still get hot showers and
cold beer . . ." In other words, a business needs to satisfy customers at
the lowest possible cost, or it will eventually go bankrupt.
> sure, but are you advocating a massive government buy back of
refrigerators
> so that the 'poor' can afford to get new ones?
No, I advocate free market economics. I advocate a massive and highly
profitable investment in new technology, so that everyone keeps more money
in his pocket. In other words, I favor progress, change, and competition,
rather than doing more of the same. If utility companies wish to invest
millions of dollars in capital, in the long run they would earn a better
return by buying refrigerators for their customers, and leasing them to end
users, rather than by buying power generators.
> > A fab plants in silicon valley cut energy consumption from 627 kW per
> wafer in
> > 1994 to 90 kW in 2000, with easy improvements that paid for themselves
in
> months.
>
> so? That is a decision they decided to make to reduce their costs.
>
> > (Electronic Buyers' News, December 2000.) If they all did that, it
> > would be like building several power plants practically overnight.
> >
> You are in a dream land. Where do you think all this money is going to be
> generated?
It would cost less, not more. In any case fab plants in California earn and
spend billions of dollars. The cost of energy is a small fraction of their
total expenses. Most of them can easily afford to reduce energy consumption
by a factor of 4 to 6, and the return on investment is ~50% per year.
- Jed
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > Why not buy machines from them instead of building new power plants?
> >
> > who says they use different machines?
>
> I do. Anyone familiar with European and Japanese machines knows this.
>
>
> > > Their factory machine tools, lights, dishwashing machines, and
> > airconditioners use far
> > > less energy than ours do.
> >
> > I somehow doubt that.
>
> You have no basis to doubt it. Look at the statistics from the DoE or any
> industry organization.
>
may be true for certain sectors and applying it broadly. that is a fallacy.
>
> > > toss out a bunch of obsolete refrigerators, and cut unnecessary
> > consumption.
> >
> > sure, tell that to people that can't make their house payment. "Umm,
> sorry
> > sir, refrigerator police, you have to buy a new 'fridge, we will be
taking
> > your old one now, tough luck on the house payment". I don't think so.
>
> Why not? It would cost less than paying the electric bill.
really? over what time period? you cannot make such a statement without
defining your terms.
> If the people
> cannot afford the capital investment, let them pay for the refrigerator
the
> same way they pay for their share of the electric generators: a little at
> time, a few dollars at month.
>
sure. that sort of forced consumerism goes over very well in a free
society.
>
> > > No sacrifice is called for. No one would be inconvenienced.
> >
> > except the millions of people who have to go out an buy a new 'fridge.
> I'm
> > sure the appliance companies love your idea.
>
> These millions have a choice.
they do? the choice to buy new appliances, or buy new appliances?
> They can (collectively) buy a new electric
> power plant, or they can buy new refrigerators.
collectively buying a new power plant is pretty cheap.
> The latter would be cheaper.
> It would have been done years ago if the government were not distorting
the
> market and subsidizing waste.
>
in your dreamworld maybe.
>
> > You assume it would be cheaper to buy new machines. I highly doubt
that.
>
> But again, you have no evidence for your beliefs, only faith.
nor do you. only a distorted view of markets.
> Faith alone
> does not make fact. Even the electric power companies say that 20 or 30
year
> old equipment is not cost effective.
>
no shit? did you figure that out all on your own? at that point you are
talking about something at the end of its useful life anyway.
>
> > You are talking trillions of dollars to replace machines, vs billions to
> > build new plants.
>
> Nonsense.
nonsense? do you have any concept of how much it would cost to replace the
machinery in the US? trillions may be low.
> If that were the case, we would still be using refrigerators make in 1950.
how do you make that conclusion? that doesn't even remotely follow
logically.
> If it were not cheaper to replace inefficient machines, no one would do
it.
>
huh? people replace things when a new one is cheaper than the old one.
appliances like refrigerators have a lifetime of about 10 years, when that
is over, you get a new one. this new one will be more energy efficient.
but you don't rush out and buy a new refrigerator that costs you $200/ year
over 10 years, just to save yourself $20/ year in electricity (typical
energy star refrigerators use 200kWhr/year less than non-energy star, even
costing at $0.10/kWhr is only saving $20/ year). That is utterly
rediculous, and not at all cost effective.
>
> > > As one expert (Fickett) in Sci. Am put it,
> > > the CFL ". . . is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to
eat."
> > >
> > > What is the point of consuming two or three times more electricity
than
> we
> > need?
> >
> > define need.
>
> I like EPRI's answer: "Is the mission of [a power utility] the production
> and sale of electricity, or is it the profitable production of customer
> satisfaction? Utilities that take the latter view believe that if
> electricity costs more than efficiency, then customers will eventually
> realize they can save kilowatt-hours and money and still get hot showers
and
> cold beer . . ." In other words, a business needs to satisfy customers at
> the lowest possible cost, or it will eventually go bankrupt.
>
I think you missed the point of that quote. You are confusing consumer and
producer costs again.
>
> > sure, but are you advocating a massive government buy back of
> refrigerators
> > so that the 'poor' can afford to get new ones?
>
> No, I advocate free market economics.
good, then you have no problem with power companies building more power
plants to keep up with demand, and consumers deciding themselves if they
want to purchase and use more energy efficient stuff.
> I advocate a massive and highly
> profitable investment in new technology, so that everyone keeps more money
> in his pocket.
and how does this fit into the free market?
> In other words, I favor progress, change, and competition,
> rather than doing more of the same. If utility companies wish to invest
> millions of dollars in capital, in the long run they would earn a better
> return by buying refrigerators for their customers, and leasing them to
end
> users, rather than by buying power generators.
>
do the math. This is just not the case.
>
> > > A fab plants in silicon valley cut energy consumption from 627 kW per
> > wafer in
> > > 1994 to 90 kW in 2000, with easy improvements that paid for themselves
> in
> > months.
> >
> > so? That is a decision they decided to make to reduce their costs.
> >
> > > (Electronic Buyers' News, December 2000.) If they all did that, it
> > > would be like building several power plants practically overnight.
> > >
> > You are in a dream land. Where do you think all this money is going to
be
> > generated?
>
> It would cost less, not more.
over what time frame? Do you know the lifetime of a typical fab?
> In any case fab plants in California earn and
> spend billions of dollars. The cost of energy is a small fraction of their
> total expenses.
which is directly contradictory to your thesis.
> Most of them can easily afford to reduce energy consumption
> by a factor of 4 to 6, and the return on investment is ~50% per year.
>
how do you figure. IF energy cost is a small fraction of their total
expenses, how do you figure 50% per year? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > You would have to ask a
> > > theorist. All I know is that chemical reactions do not product
hundreds
> of
> > > megajoules of heat from a gram of metal, and no chemical ash.
> > >
> > Hundreds of MJ from a gram of metal? What metal? Burning H gives about
> > 240kJ if I recall.
>
> My point exactly. No chemical reaction could even begin to explain the
> excess heat. It has to be a nuclear reaction. Also, chemical reactions do
> not produce x-rays, tritium, neutrons and so on, whereas cold fusion
> reactions do.
>
>
> > > I expect scientists to obey the fundamental dictate of the scientific
> > > method, which is that truth is established by experiment, not by
theory.
> >
> > Yes, but that does not mean that the interpretation of the data is
> correct.
>
> The interpretation is very simple and no one has challenged it, as far as
I
> know. The interpretation is that megajoules per mole of material, x-rays,
> transmutations mean a nuclear reaction is occurring, by definition. Can
you
> think of any other interpretation?
>
used to collect it.
>
> > CF people tend to want to force their interpretation into the nuclear
> realm,
> > when there is no theory to explain this, and in fact, contradictory
> theory,
> > when there is or may be chemical theory to explain the phenomena.
>
> What chemical theory? Name one! Describe a chemical process that produces
> hundreds of megajoules per mole of fuel, x-rays and the other effects
> observed in CF cells. People who say that CF might be chemical should be
> held to the same standards of rigor as those who say it is a nuclear
effect.
>
>
> > If you want someone to give you money, you need to be able to show that
it
> > has a reasonable chance of working. Theory would be helpful here.
Since
> > you have no theory . . .
>
> *I* have no theory, and I know nothing about theory, but many CF
researchers
> do have theories. I refer you to the literature.
>
>
> >, only irreproducible experiments . . .
>
> Many reproducible experiments have been published. See F. Will, for
example.
>
can be reproduced in an independant lab by different people, not if the same
guy can make it work 2 times.
>
> > > There are hundreds of physics experiments to back up this claim.
> >
> > that is questionable.
>
> No it isn't. You in particular cannot question it, because it appears you
> have not read the literature. (Or if you have, you have forgotten some key
> details, such as the fact that Will et al. described reproducible
> experiments.) You cannot claim that research is "irreproducible" or
> "questionable" unless you have read the papers and you can point to
specific
> irreproducible and questionable aspects of it. Just waving your hands and
> saying "it is questionable" does not make it questionable.
>
different labs.
>
> > you say hundreds of MJ for a gram, but shouldn't a gram of D produce
10's
> of
> > GJ? Orders of magnitude difference.
>
> I said: "~100 times more energy (and probably more)." No one knows the
upper
> limit. No CF cell has been run until the fuel is exhausted. That would
> probably take decades, or centuries.
>
>
> > > chemical fuel. That is one of the reasons we know they are not
chemical
> > > devices.
> > >
> > you think they are not chemical devices. But if they were nuclear they
> > should produce 100 times more than you claim they do.
>
> As I said, there is no reason to think they could not produce 100 times
> more. In the Toyota experiment that would take 12,300 days (33.7 years).
>
fuel. that energy is at least 100 times too low (for nuclear) for the
amount of fuel you quoted.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > My point exactly. No chemical reaction could even begin to explain the
> > excess heat. It has to be a nuclear reaction. Also, chemical reactions
do
> > not produce x-rays, tritium, neutrons and so on, whereas cold fusion
> > reactions do.
> >
> what kinds of instruments are they using for such detections?
Standard, off the shelf ones that have always been used to make such
measurements. A variety of different calorimeter types, x-ray detectors and
mass spectrometers have been used.
> > know. The interpretation is that megajoules per mole of material,
x-rays,
> > transmutations mean a nuclear reaction is occurring, by definition. Can
> you
> > think of any other interpretation?
> >
> I would have to think about it . . .
No, you wouldn't. Any textbook will explain that chemical reactions are
limited to ~8 eV per atom. A few exotic reactions have been postulated that
might produce as much as ~18 eV per atom. CF reactions have produced
thousands of times more -- probably millions per atom. Also, they convert
atomic nuclei into other nuclei, which by definition means they are nuclear
reactions.
> > observed in CF cells. People who say that CF might be chemical should be
> > held to the same standards of rigor as those who say it is a nuclear
> effect.
> >
> As I am not a Chemist I cannot name a theory off the top of my head.
No chemical reaction could even begin to produce such energy levels.
Everything we know about electron bonds, and every theory of chemistry says
it is utterly impossible. If CF is, in fact, chemistry, that would violate
many more long-established theories than CF would if it is nuclear.
> > Many reproducible experiments have been published. See F. Will, for
> example.
> >
> reproducible where? in his own lab?
In about 150 labs as I recall. See the literature.
> > irreproducible and questionable aspects of it. Just waving your hands
and
> > saying "it is questionable" does not make it questionable.
> >
> I can if the same experiment has not been reproduced independantly in
> different labs.
But you don't know that. You have not read the literature. You have no idea
what I am talking about, and therefore you cannot judge it or make any
statements, positive or negative.
> > I said: "~100 times more energy (and probably more)." No one knows the
> upper
> > limit. No CF cell has been run until the fuel is exhausted. That would
> > probably take decades, or centuries.
> >
> Not according to the vague numbers you have stated here.
The numbers are not a bit vague, although I may have quoted the mass
incorrectly. The paper says the cathode is a rod, 100 mm X 2 mm, and it
produced 250 MJ over 70 days. The information on batteries I quoted -- 3 MJ
per battery, 13 kg mass for a small battery -- came from a battery industry
pamphlet. If you have more accurate information let us see it.
> > As I said, there is no reason to think they could not produce 100 times
> > more. In the Toyota experiment that would take 12,300 days (33.7 years).
> >
> no, you missed the point. you gave specific energy for a specific amount
of
> fuel. that energy is at least 100 times too low (for nuclear) for the
> amount of fuel you quoted.
I did not quote an amount of fuel. I said the metal produced that much heat.
The fuel is probably the deuterium within the metal, but it is not clear how
much of that fuel is used up, or exactly how much is present in the first
place. To establish that, you have to measure the nuclear ash, which is
helium. That is very difficult, but when it has been accomlished it
invariably shows the same amount of helium is produced per MJ as a plasma
fusion reaction produces.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> > You have no basis to doubt it. Look at the statistics from the DoE or
any
> > industry organization.
> >
> you are making highly generalized statements.
Correct. Statistics are generalized, by definition. See, for example, the
table "Energy Intensity of Selected Countries" here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/chinaenv.html
That is a generalization. For specific information on specific machines,
read the specifications for those machines.
> you are taking something that
> may be true for certain sectors and applying it broadly. that is a
fallacy.
You have it backward. The numbers from the EIA apply to all sectors. They
are nation-wide averages. Certain sectors may be exceptional. That is to
say, there may be certain Chinese sectors more efficient than those in the
U.S., and possibly some U.S. sectors are more efficient than their
counterparts in Japan. (I don't happen to know of any, but there may be
some.)
> > sorry
> > > sir, refrigerator police, you have to buy a new 'fridge, we will be
> taking
> > > your old one now, tough luck on the house payment". I don't think so.
> >
> > Why not? It would cost less than paying the electric bill.
>
> really? over what time period? you cannot make such a statement without
> defining your terms.
Obviously the time period and ROI will depend on the local cost of
electricity and the model of refrigerator. But, in general, it is
cost-effective to retire older models -- more cost effective than building
new power plants to run them. See any industry publication about
refrigerators.
> > If the people
> > cannot afford the capital investment, let them pay for the refrigerator
> the
> > same way they pay for their share of the electric generators: a little
at
> > time, a few dollars at month.
> >
> sure. that sort of forced consumerism goes over very well in a free
> society.
Why would it be forced? Who said anything about forcing anyone? If someone
offers you a new refrigerator that pays for itself in some number of years,
which costs you only a few dollars per month, would you take it? Perhaps
not, but millions of people would. Equipment buy back and financing schemes
in California have brought in millions of obsolete machines, saving everyone
money.
> > They can (collectively) buy a new electric
> > power plant, or they can buy new refrigerators.
>
> collectively buying a new power plant is pretty cheap.
It is not cheaper than buying new equipment. If it were, middle class and
rich people, who have capital and can make any choice they like, would all
be using 50-year-old refrigerators. The equipment would be designed to last
indefinitely. Most people understand ROI and simple economics. Most people
can read the labels on the store models, figure out what energy is costing
them, and make intelligent choices.
> > > You assume it would be cheaper to buy new machines. I highly doubt
> that.
> >
> > But again, you have no evidence for your beliefs, only faith.
>
> nor do you. only a distorted view of markets.
Well, if my view is distorted, it is distorted by EPRI, by every major trade
association publication, by the EIA, the Japanese MITI (or whatever they
call it these days), and by every establishment publication on energy I have
read, so I am in good company. I have not idea where you are getting your
facts, since you have not revealed your source of knowledge or cited any
books or publications, but in any case I think you are wrong.
> > Faith alone
> > does not make fact. Even the electric power companies say that 20 or 30
> year
> > old equipment is not cost effective.
> >
> no shit? did you figure that out all on your own? at that point you are
> talking about something at the end of its useful life anyway.
Yes, that is what I said. I repeatedly said we are talking about 20-year old
refrigerators and the like. There are millions in service, mainly because
the price of electricity is artificially low, because the government
interferes in free-market mechanisms, propping up fossil fuel with subsidies
and war. If markets were free, and consumers paid the true cost of
electricity, we would soon get along very well with half the power
generation capacity we now have, and less than half the pollution, power
lines and so on.
> > > You are talking trillions of dollars to replace machines, vs billions
to
> > > build new plants.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> nonsense? do you have any concept of how much it would cost to replace
the
> machinery in the US? trillions may be low.
The machinery in the US will all be replaced anyway, gradually over the next
10 to 50 years. We will spend trillions no matter what. The question is:
will we spend extra trillions on obsolete, inefficient polluting machines,
or will we let the market guide people to making more intelligent choices.
> > If that were the case, we would still be using refrigerators make in
1950.
>
> how do you make that conclusion? that doesn't even remotely follow
> logically.
Sure it does. There are a few machine types that have not improved in 1950,
or even 1900, such as pumps. Since they do not improve measurably, they are
designed to last for decades. If refrigerators and automobiles had already
reached the end of development, and were not likely to improve, they would
be made like Rolls-Royces, and they would last for decades. At least the
models for rich customers would be. They are not, because everyone knows
that the technology is rapidly changing and much better models are coming.
This has been the rule for a long time. See Charles Babb, "The Economy of
Machinery and Manufactures," 1832: "Machinery for producing any commodity
in great demand seldom actually wears out; new improvements by which the
same operations can be executed either more quickly or better, generally
superseding it long before that period arrives . . ."
> > If it were not cheaper to replace inefficient machines, no one would do
> it.
> >
> huh? people replace things when a new one is cheaper than the old one.
> appliances like refrigerators have a lifetime of about 10 years, when that
> is over, you get a new one.
You have it backwards. The technology has lifetime of 10 years before it
improves so much the machine is not worth keeping, so the machines are
engineered to follow. Personal computer last about 3 years for the same
reason. If the technology were not likely to change significantly for 70
years, refrigerators would be engineered to last a lifetime. (Some parts
would have to be replaced, of course.) Actually, some are. I have seen gas
fired refrigerators made in the 1930s that are still working well.
> this new one will be more energy efficient.
> but you don't rush out and buy a new refrigerator that costs you $200/
year
> over 10 years, just to save yourself $20/ year in electricity (typical
> energy star refrigerators use 200kWhr/year less than non-energy star, even
> costing at $0.10/whir is only saving $20/ year). That is utterly
> ridiculous, and not at all cost effective.
Of course you as an individual don't, but collectively we buy millions of
refrigerators per year, and we could easily engineer ones that last 10 times
longer, and reduce the number purchased by a factor 10. I do not buy a new
personal computer six months either, even though the speed and disk size
grows by leaps and bounds, but I buy one much more frequently than any other
machine, because it makes no economic sense to keep an 3-year-old computer
running, except in special, limited applications.
> > No, I advocate free market economics.
>
> good, then you have no problem with power companies building more power
> plants to keep up with demand . . .
Only if the government stops handing them huge sums of money. Of course if
that happened, they would have to stop, wouldn't they?
> > It would cost less, not more.
>
> over what time frame? Do you know the lifetime of a typical fib?
A couple of years, I believe. But the fib machinery itself was not affected.
It was mainly the HVAC and the equipment used to clean up and prepare the
wafers, which lasts much longer.
> > In any case fib plants in California earn and
> > spend billions of dollars. The cost of energy is a small fraction of
their
> > total expenses.
>
> which is directly contradictory to your thesis.
It is a small fraction of *their* expenses, but a large fraction of the
total power consumed in California, especially around Silicon Valley.
> > Most of them can easily afford to reduce energy consumption
> > by a factor of 4 to 6, and the return on investment is ~50% per year.
> >
> how do you figure. IF energy cost is a small fraction of their total
> expenses, how do you figure 50% per year? That makes no sense whatsoever.
I said the RIO is ~50%. That means the money they invest in improving the
HVAC pays back in two years. I did not say their overall expenses were cut
drastically. Only the expenses relating to power. Most of their expenses
have nothing to do with energy. Still, they did save millions of dollars,
and that means something even in an organization that spends billions of
dollars. You can earn a similar RIO by purchasing a $14 CFL next time a
light burns out in your house. You get back $7.71 per year for the next 7
years. It is better than the stock market, or any other investment.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> This has been the rule for a long time. See Charles Babb, "The Economy of
> Machinery and Manufactures," 1832: "Machinery for producing any commodity
. . .
That's supposed to be Babbage, for goodness sake. The fellow who designed
the first computer-like machines.
> > over what time frame? Do you know the lifetime of a typical fib?
>
> A couple of years, I believe. But the fib machinery itself was not
affected. . . .
That is supposed to be "fab." Fibs last forever.
- Jed
Raziel
There you have it. If you don't know what is being burned or even how much
of it you have, how can you make ANY statement as to what the process is?
> To establish that, you have to measure the nuclear ash, which is
> helium.
no, you have to know what you are burning, and how much of it you have to
start with. That is NOT done by measuring the ash.
> That is very difficult, but when it has been accomlished it
> invariably shows the same amount of helium is produced per MJ as a plasma
> fusion reaction produces.
>
How can you say that when you have no idea how much D you have to start
with?
Raz
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > sorry
> > > > sir, refrigerator police, you have to buy a new 'fridge, we will be
> > taking
> > > > your old one now, tough luck on the house payment". I don't think
so.
> > >
> > > Why not? It would cost less than paying the electric bill.
> >
> > really? over what time period? you cannot make such a statement
without
> > defining your terms.
>
> Obviously the time period and ROI will depend on the local cost of
> electricity and the model of refrigerator. But, in general, it is
> cost-effective to retire older models
depends entirely on how old. It is not cost effective to retire a 3 year
old refrigerator, or even a 5 year old. at 10 years old, maybe. There is
much more to the analysis than just the general statements you are making.
>-- more cost effective than building
> new power plants to run them. See any industry publication about
> refrigerators.
>
again, it depends on many factors.
>
> > > If the people
> > > cannot afford the capital investment, let them pay for the
refrigerator
> > the
> > > same way they pay for their share of the electric generators: a little
> at
> > > time, a few dollars at month.
> > >
> > sure. that sort of forced consumerism goes over very well in a free
> > society.
>
> Why would it be forced? Who said anything about forcing anyone?
you did.
> If someone
> offers you a new refrigerator that pays for itself in some number of
years,
> which costs you only a few dollars per month, would you take it?
depends. Define a few dollars per month. A new refrigerator costs >$1000
on average. Why would anyone pay $10/month to save $2/month in electricity
(Assuming a 10 year lifetime and 8 cents /kWh).
> Perhaps not, but millions of people would.
then they are not doing the simple math.
> Equipment buy back and financing schemes
> in California have brought in millions of obsolete machines, saving
everyone
> money.
>
it has to cost someone something. nothing is free.
>
> > > They can (collectively) buy a new electric
> > > power plant, or they can buy new refrigerators.
> >
> > collectively buying a new power plant is pretty cheap.
>
> It is not cheaper than buying new equipment. If it were, middle class and
> rich people, who have capital and can make any choice they like, would all
> be using 50-year-old refrigerators.
no, because a refrigerator has a much shorter lifetime than that.
> The equipment would be designed to last indefinitely.
why? even IF that were possible, you would put yourself out of business if
no one ever had to replace your product.
> Most people understand ROI and simple economics.
no they don't. Most people are idiots. Half of the people are below
average intelligence. And average isn't all that impressive.
> Most people
> can read the labels on the store models, figure out what energy is costing
> them, and make intelligent choices.
>
If only that were true.
>
> > > > You assume it would be cheaper to buy new machines. I highly doubt
> > that.
> > >
> > > But again, you have no evidence for your beliefs, only faith.
> >
> > nor do you. only a distorted view of markets.
>
> Well, if my view is distorted, it is distorted by EPRI, by every major
trade
> association publication, by the EIA, the Japanese MITI (or whatever they
> call it these days), and by every establishment publication on energy I
have
> read, so I am in good company. I have not idea where you are getting your
> facts, since you have not revealed your source of knowledge or cited any
> books or publications, but in any case I think you are wrong.
>
Let's see. For starters, I just went to sears.com to look at the price and
energy usage of a refrigerator (I just bought a new refrigerator 4 months
ago). Then I looked at my electricity bill and saw the price of
electricity. The math all gets pretty simple from there...
>
> > > Faith alone
> > > does not make fact. Even the electric power companies say that 20 or
30
> > year
> > > old equipment is not cost effective.
> > >
> > no shit? did you figure that out all on your own? at that point you
are
> > talking about something at the end of its useful life anyway.
>
> Yes, that is what I said. I repeatedly said we are talking about 20-year
old
> refrigerators and the like.
no, said 50 year old equipment. You have to make a distinction in your
statements. At 20 years old, that is about the break even point of a modern
refrigerator at current energy prices. Anything older than that should be
replaced. However, I don't think I have ever had a refrigerator last much
more than 10 years in my lifetime. Anything purchased in the last ten years
has pretty good efficiency anyway. So what you are really talking about is
a very few, very old refrigerators, that are either at or beyond their
useful life anyway. So, here is your chance. Get your numbers in order,
define your terms, and restate your claims.
> There are millions in service, mainly because
> the price of electricity is artificially low, because the government
> interferes in free-market mechanisms,
yes, by putting artificial caps on energy prices to the consumer, as in the
so-called deregulation in California. If government really wanted to push
conservation the government would allow the energy companies to charge
people what the energy really cost.
> propping up fossil fuel with subsidies and war.
it is a hell of alot cheaper to buy oil than to fight a war over it.
> If markets were free, and consumers paid the true cost of
> electricity, we would soon get along very well with half the power
> generation capacity we now have, and less than half the pollution, power
> lines and so on.
>
I don't know about half, but certainly people would pay alot more attention
to the energy they use. I will basically agree with you there.
>
> > > > You are talking trillions of dollars to replace machines, vs
billions
> to
> > > > build new plants.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > nonsense? do you have any concept of how much it would cost to replace
> the
> > machinery in the US? trillions may be low.
>
> The machinery in the US will all be replaced anyway, gradually over the
next
> 10 to 50 years.
yes, and will be replaced with more efficient equipment.
> We will spend trillions no matter what.
indeed, but why spend it all NOW, when it is not needed.
> The question is:
> will we spend extra trillions on obsolete, inefficient polluting machines,
> or will we let the market guide people to making more intelligent choices.
>
it all depends on costs. Let me ask you this: You are deciding to buy
widget A or widget B. Widget B is 10% more energy efficient than widget A.
Widget A costs $1000 and widget B costs $1200. Electricity is 10cents/kWh.
Which widget do you buy?
Which widget is more cost effective to buy at a 5 year lifetime? 10 year
lifetime? 20 year lifetime? What is the breakeven lifetime?
>
> > > If that were the case, we would still be using refrigerators make in
> 1950.
> >
> > how do you make that conclusion? that doesn't even remotely follow
> > logically.
>
> Sure it does. There are a few machine types that have not improved in
1950,
> or even 1900, such as pumps. Since they do not improve measurably, they
are
> designed to last for decades. If refrigerators and automobiles had already
> reached the end of development,
which they clearly have not.
> and were not likely to improve,
again an obviously false premise.
> they would be made like Rolls-Royces, and they would last for decades.
many cars last for decades, they just don't stay as nice as a rolls after
many years.
> At least the models for rich customers would be.
you get what you pay for.
> They are not, because everyone knows
> that the technology is rapidly changing and much better models are coming.
define better.
> This has been the rule for a long time. See Charles Babb, "The Economy of
> Machinery and Manufactures," 1832: "Machinery for producing any commodity
> in great demand seldom actually wears out; new improvements by which the
> same operations can be executed either more quickly or better, generally
> superseding it long before that period arrives . . ."
>
so? You are missing a very basic point. No consumer is going to replace a
working piece of equipment with a new piece of equipment unless the new one
is going to save money over the expected useful lifetime of the equipment.
>
> > > If it were not cheaper to replace inefficient machines, no one would
do
> > it.
> > >
> > huh? people replace things when a new one is cheaper than the old one.
> > appliances like refrigerators have a lifetime of about 10 years, when
that
> > is over, you get a new one.
>
> You have it backwards. The technology has lifetime of 10 years before it
> improves so much the machine is not worth keeping,
the numbers say more like 20 years.
> so the machines are
> engineered to follow. Personal computer last about 3 years for the same
> reason.
Depends on the application. I replace my game machine much faster than
that, but have had other machines for other uses last much longer.
> If the technology were not likely to change significantly for 70
> years, refrigerators would be engineered to last a lifetime. (Some parts
> would have to be replaced, of course.) Actually, some are. I have seen gas
> fired refrigerators made in the 1930s that are still working well.
>
Depends on what you mean by working well.
>
> > this new one will be more energy efficient.
> > but you don't rush out and buy a new refrigerator that costs you $200/
> year
> > over 10 years, just to save yourself $20/ year in electricity (typical
> > energy star refrigerators use 200kWhr/year less than non-energy star,
even
> > costing at $0.10/kWhr is only saving $20/ year). That is utterly
> > ridiculous, and not at all cost effective.
>
> Of course you as an individual don't, but collectively we buy millions of
> refrigerators per year, and we could easily engineer ones that last 10
times
> longer,
but why? if as you have already said, the technology improves more rapidly
than that, why would you?
> and reduce the number purchased by a factor 10. I do not buy a new
> personal computer six months either, even though the speed and disk size
> grows by leaps and bounds, but I buy one much more frequently than any
other
> machine, because it makes no economic sense to keep an 3-year-old computer
> running, except in special, limited applications.
>
a 3 year old computer is perfectly fine for most applications. Unless you
are running a high-end app, or playing games, you don't need new computers.
My newsreader runs just fine on my pentium 200 as it does on my p4 2GHz.
The difference is that on my p4 I can run physics codes in the background
with no degradation in newsreader performance.
>
> > > No, I advocate free market economics.
> >
> > good, then you have no problem with power companies building more power
> > plants to keep up with demand . . .
>
> Only if the government stops handing them huge sums of money. Of course if
> that happened, they would have to stop, wouldn't they?
>
possibly. Depends on what costs they can pass on to the consumer.
>
> > > It would cost less, not more.
> >
> > over what time frame? Do you know the lifetime of a typical fib?
>
> A couple of years, I believe. But the fib machinery itself was not
affected.
> It was mainly the HVAC and the equipment used to clean up and prepare the
> wafers, which lasts much longer.
>
That is correct fabs cost billions and last only a few years. I am not sure
of how much, if any, of the equipment is recycled, since much of it is
obsoleted, hence the reason for a new fab.
>
> > > In any case fib plants in California earn and
> > > spend billions of dollars. The cost of energy is a small fraction of
> their
> > > total expenses.
> >
> > which is directly contradictory to your thesis.
>
> It is a small fraction of *their* expenses, but a large fraction of the
> total power consumed in California, especially around Silicon Valley.
>
again, so why would they go to the cost and trouble to save themselves small
fractions of cost? specially when the fab itself will be obsolete in a few
years anyway? you make no sense.
>
> > > Most of them can easily afford to reduce energy consumption
> > > by a factor of 4 to 6, and the return on investment is ~50% per year.
> > >
> > how do you figure. IF energy cost is a small fraction of their total
> > expenses, how do you figure 50% per year? That makes no sense
whatsoever.
>
> I said the RIO is ~50%. That means the money they invest in improving the
> HVAC pays back in two years.
which is about the lifetime of the fab. So, it makes no sense to retrofit
an existing fab, only to upgrade to new equipment when they build a new fab,
which they probably do anyway. So, again, what is your point?
> I did not say their overall expenses were cut drastically.
actually, in the part you snipped, you at least implied that.
> Only the expenses relating to power. Most of their expenses
> have nothing to do with energy.
again, if power is 1% of their expenses, and you cut that by 50%, you have
done nothing to cut expenses compared to the cost of equipment.
> Still, they did save millions of dollars,
> and that means something even in an organization that spends billions of
> dollars.
not if it costs millions of dollars to make that 'savings'. You sound like
my wife. She goes to the store and buys something she doesn't need just
because it was on sale. She doesn't need it but she 'saved' 20% (ignoring
the fact that she still spent money that she didn't need to spend).
> You can earn a similar RIO by purchasing a $14 CFL next time a
> light burns out in your house.
maybe. I have alot of CF bulbs. They work well in some places and poorly
in others.
> You get back $7.71 per year for the next 7
> years. It is better than the stock market, or any other investment.
>
That depends entirely on how often you have the lights on. If you tend to
keep lights that you are not using off, as I do, then CF bulbs don't gain
you nearly that much. Now, the CF flood lights I have outside that are on
all night, those will pay for themselves (even though they are shitty and
don't put out nearly as much light as a halogen flood).
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > Why would it be forced? Who said anything about forcing anyone?
>
> you did.
Nope. Never. You keep bringing up that notion, but I never mentioned it. All
of the buy back programs in California are voluntary. I mentioned the
consumer campaigns in Japan, with advertisements and patriotic appeal. Those
are obviously all volunteer too. Japan is a free country.
> > The equipment would be designed to last indefinitely.
>
> why? even IF that were possible, you would put yourself out of business
if
> no one ever had to replace your product.
As I mentioned, gas fired refrigerators last for decades. There is a market
for long-lasting equipment. I believe most U.S. gas-fired refrigerators are
made by Amish people for the Amish market, by Crystal Cold, Inc. I have
heard they last a lifetime. In my experience, Amish people are often skilled
at repairing and maintaining their own equipment, and they like stuff that
lasts.
> > Most people understand ROI and simple economics.
>
> no they don't. Most people are idiots. Half of the people are below
> average intelligence. And average isn't all that impressive.
Oh, I think people are amazingly smart. They survive in ways I could never
cope with, and do a million jobs I could never do. Our species would never
come through the "evolutionary furnace" (Florman) if they were not
impressive. All primates are smart.
> Let's see. For starters, I just went to sears.com to look at the price
and
> energy usage of a refrigerator (I just bought a new refrigerator 4 months
> ago). Then I looked at my electricity bill and saw the price of
> electricity. The math all gets pretty simple from there...
Yes. Now the hard part: You have to find out how many million old
refrigerators are out there, where they are, and how to set up a buy-back or
financing program that will appeal to customers and voila, you have built
the equivalent of a power generator for much less money than a generator
would cost. I recommend a patriotic advertising campaign.
> no, said 50 year old equipment. You have to make a distinction in your
> statements. At 20 years old, that is about the break even point of a
modern
> refrigerator at current energy prices. Anything older than that should be
> replaced. However, I don't think I have ever had a refrigerator last much
> more than 10 years in my lifetime.
Actually, as it happens, I have three that are older than 20 years. One is
still remarkably good. Two I seldom use, except on weekends and when there
is overflow produce. But the seals are shot, so I would not use them full
time.
> If government really wanted to push
> conservation the government would allow the energy companies to charge
> people what the energy really cost.
Yup.
> > propping up fossil fuel with subsidies and war.
>
> it is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy oil than to fight a war over it.
I agree!
> > If markets were free, and consumers paid the true cost of
> > electricity, we would soon get along very well with half the power
> > generation capacity we now have, and less than half the pollution, power
> > lines and so on.
> >
> I don't know about half, but certainly people would pay alot more
attention
> to the energy they use. I will basically agree with you there.
"Half" is based on the EIA tables and graphs I cited earlier, showing the
U.S. uses about twice as much energy per dollar of GDP compared to Italy or
Japan. Regarding electricity, see the EPRI and Rocky Mountain Inst.
estimates of waste in Sci. Am., Sept. 1990, p. 72. EPRI estimated 20%
wasted, the RMI estimated 20 to 70% wasted. (They co-authored the article.)
That is quite a range of estimates. I think nowadays, most conventional
electric motors waste about 40%, and incandescent lighting wastes 75%. The
new LED lights are even better than CFLs.
> > We will spend trillions no matter what.
>
> indeed, but why spend it all NOW, when it is not needed.
I never suggested we should spend it NOW. That's ridiculous. In California t
hey spent enough last year to upgrade refrigerators and the silicon valley
fab industries to avoid any more power outages for now. They can accelerate
that a little and reduce demand tremendously in the next 20 years --
catching up with Italy and Japan. There is no need for new generator
capacity. Actually, the Japanese have been reducing capacity. Most new
replacement capacity are gas fired co-generators, according to the Yomiuri
and Nikkei.
> > designed to last for decades. If refrigerators and automobiles had
already
> > reached the end of development,
>
> which they clearly have not.
>
> > and were not likely to improve,
>
> again an obviously false premise.
Yes, they were all false premises. That's my point.
> > If the technology were not likely to change significantly for 70
> > years, refrigerators would be engineered to last a lifetime. (Some parts
> > would have to be replaced, of course.) Actually, some are. I have seen
gas
> > fired refrigerators made in the 1930s that are still working well.
> >
> Depends on what you mean by working well.
I mean they use about as much propane as they ever did, and the food is as
cold as it ever was. Of course they have been maintained. They are used
where there is no electricity.
> > Of course you as an individual don't, but collectively we buy millions
of
> > refrigerators per year, and we could easily engineer ones that last 10
> times
> > longer,
>
> but why? if as you have already said, the technology improves more
rapidly
> than that, why would you?
That's my point. You wouldn't.
> a 3 year old computer is perfectly fine for most applications.
Well, not in any of the apps I do. I guess there are plenty of other apps
out there.
> That is correct fabs cost billions and last only a few years. I am not
sure
> of how much, if any, of the equipment is recycled, since much of it is
> obsoleted, hence the reason for a new fab.
Right. But the equipment that uses most of the electricity is the clean-room
HVAC, water cooling and water purification as I recall. That can be used
with several generations of chip making machines. That's been improved
radically in California since 2001.
> > It is a small fraction of *their* expenses, but a large fraction of the
> > total power consumed in California, especially around Silicon Valley.
> >
> again, so why would they go to the cost and trouble to save themselves
small
> fractions of cost?
It was around $5 million in the bigger plants. $5 million is $5 million. It
may be small compared to their income, but it is still a lot of money. They
did it in a heck of a hurry to avoid power failures, and take the burden off
the power companies. A 2-minute blackout costs them an incredible amount of
money. They are also installing improved backup generators, as you can
imagine! The Japanese are going the whole nine yards and installing
full-time co-gens -- incredibly efficient.
> > I said the RIO is ~50%. That means the money they invest in improving
the
> > HVAC pays back in two years.
>
> which is about the lifetime of the fab.
But not the HVAC, as I mentioned.
> > I did not say their overall expenses were cut drastically.
>
> actually, in the part you snipped, you at least implied that.
Nope. You misunderstood.
> > Still, they did save millions of dollars,
> > and that means something even in an organization that spends billions of
> > dollars.
>
> not if it costs millions of dollars to make that 'savings'.
If it cost millions they would have saved nothing! The ROI would be
negative. The articles say it was ~50%. I think you need to study the term
"ROI" (return on investment) more carefully.
> > You get back $7.71 per year for the next 7
> > years. It is better than the stock market, or any other investment.
> >
> That depends entirely on how often you have the lights on.
That is $54 over the life of the bulb, about 7 years, at $0.10 per kWh. They
last somewhat longer if you don't use them much, so you get your $54
eventually.
> If you tend to
> keep lights that you are not using off, as I do, then CF bulbs don't gain
> you nearly that much.
They save just as much, but over 10 years instead of 7. ~$5 per year instead
of ~$7. Actually, I have had some still working since my daughter was born,
17 years.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> no, you have to know what you are burning, and how much of it you have to
> start with. That is NOT done by measuring the ash.
It has to be, in this experiment. On the scale of the experiment, there will
be a gigantic supply of deuterium in any macroscopic amount of Pd-D
(deuteride), no matter how you load it: liquid, gas, ion beam, or whatever.
It doesn't take much deuterium! As R. Petrasso pointed out, to form one mole
(4 grams) of helium, a cell operating at 1 watt would have to run for 73,000
years. Say a cell starts out with 20 grams of heavy water. That's 4 grams of
deuterium, if I have done my arithmetic right. Even a cell that produces 100
watts for weeks will not reduce the amount of deuterium measurably. You
cannot run a sample with only a few micrograms of deuteride. The sample
would be too small to see, and impossible to work with.
> > That is very difficult, but when it has been accomlished it
> > invariably shows the same amount of helium is produced per MJ as a
plasma
> > fusion reaction produces.
> >
> How can you say that when you have no idea how much D you have to start
> with?
It does not matter. You measure the helium in the metal, electrolyte and
cell components beforehand. You measure the helium in the cover gas on line
during the experiment, and check the metal and electrolyte again when the
experiment finishes. In a carefully constructed steel cell with positive
pressure, atmospheric helium cannot leak in, and in any case, in some
experiments the helium has built up inside the cell to levels above
atmospheric concentration. You measure output energy and the total helium.
You check for contamination by measuring various other elements, especially
neon (I think it is) that will accompany helium contamination in a fixed
proportion. It is quite involved. An experiment to measure helium takes a
couple of years of hard work, and millions of bucks, I would imagine. (I
have never paid for one; I wouldn't know.)
- Jed
Raziel
> Raziel writes:
>
> > > Why would it be forced? Who said anything about forcing anyone?
> >
> > you did.
>
> Nope. Never. You keep bringing up that notion, but I never mentioned it.
All
> of the buy back programs in California are voluntary. I mentioned the
> consumer campaigns in Japan, with advertisements and patriotic appeal.
Those
> are obviously all volunteer too. Japan is a free country.
>
>
> > > The equipment would be designed to last indefinitely.
> >
> > why? even IF that were possible, you would put yourself out of business
> if
> > no one ever had to replace your product.
>
> As I mentioned, gas fired refrigerators last for decades. There is a
market
> for long-lasting equipment. I believe most U.S. gas-fired refrigerators
are
> made by Amish people for the Amish market, by Crystal Cold, Inc. I have
> heard they last a lifetime. In my experience, Amish people are often
skilled
> at repairing and maintaining their own equipment, and they like stuff that
> lasts.
>
that is irrelevant to the electricity market, and would not use electricity
for religious reasons.
>
> > > Most people understand ROI and simple economics.
> >
> > no they don't. Most people are idiots. Half of the people are below
> > average intelligence. And average isn't all that impressive.
>
> Oh, I think people are amazingly smart. They survive in ways I could never
> cope with, and do a million jobs I could never do. Our species would never
> come through the "evolutionary furnace" (Florman) if they were not
> impressive. All primates are smart.
>
compare people to other people, saying a person is smart has no relevance
unless you are comparing to peers. The question is whether or not a person
with average intelligence has the capacity and willingness to factor
complex, and even not so complex, economic issues when making purchases. I
will submit to you that the average person has trouble with basic economics,
and half the people are below average.
>
> > Let's see. For starters, I just went to sears.com to look at the price
> and
> > energy usage of a refrigerator (I just bought a new refrigerator 4
months
> > ago). Then I looked at my electricity bill and saw the price of
> > electricity. The math all gets pretty simple from there...
>
> Yes. Now the hard part: You have to find out how many million old
> refrigerators are out there, where they are, and how to set up a buy-back
or
> financing program that will appeal to customers and voila, you have built
> the equivalent of a power generator for much less money than a generator
> would cost. I recommend a patriotic advertising campaign.
>
out?
>
> > no, said 50 year old equipment. You have to make a distinction in your
> > statements. At 20 years old, that is about the break even point of a
> modern
> > refrigerator at current energy prices. Anything older than that should
be
> > replaced. However, I don't think I have ever had a refrigerator last
much
> > more than 10 years in my lifetime.
>
> Actually, as it happens, I have three that are older than 20 years.
well then why don't you replace them? or are you just waiting for the
government to pick up the tab for you?
But again, those stats don't mean much. In the US energy is cheap, very
cheap. Japan has an energy problem, little resources, and high dependance
on foreign energy sources. Europe also has an energy problem. Energy in
Japan and in Europe is more expensive, so people are forced to use less.
Think about it. My electricity costs about 6 cents per kWh, sometime a
penny more, but about that. Running a 100W lightbulb for an hour costs me
0.6 cents. If it takes me 1 second to walk across the room and turn it off
if I am leaving the house, I break even. My time is worth more than 0.6
cents per second. So, just in time cost, it is cheaper for me to leave the
light on for an hour than to walk across the room and turn it off. Simple
math.
>
> > > We will spend trillions no matter what.
> >
> > indeed, but why spend it all NOW, when it is not needed.
>
> I never suggested we should spend it NOW. That's ridiculous. In California
t
> hey spent enough last year to upgrade refrigerators and the silicon valley
> fab industries to avoid any more power outages for now. They can
accelerate
> that a little and reduce demand tremendously in the next 20 years --
you want to reduce demand in California? remove the price caps to the
consumer. Simple, and it will happen almost overnight.
> catching up with Italy and Japan. There is no need for new generator
> capacity. Actually, the Japanese have been reducing capacity. Most new
> replacement capacity are gas fired co-generators, according to the Yomiuri
> and Nikkei.
>
Electricity is also more expensive in Japan, and generating it more of a tax
on their resources. That is not the case in the US. In the US we have
ample ways of generation, and electricity is cheap, so people use it, and
waste it. But even still, we need more capacity to handle peak loads.
It can, but when you build a new fab, you put in new equipment, since the
old equipment is probably still in use somewhere. Therefore there is a
natural replacement cycle already in place.
>
> > > It is a small fraction of *their* expenses, but a large fraction of
the
> > > total power consumed in California, especially around Silicon Valley.
> > >
> > again, so why would they go to the cost and trouble to save themselves
> small
> > fractions of cost?
>
> It was around $5 million in the bigger plants. $5 million is $5 million.
not if it costs you $10 million to save that $5 million.
> It may be small compared to their income, but it is still a lot of money.
They
> did it in a heck of a hurry to avoid power failures, and take the burden
off
> the power companies.
In that specific case the cost-benefit of replacement had another factor
built in, and regular market forces were not at work.
> A 2-minute blackout costs them an incredible amount of
> money.
yep, so that is more of a factor than just saving on some electricity. The
fact that they needed to do it to keep operational outweighs the basic
cost-benefit analysis. Now, one could look to the Aluminum industry in
Washington. During this same time they were forced to stop operations
because power costs were too high. They made money selling their power
contracts back to the power companies and not operating. In that case they
made money by shutting down, but made far less than they would have if they
operated normally, and there was no option for an upgrade.
> They are also installing improved backup generators, as you can
> imagine! The Japanese are going the whole nine yards and installing
> full-time co-gens -- incredibly efficient.
>
>
> > > I said the RIO is ~50%. That means the money they invest in improving
> the
> > > HVAC pays back in two years.
> >
> > which is about the lifetime of the fab.
>
> But not the HVAC, as I mentioned.
>
But that is not transferred from an old fab to a new fab I would imagine.
>
> > > I did not say their overall expenses were cut drastically.
> >
> > actually, in the part you snipped, you at least implied that.
>
> Nope. You misunderstood.
>
>
> > > Still, they did save millions of dollars,
> > > and that means something even in an organization that spends billions
of
> > > dollars.
> >
> > not if it costs millions of dollars to make that 'savings'.
>
> If it cost millions they would have saved nothing! The ROI would be
> negative. The articles say it was ~50%. I think you need to study the term
> "ROI" (return on investment) more carefully.
>
>
> > > You get back $7.71 per year for the next 7
> > > years. It is better than the stock market, or any other investment.
> > >
> > That depends entirely on how often you have the lights on.
>
> That is $54 over the life of the bulb, about 7 years, at $0.10 per kWh.
They
> last somewhat longer if you don't use them much, so you get your $54
> eventually.
>
Again it depends how it is used. The mechanical lifetime may not allow you
to use all of the 'hours' it can be lit if you don't use it much.
>
> > If you tend to
> > keep lights that you are not using off, as I do, then CF bulbs don't
gain
> > you nearly that much.
>
> They save just as much, but over 10 years instead of 7. ~$5 per year
instead
> of ~$7. Actually, I have had some still working since my daughter was
born,
> 17 years.
>
Then you have been lucky. I have had some last only a few months
(structural failure).
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> > As I mentioned, gas fired refrigerators last for decades. There is a
> market
> > for long-lasting equipment. I believe most U.S. gas-fired refrigerators
> are
> > made by Amish people for the Amish market, by Crystal Cold, Inc. I have
> > heard they last a lifetime. In my experience, Amish people are often
> skilled
> > at repairing and maintaining their own equipment, and they like stuff
that
> > lasts.
> >
> So you are again talking about a very small sector, and then even about
one
> that is irrelevant to the electricity market, and would not use
electricity
> for religious reasons.
Right. In the 1930s these refrigerators were common because many houses
still lacked electricity. Today they used mainly by Amish people, I believe.
They are good for remote cabins, and these giant RVs. In a cabin they are
better than hooking an electric refrigerator to a small generator. Quieter
than an electric fridge, too. Actually, the Amish people I have seen use
electricity, but only when they generate it themselves. Different Amish
communities have different rules, set by local committees. They seem pretty
flexible.
> > Yes. Now the hard part: You have to find out how many million old
> > refrigerators are out there, where they are, and how to set up a
buy-back
> or
> > financing program that will appeal to customers and voila, you have
built
> > the equivalent of a power generator for much less money than a generator
> > would cost. I recommend a patriotic advertising campaign.
> >
> how much money (time equals money) are you going to spend figuring all
this
> out?
Much less time than it takes to figure out where to put a new power plant or
power line.
> > Actually, as it happens, I have three that are older than 20 years.
>
> well then why don't you replace them? or are you just waiting for the
> government to pick up the tab for you?
1. I explained why I do not replace them, in the following sentence.
2. I have NEVER suggested the government should pay for any of these
programs. I have not so much as hinted that the government should be
involved. The program would be profitable; the customers would pay for it.
You are putting words in my mouth. You claim I want a government program and
I want to "force" people to participate. Both ideas are preposterous and I
never suggested either one.
> > That is quite a range of estimates. I think nowadays, most conventional
> > electric motors waste about 40%, and incandescent lighting wastes 75%.
The
> > new LED lights are even better than CFLs.
> >
> But again, those stats don't mean much. In the US energy is cheap, very
> cheap.
No, it is very, very subsidized by your tax money.
> you want to reduce demand in California? remove the price caps to the
> consumer. Simple, and it will happen almost overnight.
My point exactly. Do that and energy will no longer appear to be "very, very
cheap."
> > HVAC, water cooling and water purification as I recall. That can be used
> > with several generations of chip making machines. That's been improved
> > radically in California since 2001.
> >
> It can, but when you build a new fab, you put in new equipment, since the
> old equipment is probably still in use somewhere.
In the factories I have seen, the buildings, HVAC, clean rooms and whatnot
last for a very long time. The actual equipment inside that fabricates chips
is periodically removed and replaced as new generations are invented. They
do not construct a new building every time a new generation of chips is
introduced. At least, the Japanese telephone company doesn't.
- Jed
Harry Conover
> Designori writes:
>
> > The simple step of requiring/encouraging Americans to adopt the compact
> > fluorescent bulb would seem to be overdue. I can't do the math myself, but
> > it must have the potential to save the equivalent of the output of several
> > major power stations.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/lighting/chap3.html#begin
>
> Quote:
>
> "Potential aggregate U.S. household energy savings for replacement of all
> incandescent bulbs used more than 4 hours per day amounts to 31.7 billion
> kWh annually. [15] This assumes that the average incandescent bulb is 75
> watts and is replaced by a 26-watt compact fluorescent bulb. Thirty-eight
> percent of this savings, or 12 billion kWh, would come from replacing the
> 44.1 million bulbs used 12 or more hours per day and 62 percent, or 19.7
> billion kWh, would come from replacing the 196.6 million lights used 4 to 12
> hours per day. These potential energy savings are 35 percent of the
> electricity used for lighting in 1993 (91 billion kWh)."
>
> Note that the cost of the bulbs has fallen from $22 to $14 since that
> projection was made.
>
> You could never require them but there are many ways to encourage them.
> Actually, they are now for sale even in grocery stores, a big change from a
> few years ago.
Correct Jed, but you forget to cite the downside. Compact fluorescents
are all but useless for domestic lighting in the colder climates, such
as here in New England (unless of course you leave them turned on all
the time, which effectively defeats their energy saving claims).
It's the details that kill them. You walk into a room to fetch
something and flick on the wall switch, and nothing happens for
anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds. At that point, a feeble emission
of light begins, but not useful enough to see what you are looking
for. As a result, you quickly learn to carry a flashlight with you --
But if you need the flashlight to see anything, what useful purpose do
the compact fluorescents provide?
Several years back the local electric company offered these amazing,
energy saving lamps for $5.00 each, so by son purchase enough to equip
most of the house. The worked marginally over the summer months, but
when winter set in they were quickly replaced out of urgent need with
ordinarly inacandescent bulbs.
Walk into a bathroom in urgent need of taking a whiz, and see how you
feel about waiting for a minite to have enough feeble light to even
see the crapper and you'll understand the problem.
Harry C.
Harry Conover
> Hot fusion is not needed. The human race may survive without cold fusion,
> but cold fusion would solve many problems, reduce costs radically, and help
> open up the solar system to exploration and colonization.
Presumably so would a Sampo, but like the Sampo cold fusion is not real.
Evidently we're just going to have to make do with the fruits of science.
Harry C.
User
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By that, do you mean Jed, ***MJ))), and Cagle???
Oops, I guess they'd be the fruits of PSEUDOscience. My bad...
Harry Conover
Mean guy! Bad! Bad! Be nice now. :-)
Harry C.
Brian Wohlgemuth
cumulative wind speed down since energy is essentially being pulled from the
air) won't that alter weather patterns and increase localized pollution???
"Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@infinite-energy.com> wrote in message
news:3ded0...@nopics.sjc...
> The world needs hot fusion like it needs a hole in the head. Hot fusion
> would produce more radioactive garbage and more risk than advanced fission
> reactors. See: R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
> Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Los Alamos
> National Laboratory, LA-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993.
>
> We do not need any kind of nuclear or fossil fuel electricity. At the rate
> wind power is expanding, it will generate all of the electricity in the
> world in 30 years. Other renewable sources are abundant. In any case, if
> cold fusion is ever funded at 1% of the levels hot fusion has been, it
will
> soon become practical, and it be thousands of times cheaper than any other
> souce of energy, and millions of times cleaner and safer.
>
> - Jed
>
>
Jed Rothwell
> It's the details that kill them. You walk into a room to fetch
> something and flick on the wall switch, and nothing happens for
> anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds.
Yes, I had that problem with the early models, installed in an old cabin in
Pennsylvania (with only wood-fire heating). I think the more recent models
no longer have that problem. I installed some on our porch which worked fine
last night below freezing. The package said these are the indoor-outoor
models, and they showed them installed outdoors. Another package from a 15 W
GE PC12544 says, "reliable lamp starting to -10 deg F (-23 deg C)." I trust
your house is warmer than that! On the other hand, cold conditions do seem
to extend the warm up period.
In any case, you make a good point. Incandescent light are good for closets,
bathrooms and hallways, where lights are seldom needed, but instant, full
lighting is called for.
- Jed
Raziel
> Harry Conover writes:
>
> > It's the details that kill them. You walk into a room to fetch
> > something and flick on the wall switch, and nothing happens for
> > anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds.
>
> Yes, I had that problem with the early models, installed in an old cabin
in
> Pennsylvania (with only wood-fire heating). I think the more recent models
> no longer have that problem.
Wrong. I just bought two new ones for the garage. Luckily I have 2
incandescants in there as well or it would be dark for a minute while the
CFs warmed up. After a minute or so they are fine, but I could not go more
than 50-50 CF to incandescant.
> I installed some on our porch which worked fine last night below freezing.
sure, if you have them on all the time.
> The package said these are the indoor-outoor
> models, and they showed them installed outdoors. Another package from a 15
W
> GE PC12544 says, "reliable lamp starting to -10 deg F (-23 deg C)." I
trust
> your house is warmer than that! On the other hand, cold conditions do seem
> to extend the warm up period.
>
Which is the problem. Once warm they work fine, it just takes too long to
warm up in many applications.
> In any case, you make a good point. Incandescent light are good for
closets,
> bathrooms and hallways, where lights are seldom needed, but instant, full
> lighting is called for.
>
Which is why the public has not embraced them yet. They are not quite ready
for prime time.
Raz
Jed Rothwell
> Wrong. I just bought two new ones for the garage. Luckily I have 2
> incandescants in there as well or it would be dark for a minute while the
> CFs warmed up.
You purchased the wrong kind. Look for an indoor-outdoor model. The
specifications are quite different from the indoor models.
> > I installed some on our porch which worked fine last night below
freezing.
>
> sure, if you have them on all the time.
Nope. I never do that. I know they worked last night because I flipped 'em
on and went outside to turn off the outdoor Christmas tree lights last
night, and it was below freezing. They came on instantly, and brightened
only a little more a few seconds later. Lowes and the Home Depot would not
be selling these things if they did not work satisfactorily. They would get
too many customer complaints to bother. See, for example, this one, which
produces 80% of nominal lumens at -20 deg F:
http://lighting.philips.com/nam/prodinfo/compact_fluorescent/pdfs/P-5095-D.p
df
Note the comparison to other models, in the graph at the bottom. See also:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/nam/feature/marathon/outdoor.php
http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/resources/outdoor.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ef2.html
> > In any case, you make a good point. Incandescent light are good for
> closets,
> > bathrooms and hallways, where lights are seldom needed, but instant,
full
> > lighting is called for.
> >
> Which is why the public has not embraced them yet. They are not quite
ready
> for prime time.
Nonsense. In most applications, in most houses, people hardly notice the
delay. They have not been embraced because energy costs are kept
artificially low by government intervention. Actually, we end up paying far
more for energy than we would in a free market economy, but it looks as if
we are paying less. Ditto food subsidies and most other government-supported
boondoggles.
- Jed
Schwert
Brian Wohlgemuth wrote:
> Call me silly, but when you pull the energy out of wind (i.e. slowing the
> cumulative wind speed down since energy is essentially being pulled from the
> air) won't that alter weather patterns and increase localized pollution???
Yeah, it would affect the weather. The question is how much? Of
course, because of the complexity (and chaos) of the situation, it's
nearly impossible to tell, but I expect that you could safely say that
it would be less of an effect than, say, a mountain. Whether it would
increase localized pollution or not depends on the location, and how
much pollution was being produced in the first place.
<rest of message not dealing with the wind cut>
affect or effect? Hmm...
--
Schwert
A rose by any other name is still a rose, even if the name is esor. The
same goes for spam...and you have to get rid of it before you can email me.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul F. Dietz
> On the biggest windmills the blades are approaching
> the speed of sound near the tips at full output and you do not want
> one of these to come apart and throw a 120 foot blade.
Where did you get this utterly incorrect idea? Wind turbines
are not aircraft propellers; they are not driven supersonic.
Paul