Fwd: White house clean energy petition submitted

[Dave Doucette]

I submitted the following petition to the White house web site last weekend:

Increase spending on Hydrogen Plasma/Fusion Energy Research by $100 Billion over ten years

This petition was submitted to the White House because we have not made significant investments in advanced energy research for decades.  This petition is a lightning rod for the fundamental failings of the conservative movement.  Now is the time to make a larger investment in new energy research for the following reasons:

* It’s Pro Science & Research

* It’ll create jobs in the sciences and construction

* It is about the Government “Picking a winner”

* It’ll increase the size of government 

More information is available at FusionPetition.us. The petition is “live” for 30 days and timed to close on Earth Day. $100 Billion over ten years is too big for industry, yet can be easily achieved with government resources. This is about long-term downsizing of the carbon fuel colossus for good. The result will benefit mankind for generations.

Sincerely,

Dave Doucette

--
Dave Doucette

[Ron Swenson]

Dave

I saw a "suspend-belief" presentation on fusion by a couple of "entertainers" from Lawrence Livermore Labs last Friday. I'm sorry, their approach was not far afield from the one you might expect from the "over unity" crowd. All I can say is that they have a very impressive budget for promo. But what a waste!

Clean?! Sigh....

There is one source of fusion energy ready to go, the one that's safely operating 93 million miles away. Talk about winners, how about $100 billion _this_ year for solar in the USA -- not R&D but ordinary capital expenditure for deployment. We are out of time for wild goose chases like fusion.

All the best,

Ron Swenson

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ponea" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ponea+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to po...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ponea?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Dave Doucette]

You know that renewable energy is still limited by nature. Fusion is a quantum jump in energy for mankind.  There are many approaches for fusion and they should all be explored.  The economics for Fusion don't work without outside investments.  Even with renewables we will be fighting over sources of energy.  Fusion becomes a disruptive, game changing technology, nobody controls the energy source.

Check out: http://fusionpetition.us/FAQ.html

I read the Frank Herbert wrote "Dune" as an analogy to the oil industry.  "The Spice must flow." 

--
Dave Doucette

[Ron Swenson]

Dave

> You know that renewable energy is still limited by nature.

Thankfully! With limits, a future is possible. That limit, BTW, is 120,000 terawatts, nearly 10,000 times more than the 15± terawatts we generate now.

> Fusion is a quantum jump in energy

We increase that heat flux at our grave peril. If fusion were possible on earth and we were to actually put it to use, the temperature of the planet would soar even higher than it is heading now, just with CO2 and methane releases.

> The economics for Fusion don't work without outside investments.

Since fusion hasn't been achieved, the only valid questions have to do with physics. Economic considerations are entirely speculative.

> Even with renewables we will be fighting over sources of energy.

I beg your pardon? This is a scenario you have conjured up, not a fact. 

If we don't learn to cooperate, we're toast anyway.

> nobody controls the energy source.

The source is a trivial detail. If fusion were possible, control would be held by those who could manage the complex technology.

Back to the drawing boards, my friend...

Ron

---

[Dave Doucette]

Ron,

I am not arguing that renewable energy sources should be ignored, but renewables are limited by the actions of nature.  I have always supported Cape Wind, and hope there will be a deep sea wind farm off the Maine coast.  But wind mills don't turn when there is no wind.  Solar Panels don't work at night.  I agree that we can do a lot with renewables RIGHT NOW but there needs to be a very high capacity storage or backup power source.

As far as fighting over renewables.  Why is it that Cape Wind hasn't been built since it was proposed over ten year ago.  Read the news, man! I agree there is slight of hand, but not by me.  I agree we need to cooperate, and the arguments between all alternative energies camp keeps the carbon fuel colossus in power.

Aneuronic Fusion uses Hydrogen generates electricity from the reaction and does not require heat extraction / turbine generation.  Resulting in less heat.

Fusion Power plant designs are protected by Patents for 17 years.  After that they are available to the public.  It will still require an team of wise men to build and operate any complex system (factories building renewables also fit that category) but that's different than owning the energy source like an oil or natural gas well.  The riches of the Middle East are generated by extracting oil from the ground that is plentiful there and rare in other parts of the world.

Check out the FAQ for examples of Fusion research.  We're much closer than people realize.

Please sign my petitioon here: http://1.usa.gov/109CvCW

[Richard Lawrence]

Dave, you didn't really respond to the Michael Dittmar critique of ITER-style fusion strategy, except to suggest that they'll figure it out, somehow, if we spend tens of billions more $ on more research. But the issues Dittmar raises are fundamental. Where is all the tritium going to come from? ("The moon" is not the answer). Ron's right about one thing - the fusion reactor at a comfortable 93 million miles away is pumping enough power our way for everything we need, no fundamental breakthroughs in physics required.

As far as "limited by nature" - which may be your reference to intermittency - you may have missed the announcement recently of a utility-scale solar power plant (Spain, I think) pumping out some hundreds of megawatts continuously - all day and all night long - storing excess energy in molten salts that kept the turbines spinning 24/7. No breakthroughs required, just incremental improvements in what we already know how to do. If you're the gambling type - which seems to characterize this industrialized civilization - in what technologies will we place our bets? A collection of renewable technologies, that we already understand very well - or an extremely high-tech experiment facing multiple fundamental road blocks?

That said, I don't count on utility-scale solar to save our bacon either; it will just make the downslope of Hubbert's peak a little less painful. The financial resources and political will are simply not there, to scale these projects to the level required to substitute for most fossil fuels we use now. We will have to learn to get by on a lot less per-capita energy than we use now, and that's overall a good thing, particularly for over-consumptive cultures like that of the U.S. If anyone's got it right, John Michael Greer 'gets it' more accurately than all the other Peak Oil pundits out there. Give him a close look (The Archdruid Report) if he's not already on your weekly list of must-reads.

yours,
    Dick Lawrence

[Ron Swenson]

Dave

As Dick points out below, intermittency is pretty straightforward stuff. If we humans are as smart as trees, we can get through the night and we can make it through the winter. My grandparents were from Sweden where it gets pretty cold in the winter. I am here because they figured out intermittency. We certainly have more tools and science available than they had!

The best peer reviewed scientific report I have seen on the costs and impacts of intermittency is from the UKERC:

    http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Intermittency

It explains the important concept of "root mean square error" and debunks a lot of the myths about intermittent generation.

There are other reports too, if this one doesn't satisfy your curiosity.

Best regards,

Ron

---

--

[Dave Doucette]

So I'm getting thrown a bunch of questions and issues.  I'm glad this is a distribution with common goals or address Post Oil New England.

BTW - thanks for the pointer to the intermittency report.  I want to be clear I've always believed that we should be investing in renewables regardless of intermittency.  My point was replacing the load balancing generators with fusion instead of fossil fuels, thereby knocking them clear off the grid.

The solar plant in spain is the latest incarnation of a solar power plant that has been production since 1985, and is now the world's largest power plant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

A full list of solar power plants are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations. Note that most (not all) are located in deserts.

This distribution list is Post-oil NEW ENGLAND.  Our regional natural energy is derived from wind more than sun.  Theory has it the wind energy is derived from the hot air sources in New York City and Washington, but there is no scientific evidence in support of this theory. ;-) 

 

As far as ITER goes, I am not just saying they'll figure it out, and I don't have all the facts.  Research is about finding facts using the scientific method.  Edison tried thousands of lightbulbs before finding a design that works.  True research is trial and error. I am personally surprised on the anti-fusion opinions with members of this distribution.  Dismissing fusion outright shuts the door who a whole branch of scientific research that could reap riches for mankind similar to the evolution of semiconductors from the 60s and 70s to where we are today.  It's not just about energy, it's about expanding knowledge for mankind through research, something we are doing less and less in our civilization, and that's a bad thing.

There are major engineering issues with MFE, but there are many other approaches to fusion research that have been starved for researach budgets over the past decades.  I don't believe in putting all our eggs on one basket.  That goes for fossil, solar, wind, MFE, ICF, Aneutronic, Polywell, etc. The one common thread that I've seen is that funding for all fusion projects gets cut just before they can achieve a major milestone.  See: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_2009/Who_Killed_Fusion.pdf  Check out an examples of Dr. Bussard's research on a different fusion approach. http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/crossfire-fusion-reactor.html

If someone wants to submit a petition to invest in renewables, I will sign it.  I'd recommend waiting until closer to Earth day to help build awareness and so it won't compete with mine.

In the meantime, please sign my petition.

Dave

--
Dave Doucette