World energy in the 2000s

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47658
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Tero » Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:43 pm

Well, I won't see it. So probably in 20 years they will announce it. I might be in a nursing home but I won't care anymore.

But seriously, the cost issues may make it impractical. It's a huge investment for we don't know what. How many, or how few, megawatts can you make.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:05 pm

They have sustained fusion temperatures in China of 150,000,000 degrees C for 101 seconds.. that replaced the 20 second record.
Closer that you might think.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Scot Dutchy » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:51 pm

macdoc wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:05 pm
They have sustained fusion temperatures in China of 150,000,000 degrees C for 101 seconds.. that replaced the 20 second record.
Closer that you might think.
Dream on suckle... You or I or any one else will never see it.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Hermit » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:23 am

macdoc wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:05 pm
They have sustained fusion temperatures in China of 150,000,000 degrees C for 101 seconds.. that replaced the 20 second record.
Closer that you might think.
Dream on. The fly in the ointment is the difference between Q-plasma and Q-total.

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:09 am

Good video but until they get sustained plasma temps it's not going anywhere via tokamak. Laser compression ...maybe. :pop:
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Hermit » Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:27 am

macdoc wrote:
Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:09 am
Good video but until they get sustained plasma temps it's not going anywhere via tokamak.
Yes, one thing at a time, but my objection was targeting "Closer that you might think". In fact, I now think fusion energy is further away than before listening to this presentation.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:28 am

well that is a personal perception. I'm not entirely sure it is a viable solution world wide given small nuclear
https://www.nuscalepower.com/projects/c ... Q8QAvD_BwE


and decentralized power sources

But it is providing amazing science and materials progress that may spin off on unexpected directions.

Fission nuclear is far from being a dead end if they can cookie cutter smaller reactors especially on existing sites then it will really help reduce coal reliance for base load.
There are 6 nuclear power stations in Canada, which have a combined capacity of 14,071 megawatts. The Bruce generating station is the largest operating nuclear power plant in the world.
It along with hydro helped Ontario eliminate coal in 10 years ( from 20%+)

Fiascos like Finlands nuclear adventure don't help. Big nuclear goes stupid over budget for a variety of reasons that are rarely related to the technology at all.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... e-63479560

I'd rather see the kind of funding that Iter attracts go to very large scale solar, wind, tidal and battery solutions ....especially for Europe/North Africa links.
The undersea link from UK to Norway is a start and there are some existing links from N Africa.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Hermit » Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:17 am

macdoc wrote:
Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:28 am
well that is a personal perception. I'm not entirely sure it is a viable solution world wide given small nuclear
https://www.nuscalepower.com/projects/c ... Q8QAvD_BwE


and decentralized power sources

But it is providing amazing science and materials progress that may spin off on unexpected directions.

Fission nuclear is far from being a dead end if they can cookie cutter smaller reactors especially on existing sites then it will really help reduce coal reliance for base load.
There are 6 nuclear power stations in Canada, which have a combined capacity of 14,071 megawatts. The Bruce generating station is the largest operating nuclear power plant in the world.
It along with hydro helped Ontario eliminate coal in 10 years ( from 20%+)

Fiascos like Finlands nuclear adventure don't help. Big nuclear goes stupid over budget for a variety of reasons that are rarely related to the technology at all.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... e-63479560

I'd rather see the kind of funding that Iter attracts go to very large scale solar, wind, tidal and battery solutions ....especially for Europe/North Africa links.
The undersea link from UK to Norway is a start and there are some existing links from N Africa.
When you wrote "Closer that (sic) you might think" you referred to fusion reactors, right? That is what I disagreed with. I left it to the Youtube video to explain why. It is short enough, yet does the job better than I could.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:59 am

It is closer than before ...how close that is is not really relevant. The FIRST step is sustained plasma.
You don't need to copy and paste to make a point.
....

I'm curious about this ...

https://join.social.energy/get-a-quote- ... mnrdgmbrgi

Our solar panels are aging but we can't change them out without losing the early feed in tariff which was generous.
We'd like to put up some of the much better arrays but payback is too long. We'd also been considering a big battery ....thinking Tesla but then saw this.
Image

We've a powerful tropical sun and 235 days with sun and even without direct sun current solar panels still perform. We also do not use much power but zero bill would be nice.
We find the poor feed in tariffs very annoying tho and no inducement to move towards a bigger system.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Hermit » Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:59 am

macdoc wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:59 am
It is closer than before ...how close that is is not really relevant.
Yes, progress has been made, but the implication that we are within 70% of breaking even relies on looking at only part of the equation. Taking all factors into account we are nowhere near that. That is why I wrote that I now think we are not as close to economically viable energy creation via fusion reactors as I thought before I saw the video I linked to.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:17 pm

Again your perception. I have my doubts it will ever be viable but it's closer than it was to finding out. My perception.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47658
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by Tero » Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:13 pm

Trumpsters and Republicans past 2035 will be forced to buy plug in hybrids and never plug in.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/11193815 ... -cars-2035
People can continue driving gas-fueled vehicles and purchasing used ones after 2035. The plan also allows for one-fifth of sales after 2035 to be plug-in hybrids that can run on batteries and gas.
(if they insist on using gas.)
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13550
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by rainbow » Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:44 pm

Tero wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:13 pm
Trumpsters and Republicans past 2035 will be forced to buy plug in hybrids and never plug in.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/11193815 ... -cars-2035
People can continue driving gas-fueled vehicles and purchasing used ones after 2035. The plan also allows for one-fifth of sales after 2035 to be plug-in hybrids that can run on batteries and gas.
(if they insist on using gas.)
This is unfortunately an argument against plug-in hybrids.
The idea that some might not use the electric motor, doesn't mean it isn't the best solution for range.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 7287
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by macdoc » Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:51 am

The scarcity will be gas stations....not charge stations.
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

aufbahrung
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: World energy in the 2000s

Post by aufbahrung » Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:39 am

Complicated solutions to impending oil scarcity. At least in regards of global trade it is only a matter of time before a economic collapse leads to a drastic reduction in energy demand solving the issue via a human die-off. Four horsemen of the apocalypse will solve the energy needs of the world long before anything complicated like a Sustained Fusion Reaction and/or hyper-AI electric cars are needed or mass produced. Imagine if Earth had been a big planet. Then there might have been resources to reach that next level, that dreamed of world. But on a cosmic scale this planet is a dwarf planet, never make it here - only dream of making it. Neither the material nor social nor intellectual resources that would come with a big planet in the habitable zone.
WeAreAStableCountry

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests