So it appears fusion is making good progress. I don't know if it will come in time, but as the man in the google video says: Fusion works, just look at the billion stars (if you can still see them)
"If successful, it could provide energy that is both clean and limitless."
Sounds good.. also sounds like a story for Edgar Allen Poe to write, if he were still around. Remember the 'Birthmark', about the scientist whose wife was Perfect.. Perfect.. except for this one, little strawberry colored spot on her skin. He gives her various potions of his own devising, trying to get rid of that last, little imperfection (Cindy Crawford would have had him 'offed' by then.. she says she's fairly plain, and that the mark on her upper lip is a KEY to her success, if I recall correctly) .. so finally, one potion seems to be working, though his wife isn't doin' all that good by now.. and he says he'll stop just as soon as it disappears.. but her life ends up disappearing with the spot..
Just saying we should be carefull what we wish for..
What is your problem, really? Yes, nothing is perfect, you think they don't know it?
Some people are working on the energy source for the next century. I think this alone is worth our admiration and support. You contribute nothing with your cost-free moralizing.
My problem is with promises of 'Limitless Power'(.. and it's clean, too!) Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Warning bells go off, Levink. We are addicted to power, and we have this glimmering mirage, always 20-30 years off, just where it might bless our children, or where we'll be too old to have to answer for it anymore. It sounds like a 'Fix', it sounds like salesman-hype.
I don't oppose the research, but I'm not sold yet, and find the continual promises of 'Clean-Safe-Plentiful' Nuclear power to have a hollow ring at this point.
We've got Fusion already working for us at a nice, safe distance. No Mining-tailings, no waste disposal, no cooling water systems to fail on us.. How much polysilicon development could be initiated with the money and effort that has gone into Politically Connected, and War material Connected energy sources (part of the Nuclear Lobby's push is because the US is developing new Nukes and there is pressure to rebuild an Arms industry, which will need its gogo juice)
As far as 'Moralizing' goes;
This is a legitimate Moral issue. It is not one of those 'values' topics that tries to proscribe what people can do in their bedrooms and to whom, or what words are 'indecent' or what pictures constitute 'Pornography'.. it comes down to-
Is this safe for us and our Ecosystem?
Is this a responsible use of our time and money as we face pollution, energy, economic and climate crises?
Are we (with Fusion) chasing Richard Dreyfus' mysterious blonde in American Grafitti.. ie, is this still science, or has it become the new Alchemy?
.. and so it is all-too appropriate to ask Moral questions about it, even if Moral has become as unwelcome as 'Liberal' in decent conversation.
# Is this a responsible use of our time and money as we face pollution, energy, economic and climate crises?
Definately YES. The reactor will cost euro 10 billion. Just compare that to the benefits if it is successful. You are effectively telling me you don't want to spend 10 euro now (assuming 1bln. population of developed countries) for the development of an energy source that can solve all our climate and energy problems our kids will face? Now isn't that hypocritical...
# Are we (with Fusion) chasing Richard Dreyfus' mysterious blonde in American Grafitti.. ie, is this still science, or has it become the new Alchemy?
Nobody can answer that with certainty. I just can argue that the odds are pretty high. We also have some good odds for efficiently harnessing the energy of that fusion reactor high in the sky but still - nobody can give you a guarantee. You make it sound like the first is doomed and the second is certain. Neither is one or another.
As for that idiotic phrase - "fusion is the energy of the future and will always be". The same flawed logic is constantly used by PO "debunkers". They constantly tell us how "oil has been running out for a century now", so of course it will never, ever run out does it? It is short-sighted to assess any alternative technology - fission, fusion, wind, solar etc. based on its performance in the age of plentiful fossil fuels. All of them have still a lot of way to go and a lot to prove.
Funding fusion research makes sense as a long term investment. Indeed, funding should be increased, but new research should be aimed at alternate approaches--in contrast to the "all the eggs in one basket" approach that now exists WRT government funding. As for near-term prospects, I see little reason for optimism. The phrase "fusion is the energy of the future and will always be" would be idiotic if it were not a reflection on the fact that little real progress has been made in the last few decades.
When realized, fusion may indeed be safe, secure, "too cheap to meter", and fun for the entire family, but hanging the label "limitless" on anything related to consumption ignores the reality of the finite world we occupy.
Of course that "limitless" part is pure marketing.
The phrase "fusion is the energy of the future and will always be" would be idiotic if it were not a reflection on the fact that little real progress has been made in the last few decades.
History shows that all energy breakthroughs/research/developments are requiring vast amounts of money and time. Compared to what has been put on fission, oil, oil shale, tar sands etc. fusion is still way underinvested. The problems comes to the upfront costs which for technologies like nuclear were huge, while for fusion are almost prohibitive. It is a much steeper learning curve and nobody had enough incentative to spend the huge resources on it while fossil and fission were relatively cheap.
History shows that all energy breakthroughs/research/developments are requiring vast amounts of money and time.
This doesn't sound correct to me. Steam engines, water wheels, fission reactors... none of these things required huge investment to get going. Of course each such advance is built on the prior technology. E.g. fission relied on the work of folks like Marie Curie. And refining the technology usually does involve huge investing. But the prototypes demonstrate effectiveness first, and the huge investment follows. It almost never happens that folks make a huge investment in some direction that isn't generating some profit along the way. Real progress relies on working feedback systems to correct little errors that start to accumulate along the way. When people invest huge amounts in hopes of some eventual profit that has yet to appear even in any small degree - the end result is usually a disaster.
It took an awful lot of money in research & development for the nuclear industry to get to its current state. Which is still not as decent as I'd like it to be, but still much more acceptable than the level of the disastrous experiments like commercial RBMK reactors or the magneseum cooled reactors in the UK.
Steam engines and water wheels are not very relevant here as they have little to do with the way we do things today.
Maybe the experimental prototypes of all of those were relatively inexpensive. But we already have several working fusion prototypes based ot the TOKAMAK technology. Getting from the laboratory to the full-scale industrial application, maturing the technology, finding the weak spots - all of this costa awful lot of time&money.
This was three years after the basic principle of a fission chain reaction was discovered. This was a working reactor, not just some isolated fragnmentary demonstration of some principles involved.
Of course that "limitless" part is pure marketing.
We agree on that, but I think it is worth looking at how limited fusion might be.
Even if operating costs are virtually zero, if the capital cost is very high, then the cost per kW could still be more than a fission plant.
A fusion reactor has similar engineering limits to a fission plant, so a fusion unit might produce 1500MW with a lifespan of 40 years. They are still going to need a hefty injection of capital to replace a significant portion of energy generation.
If the capital cost is too high, they may not even be economic with wrt to other forms of generation. In that case, only rich countries with a healthy economy could muster the capital to build them.
We could end up in a situation where we have a theoretical "unlimited" power source, but be unable to afford to build power plants to exploit it.
If anyone has a handle on the numbers, what would be the maximum capital cost of a fusion plant before it became uneconomic to build?
This is entirely valid point. It has always been the assumption that with technology development costs will drop. But what if the nature of the technology itself does not allow it?
In this case it is entirely possible this to happen, largely because of the material costs for building such a huge plant. I am not familiar what are the limiting factors for fission reactor and if they automatically apply for fusion but your claim that the size will be similar looks reasonable. In this case it does not look good IMO.
Basically the jury is still out. It may turn out that the lower cost of fuel, the simpler safety eqipment and lack of radioactive waste etc. will make up for the other increased costs. But it also may not, we are still in the R&D stage and it's too early to tell. This I guess is one of the goals of building ITER and I am 100% sure that any commercial plant will be built only after it is understood that it will be profitable. 10 bln. is not such a big price tag to find out.
Quote: `...but hanging the label "limitless" on anything related to consumption ignores the reality of the finite world we occupy.'
Yes, the world is finite. It is limited by the bounds and laws of the Universe. But forasmuch as the mankind is not anywhere near them yet, it's safe to say that our (the Universe's) resources are limitless.
Hey...this resource is awesome. When I was in Montreal last August, I visited the Biosphere which had a geodesic dome built Buckminster Fuller's designs. The top floor of the building inside was all dedicated to Bucky's works. I didn't realize how far advanced his thinking was at the time. Many of inventions were discussed including cheap, energy efficient housing and many other energy efficient designs to existing apparatus.
I think his ideas are worth revisting as we approach/arrive at a post peak world.
I'd be happy to see us spend 10 billion for the 'development of an energy source that can solve all our climate and energy problems our kids will face'.. I hope this one can, but it is exactly the kind of hyperbolic promise that my initial response was aiming at.' The question should be "Another 10 billion Euros?"
It is far from clear whether or not nuclear fusion will be economically competitive with other forms of power. The many estimates that have been made of the cost of fusion power cover a wide range, and indirect costs of and subsidies for fusion power and its alternatives make any cost comparison difficult. The low estimates for fusion appear to be competitive with but not drastically lower than other alternatives. The high estimates are several times higher than alternatives.
While fusion power is still in early stages of development, vast sums have been and continue to be invested in research. In the EU almost € 10 billion was spent on fusion research up to the end of the 90s, and the new ITER reactor alone is budgeted at €10 billion. It is estimated that up to the point of possible implementation of electricity generation by nuclear fusion, R&D will need further promotion totalling around € 60-80 billion over a period of 50 years or so (of which € 20-30 billion within the EU)[6]. In the current EU research programme (FP6), nuclear fusion research receives € 750 million (excluding ITER funding), compared with € 810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined [7], putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.
Unfortunately, despite optimism dating back to the 1950's about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible."
-- and yes, the line about 'always the future energy source' is snyde, and petty.. and funny (and wasn't from my post).. no less than the Wright Bros' detractors comments about 'if God wanted us to fly' .. but if the Wright brothers were trying to create an antigravity device, they might hit a point where the return on investment was a Divine Signal, too.
The question should be "Another 10 billion Euros?"
And where would you have them rather be? Argh yes, wind, solar etc. The tiny problem that these technologies don't really work has never been a barreer for promoting them as our savers. Or you imagine a civilisation that does not run when it is cloudy or the wind does not blow?
The fusion concept has been demonstrated, and we basically know with a good degree of certainty that we can overcome the remaining technical difficulties. It is indeed a century long effort, but in the end it will bring a century worth result. Our generation of fossil fools will probably suffer a while, then it will turn to nuclear which is also not without issues. In the end the necessary resources to develop fusion will be dedicated, but I prefer it to be rather sooner then later.
It is bizarre that you write this. Wind and solar 'don't work', whereas controlled nuclear fusion is 'demonstrated'? Oh yes, it's the 'concept' that is demonstrated ... well likewise for Star Trek-style energy from anti-matter. Maybe we should try and do that too.
There appear to be extraordinary technical barriers to fusion. I'm not a physicist, so I do not want to try and detail these here myself, but any overview of proposed fusion technologies, even on Wikipedia, discusses them. It is truly depressing, in fact: as if for every possible way out, there is a barrier or limit that we can't get past without yet another complication, which in turn doesn't work because of yet another limit or barrier... and so on. Perhaps it is no accident that we have only been able to generate uncontrolled fusion reactions.
When I first looked at this thread, the confidence being expressed in fusion struck me as so extreme that I thought I must have missed some major morning headline: 'Scientists Crack Fusion At Last!'
You can say that it's intermittent, but not that it doesn't really work. It really works, and it scales way up and down, from ambient light calculators to Megawatts. As solar heating, cooking and refrigeration, it can also displace the need for heating oils and natural gas and more grid power .. and with heating/refridg, the storage is far easier and securely distributed.
Sorry if its boring or sounds like self-righteous solutions. We keep reaching for that succulent cake, when all this fine porridge is already within reach. Tough Choice.
I appreciate your advocacy in what you believe in, by the way, and the chance to play tug-of-war on this. I really got some good info at the Wiki site, today, and think Fusion 'could' be great. Meantime, I'm more confident in the paltry backups than in the 'glowing promises', and will stick with my little BB's, thanks.
Bob Fiske
'Strive mightily, as lawyers do in law. But eat and drink as friends.' Shakespeare
It really works, and it scales way up and down, from ambient light calculators to Megawatts
That's where you have it wrong. They do not scale well if at all. In the world we live in, this is equivelent to (ok,almost) "does not work". Because of their nature they can not provide anything but a tiny fraction of our energy usage and they always have to be complemented by a conventional energy source.
Now if it is obvious to any rational person that we can not run our civilisation entirely on them, or even mostly on them, why do you push them as a panacea? After certain consideration I've come to the conclusion that it comes to distaste of the civilisation we have altogether. You guys just can't wait to see it crushing down and reincarnating into some idilic permacultural state. What a joke... it's true that worst crimes have been done out of good intentions, but this thing is already way too much.
Now if it is obvious to any rational person that we can not run our civilisation entirely on them
Well, I'm a rational person (even got a degree in Mech Eng) and it's not obvious to me :) However, biofuels would need to be a (minor) part of the mix. And storage of surplus wind/solar is the biggest challenge. Also, AlanFBE sees a need for about 20% nukes (IIRC); I hope he's wrong on that one.
Well, I'm a rational person (... Mech Eng) and it's not obvious to me
Hello TODders, especially of the Engineering persuation,
I know this is shifting even more off-topic and my apologies for that. However, how many times are we going to insist that we humans are "rational" when the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing in the other direction?
A "rational" civilization would mobilize and do something about the Peak Oil problem once it learns of it. We should have and could have started doing something back in 1956 when Hubbert first pointed out the problem to the public. But we didn't. We should have and could have started doing something back in the 1970's when Jimmy Carter gave his sweater speech. But we didn't.
One of our biggest problems is that each of us "specializes" in a particular area of knowledge while remaining clueless about other things, important things. So maybe you are a Mechanical Engineer and you feel "rational" and super-smart because you know how to calculate the stresses and strains in a steel I-beam. Or you're an electrical eng and know how to solve Maxwell's equations. Or you're a Chem E and can calculate the enthalpy of an ethanol reaction. But still, you are mostly uneducated in how the human brain works. If you knew, you would not be so bold as to say that you yourself, or any of us is "rational".
The evidence is there (wars, mistreatment of others, failure to respond to PO, to GW, etc, etc). Open your eyes and see it.
It is only when we admit we have a problem (how to act rationally even though we are mostly irrational) that we might have a chance.
Until then, the Market will provide. Take the Red pill.
Maybe you consider yourself rational but you did not address the main reason I pointed as to why renewables can not power our civilisation. Namely that they always have to be complemented by a conventional energy source. Be it some kind of storage or something else (which of course is adding complexity and reducing the overal system efficiency). The other reasons I did not mention are coming from the low energy density and the high cost per unit of output as a result.
The first problem is what is obstructing the renewables development in the near term. After certain level of penetration a number of expensive "fixes" need to be developed to help them go further. The second problem is what will be stopping them in the very long term. After the subsidy coming from fossil fuels is gone how are we going to maintain that vast infrastructure of wind mills and solar panels you are imagining? BTW it is very ironic that people think renewables will be "small and localized". The truth is that if we want anything close to what people imagine from them we need to cover half of the country with wind turbines and solar panels.
Now that you did not address these problems in a meaningful way I don't see how you can claim that your opinion was "rational". It looks more like wishful thinking to me.
The VERY long term, say, 2100 is VERY hard to predict.
Technology has improved in the last 93 years, it is fair to assume further improvements absent social collapse.
I think that a "just in Time" technology fairy is unrealistic for solutions in the next two decades. But 93 years ??? Yes I do believe in major advances. Just not easily predictable advances.
Absent major advances, and an investment in long lived infrastructure starting "soon".
Rail lines today, with conrete ties, can expect to last 50 years of heavy use before rail & tie replacement. Longer if :slow orders" are acceptable over old track or use is "moderate" aand not heavy. Concrete ties have really proven their worth over wooden ties in the last 20 years.
Pumped storage plants require rewinding the genrators every 50 years, perhaps once a century for the turbines. Valves are close to :forever:
Solar assisted electric smelting can turn old rails into new (add some material for wear). Same for wind turbines.
Today, electric smelting is used for the highest grades of steel and can be used for recycling. Aluminum just needs electricity and little else. Aluminum alloys may be cheaper than steel and replace steel in many uses (rolling stock comes to mind).
Electric assisted tricycles are here today and are very efficient. Not just for people but goods as well.
We are close enough to algae farms to think that they can be perfected in 93 years. A source of cheap food (with processing), biofuels and materials/plastics.
I find your logic puzzling. Just because we can not plan in detail every step of the way, we should not start on what we know is the right path ?
Just because we can not plan in detail every step of the way, we should not start on what we know is the right path?
The truth is that we can not even plan for the next step simply because we don't have the necessary technology and we are becoming more and more constrained in resources. Yes we can invest in pumped storage etc.etc. but can you even try to estimate how much it will cost the society? How much we are going to need to reduce our standart of living? Are we going to be able to apply it everywhere? What is the realistic timeframe from scaling it up?
The challanges we are facing if we go that way are overwhelming. They would require constant government intervention and are likely to fail after the resistance from people and businesses becomes unbearable. Already in Germany and Denmark the discontent from the costs of the "green" policies is becoming evident. Now multiply it by X times to find what the future holds.
And you don't know if this is the right way. In our system the market decides which is the right way. I am all for the government to level the playing field by making the polluting energy producers pay for the externalised costs they cause, or support immature technologies, but that's it. From there on it is the market that decides and this is the way it has to be.
All of this would look otherwise if we did not have viable alternatives, but by insisting on this part of the energy mix only you don't even realise how badly you are undermining its cause in the long term.
You stated "viable alternatives" exist. I fail to see any except those with significantly higher economic & other costs.
I have selected a mix that doess not include current solar PV in high latitudes in cloudy climates (Germany) but things that close to current price levels and are cheaper once extermalities are considered.
Electrify freight railroads. How ? Exempt them from property taxes if they electrify. Trucks pay no property taxes (directly or indirectly) on their ROW, why should RRs ?
I have listed before politically doable steps to fund much more Urban Rail.
Phoenix has announced plans for two 1,000 mile tranmission lines to Wyoming. A billion a piece. Add 50 to 70 more, make them technically compatiable, and we have a good North American grid !
Pumped storage, on a good site, is cheap per MW & MWh.
BTW: or Germany, one of the externalities is dependance upon Russia.
Again, what are the viable alternatives ?
If you saw 55% nuke and the rest renewables & pumped storage & improved transmission, I would agree with you. That is a viable alternative to 23% nuke, balance renewables.
"If you saw 55% nuke and the rest renewables & pumped storage & improved transmission, I would agree with you. That is a viable alternative to 23% nuke, balance renewables."
That's about what I would like to see in the long term. But I don't think we will see it. First of all that's not the way complex system evolve. Basicly they evolve following the natural path of least resistance and this spells more like "coal". Especially when the very real energy problem starts to replace that abstract "climate change" problem. Let's take a look at the country pursuing most agressive renewable energy program - Germany:
Even though renewable energy has grown rapidly in Germany, its contribution to total electricity consumption remains relatively small. As Figure 1 shows, domestic renewable energy production is only a fraction of total electricity demand. The substantial growth in renewable energy production has not kept pace with a six percent increase in Germany's total electricity consumption since its low point in 1993.4 Thus, the substantial increases in renewable energy use have not reduced conventional electricity demand.
Now if a rich country like Germany can't make it how do you suggest poor countries like China or India make it? How are you going to defend building pumped storages for example in countries like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?
I see renewables as mostly suitable for fuel (biodiesel, ethanol from cane or cellulosic ethanol if it makes it) or for powering remote or isolated areas. Hopes that they (excluding hydro) will replace a major portion of the baseload electricity generation... will remain just what they are - hopes. Sorry, but this is what my observations are telling me.
Per analysis posted on TOD (I checked out and the #s seemed good), 44% of the MWh generated in 2007 in the US from new electrical generation installed in 2006 will come from renewables. 40% wind + 4% a mix of all else (new hydro, solar PV, landfill gas, geothermal, biomass waste). If more WTs were available, the % would have been larger.
After having followed the wind industry for 2+ decades, it is FINALLY about to cross a cusp from "large scale demonstration + gain operating experience (confidence)" yo early stage maturity as a significant source of electrical generation.
Wind is not truly through that cusp yet. All Vestas WTs in a large offshore wind farm were recalled for bad gearboxes. Such issues need to be worked out before wind becomes dominant. And they will be :-))
"Because of their nature they can not provide anything but a tiny fraction of our energy usage and they always have to be complemented by a conventional energy source."
As you said yourself, any predictions of proposed technologies as they existed during the age of oil would be badly misleading. The lack of build-up of Solar Electric and Solar Heating is fully a function of the availability of cheap oil. There were booming businesses in the US at the start of the 20th century for Solar Batch Heaters which went bust when oil furnaces became available with ridiculously cheap fuel. The WindGenerators on thousands of American Farms were beautiful machines, and many would still be producing voltage to this day, if Rural Electrification hadn't made them seem less worthy.
I don't propose that they (Solar and Wind solutions, generally) will fill ALL our energy needs, and certainly not those 'needs' as seen in our energy-corpulent perspective today. In fact, I have said before that I don't expect ANY of the proposed sources can do it. There is simply no one substitute for the Oil we've so fully enjoyed. These technologies WORK, and they LAST, and should be maximised. I don't think Nuclear can survive WITHOUT the oil subsidy as an economic environment to flourish within. Complexities, Monopolies and another reliance on a steady diet of a diminishing poison make it a poor option to rest our hopes on.
Stop this techno-cornucopianism, LevinK! The problems are immense, and the solutions nowhere in sight, in mind, or even on the Internet! It's another boondoggle! Hope is neither a solution nor a plan. Hell, it's the last evil in Panodra's box!
Well, if I'm a techno-cornucopian then so must be Edison, Maxwell, Flemming, Write brothers and many others. Personally I prefer to be put in the same group with them, than with that always-right, but largely unknown group of the defeatists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6165932.stm
Hiper is underway to build a test reactor which will only cost 1/10th of ITER;
http://www.hiper-laser.org/index.asp
And this man is discussing a second alternative way of fusion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
And a 17 year teen created fusion in his parents basement:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS03/611190639
So it appears fusion is making good progress. I don't know if it will come in time, but as the man in the google video says: Fusion works, just look at the billion stars (if you can still see them)
Sounds good.. also sounds like a story for Edgar Allen Poe to write, if he were still around. Remember the 'Birthmark', about the scientist whose wife was Perfect.. Perfect.. except for this one, little strawberry colored spot on her skin. He gives her various potions of his own devising, trying to get rid of that last, little imperfection (Cindy Crawford would have had him 'offed' by then.. she says she's fairly plain, and that the mark on her upper lip is a KEY to her success, if I recall correctly) .. so finally, one potion seems to be working, though his wife isn't doin' all that good by now.. and he says he'll stop just as soon as it disappears.. but her life ends up disappearing with the spot..
Just saying we should be carefull what we wish for..
'Art, the Lie that tells the Truth' Picasso
Some people are working on the energy source for the next century. I think this alone is worth our admiration and support. You contribute nothing with your cost-free moralizing.
Warning bells go off, Levink. We are addicted to power, and we have this glimmering mirage, always 20-30 years off, just where it might bless our children, or where we'll be too old to have to answer for it anymore. It sounds like a 'Fix', it sounds like salesman-hype.
I don't oppose the research, but I'm not sold yet, and find the continual promises of 'Clean-Safe-Plentiful' Nuclear power to have a hollow ring at this point.
We've got Fusion already working for us at a nice, safe distance. No Mining-tailings, no waste disposal, no cooling water systems to fail on us.. How much polysilicon development could be initiated with the money and effort that has gone into Politically Connected, and War material Connected energy sources (part of the Nuclear Lobby's push is because the US is developing new Nukes and there is pressure to rebuild an Arms industry, which will need its gogo juice)
As far as 'Moralizing' goes;
This is a legitimate Moral issue. It is not one of those 'values' topics that tries to proscribe what people can do in their bedrooms and to whom, or what words are 'indecent' or what pictures constitute 'Pornography'.. it comes down to-
- Is this safe for us and our Ecosystem?
- Is this a responsible use of our time and money as we face pollution, energy, economic and climate crises?
- Are we (with Fusion) chasing Richard Dreyfus' mysterious blonde in American Grafitti.. ie, is this still science, or has it become the new Alchemy?
.. and so it is all-too appropriate to ask Moral questions about it, even if Moral has become as unwelcome as 'Liberal' in decent conversation.All available evidence says yes.
# Is this a responsible use of our time and money as we face pollution, energy, economic and climate crises?
Definately YES. The reactor will cost euro 10 billion. Just compare that to the benefits if it is successful. You are effectively telling me you don't want to spend 10 euro now (assuming 1bln. population of developed countries) for the development of an energy source that can solve all our climate and energy problems our kids will face? Now isn't that hypocritical...
# Are we (with Fusion) chasing Richard Dreyfus' mysterious blonde in American Grafitti.. ie, is this still science, or has it become the new Alchemy?
Nobody can answer that with certainty. I just can argue that the odds are pretty high. We also have some good odds for efficiently harnessing the energy of that fusion reactor high in the sky but still - nobody can give you a guarantee. You make it sound like the first is doomed and the second is certain. Neither is one or another.
As for that idiotic phrase - "fusion is the energy of the future and will always be". The same flawed logic is constantly used by PO "debunkers". They constantly tell us how "oil has been running out for a century now", so of course it will never, ever run out does it? It is short-sighted to assess any alternative technology - fission, fusion, wind, solar etc. based on its performance in the age of plentiful fossil fuels. All of them have still a lot of way to go and a lot to prove.
When realized, fusion may indeed be safe, secure, "too cheap to meter", and fun for the entire family, but hanging the label "limitless" on anything related to consumption ignores the reality of the finite world we occupy.
The phrase "fusion is the energy of the future and will always be" would be idiotic if it were not a reflection on the fact that little real progress has been made in the last few decades.
History shows that all energy breakthroughs/research/developments are requiring vast amounts of money and time. Compared to what has been put on fission, oil, oil shale, tar sands etc. fusion is still way underinvested. The problems comes to the upfront costs which for technologies like nuclear were huge, while for fusion are almost prohibitive. It is a much steeper learning curve and nobody had enough incentative to spend the huge resources on it while fossil and fission were relatively cheap.
This doesn't sound correct to me. Steam engines, water wheels, fission reactors... none of these things required huge investment to get going. Of course each such advance is built on the prior technology. E.g. fission relied on the work of folks like Marie Curie. And refining the technology usually does involve huge investing. But the prototypes demonstrate effectiveness first, and the huge investment follows. It almost never happens that folks make a huge investment in some direction that isn't generating some profit along the way. Real progress relies on working feedback systems to correct little errors that start to accumulate along the way. When people invest huge amounts in hopes of some eventual profit that has yet to appear even in any small degree - the end result is usually a disaster.
It took an awful lot of money in research & development for the nuclear industry to get to its current state. Which is still not as decent as I'd like it to be, but still much more acceptable than the level of the disastrous experiments like commercial RBMK reactors or the magneseum cooled reactors in the UK.
Steam engines and water wheels are not very relevant here as they have little to do with the way we do things today.
Maybe the experimental prototypes of all of those were relatively inexpensive. But we already have several working fusion prototypes based ot the TOKAMAK technology. Getting from the laboratory to the full-scale industrial application, maturing the technology, finding the weak spots - all of this costa awful lot of time&money.
That's certainly true. Today's steam turbine methods to turn coal into electricity are very refined also, the result of huge investments.
My point was that the first nuclear reactor, under the stadium in Chicago in 1942, got a sustained reaction going without a huge investment.
http://hep.uchicago.edu/cp1.html
This was three years after the basic principle of a fission chain reaction was discovered. This was a working reactor, not just some isolated fragnmentary demonstration of some principles involved.
We agree on that, but I think it is worth looking at how limited fusion might be.
Even if operating costs are virtually zero, if the capital cost is very high, then the cost per kW could still be more than a fission plant.
A fusion reactor has similar engineering limits to a fission plant, so a fusion unit might produce 1500MW with a lifespan of 40 years. They are still going to need a hefty injection of capital to replace a significant portion of energy generation.
If the capital cost is too high, they may not even be economic with wrt to other forms of generation. In that case, only rich countries with a healthy economy could muster the capital to build them.
We could end up in a situation where we have a theoretical "unlimited" power source, but be unable to afford to build power plants to exploit it.
If anyone has a handle on the numbers, what would be the maximum capital cost of a fusion plant before it became uneconomic to build?
In this case it is entirely possible this to happen, largely because of the material costs for building such a huge plant. I am not familiar what are the limiting factors for fission reactor and if they automatically apply for fusion but your claim that the size will be similar looks reasonable. In this case it does not look good IMO.
Basically the jury is still out. It may turn out that the lower cost of fuel, the simpler safety eqipment and lack of radioactive waste etc. will make up for the other increased costs. But it also may not, we are still in the R&D stage and it's too early to tell. This I guess is one of the goals of building ITER and I am 100% sure that any commercial plant will be built only after it is understood that it will be profitable. 10 bln. is not such a big price tag to find out.
Yes, the world is finite. It is limited by the bounds and laws of the Universe. But forasmuch as the mankind is not anywhere near them yet, it's safe to say that our (the Universe's) resources are limitless.
I think his ideas are worth revisting as we approach/arrive at a post peak world.
I've bookmarked your link...thanks.
From Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
"Economics
It is far from clear whether or not nuclear fusion will be economically competitive with other forms of power. The many estimates that have been made of the cost of fusion power cover a wide range, and indirect costs of and subsidies for fusion power and its alternatives make any cost comparison difficult. The low estimates for fusion appear to be competitive with but not drastically lower than other alternatives. The high estimates are several times higher than alternatives.
While fusion power is still in early stages of development, vast sums have been and continue to be invested in research. In the EU almost € 10 billion was spent on fusion research up to the end of the 90s, and the new ITER reactor alone is budgeted at €10 billion. It is estimated that up to the point of possible implementation of electricity generation by nuclear fusion, R&D will need further promotion totalling around € 60-80 billion over a period of 50 years or so (of which € 20-30 billion within the EU)[6]. In the current EU research programme (FP6), nuclear fusion research receives € 750 million (excluding ITER funding), compared with € 810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined [7], putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.
Unfortunately, despite optimism dating back to the 1950's about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible."
-- and yes, the line about 'always the future energy source' is snyde, and petty.. and funny (and wasn't from my post).. no less than the Wright Bros' detractors comments about 'if God wanted us to fly' .. but if the Wright brothers were trying to create an antigravity device, they might hit a point where the return on investment was a Divine Signal, too.
And where would you have them rather be? Argh yes, wind, solar etc. The tiny problem that these technologies don't really work has never been a barreer for promoting them as our savers. Or you imagine a civilisation that does not run when it is cloudy or the wind does not blow?
The fusion concept has been demonstrated, and we basically know with a good degree of certainty that we can overcome the remaining technical difficulties. It is indeed a century long effort, but in the end it will bring a century worth result. Our generation of fossil fools will probably suffer a while, then it will turn to nuclear which is also not without issues. In the end the necessary resources to develop fusion will be dedicated, but I prefer it to be rather sooner then later.
There appear to be extraordinary technical barriers to fusion. I'm not a physicist, so I do not want to try and detail these here myself, but any overview of proposed fusion technologies, even on Wikipedia, discusses them. It is truly depressing, in fact: as if for every possible way out, there is a barrier or limit that we can't get past without yet another complication, which in turn doesn't work because of yet another limit or barrier... and so on. Perhaps it is no accident that we have only been able to generate uncontrolled fusion reactions.
When I first looked at this thread, the confidence being expressed in fusion struck me as so extreme that I thought I must have missed some major morning headline: 'Scientists Crack Fusion At Last!'
Alas...
You can say that it's intermittent, but not that it doesn't really work. It really works, and it scales way up and down, from ambient light calculators to Megawatts. As solar heating, cooking and refrigeration, it can also displace the need for heating oils and natural gas and more grid power .. and with heating/refridg, the storage is far easier and securely distributed.
Sorry if its boring or sounds like self-righteous solutions. We keep reaching for that succulent cake, when all this fine porridge is already within reach. Tough Choice.
I appreciate your advocacy in what you believe in, by the way, and the chance to play tug-of-war on this. I really got some good info at the Wiki site, today, and think Fusion 'could' be great. Meantime, I'm more confident in the paltry backups than in the 'glowing promises', and will stick with my little BB's, thanks.
Bob Fiske
'Strive mightily, as lawyers do in law. But eat and drink as friends.' Shakespeare
That's where you have it wrong. They do not scale well if at all. In the world we live in, this is equivelent to (ok,almost) "does not work". Because of their nature they can not provide anything but a tiny fraction of our energy usage and they always have to be complemented by a conventional energy source.
Now if it is obvious to any rational person that we can not run our civilisation entirely on them, or even mostly on them, why do you push them as a panacea? After certain consideration I've come to the conclusion that it comes to distaste of the civilisation we have altogether. You guys just can't wait to see it crushing down and reincarnating into some idilic permacultural state. What a joke... it's true that worst crimes have been done out of good intentions, but this thing is already way too much.
Well, I'm a rational person (even got a degree in Mech Eng) and it's not obvious to me :) However, biofuels would need to be a (minor) part of the mix. And storage of surplus wind/solar is the biggest challenge. Also, AlanFBE sees a need for about 20% nukes (IIRC); I hope he's wrong on that one.
Hello TODders, especially of the Engineering persuation,
I know this is shifting even more off-topic and my apologies for that. However, how many times are we going to insist that we humans are "rational" when the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing in the other direction?
A "rational" civilization would mobilize and do something about the Peak Oil problem once it learns of it. We should have and could have started doing something back in 1956 when Hubbert first pointed out the problem to the public. But we didn't. We should have and could have started doing something back in the 1970's when Jimmy Carter gave his sweater speech. But we didn't.
One of our biggest problems is that each of us "specializes" in a particular area of knowledge while remaining clueless about other things, important things. So maybe you are a Mechanical Engineer and you feel "rational" and super-smart because you know how to calculate the stresses and strains in a steel I-beam. Or you're an electrical eng and know how to solve Maxwell's equations. Or you're a Chem E and can calculate the enthalpy of an ethanol reaction. But still, you are mostly uneducated in how the human brain works. If you knew, you would not be so bold as to say that you yourself, or any of us is "rational".
The evidence is there (wars, mistreatment of others, failure to respond to PO, to GW, etc, etc). Open your eyes and see it.
It is only when we admit we have a problem (how to act rationally even though we are mostly irrational) that we might have a chance.
Until then, the Market will provide. Take the Red pill.
The first problem is what is obstructing the renewables development in the near term. After certain level of penetration a number of expensive "fixes" need to be developed to help them go further. The second problem is what will be stopping them in the very long term. After the subsidy coming from fossil fuels is gone how are we going to maintain that vast infrastructure of wind mills and solar panels you are imagining? BTW it is very ironic that people think renewables will be "small and localized". The truth is that if we want anything close to what people imagine from them we need to cover half of the country with wind turbines and solar panels.
Now that you did not address these problems in a meaningful way I don't see how you can claim that your opinion was "rational". It looks more like wishful thinking to me.
Technology has improved in the last 93 years, it is fair to assume further improvements absent social collapse.
I think that a "just in Time" technology fairy is unrealistic for solutions in the next two decades. But 93 years ??? Yes I do believe in major advances. Just not easily predictable advances.
Absent major advances, and an investment in long lived infrastructure starting "soon".
Rail lines today, with conrete ties, can expect to last 50 years of heavy use before rail & tie replacement. Longer if :slow orders" are acceptable over old track or use is "moderate" aand not heavy. Concrete ties have really proven their worth over wooden ties in the last 20 years.
Pumped storage plants require rewinding the genrators every 50 years, perhaps once a century for the turbines. Valves are close to :forever:
Solar assisted electric smelting can turn old rails into new (add some material for wear). Same for wind turbines.
Today, electric smelting is used for the highest grades of steel and can be used for recycling. Aluminum just needs electricity and little else. Aluminum alloys may be cheaper than steel and replace steel in many uses (rolling stock comes to mind).
Electric assisted tricycles are here today and are very efficient. Not just for people but goods as well.
We are close enough to algae farms to think that they can be perfected in 93 years. A source of cheap food (with processing), biofuels and materials/plastics.
I find your logic puzzling. Just because we can not plan in detail every step of the way, we should not start on what we know is the right path ?
Best Hopes for the future,
Alan
The truth is that we can not even plan for the next step simply because we don't have the necessary technology and we are becoming more and more constrained in resources. Yes we can invest in pumped storage etc.etc. but can you even try to estimate how much it will cost the society? How much we are going to need to reduce our standart of living? Are we going to be able to apply it everywhere? What is the realistic timeframe from scaling it up?
The challanges we are facing if we go that way are overwhelming. They would require constant government intervention and are likely to fail after the resistance from people and businesses becomes unbearable. Already in Germany and Denmark the discontent from the costs of the "green" policies is becoming evident. Now multiply it by X times to find what the future holds.
And you don't know if this is the right way. In our system the market decides which is the right way. I am all for the government to level the playing field by making the polluting energy producers pay for the externalised costs they cause, or support immature technologies, but that's it. From there on it is the market that decides and this is the way it has to be.
All of this would look otherwise if we did not have viable alternatives, but by insisting on this part of the energy mix only you don't even realise how badly you are undermining its cause in the long term.
I have selected a mix that doess not include current solar PV in high latitudes in cloudy climates (Germany) but things that close to current price levels and are cheaper once extermalities are considered.
Electrify freight railroads. How ? Exempt them from property taxes if they electrify. Trucks pay no property taxes (directly or indirectly) on their ROW, why should RRs ?
I have listed before politically doable steps to fund much more Urban Rail.
Phoenix has announced plans for two 1,000 mile tranmission lines to Wyoming. A billion a piece. Add 50 to 70 more, make them technically compatiable, and we have a good North American grid !
Pumped storage, on a good site, is cheap per MW & MWh.
BTW: or Germany, one of the externalities is dependance upon Russia.
Again, what are the viable alternatives ?
If you saw 55% nuke and the rest renewables & pumped storage & improved transmission, I would agree with you. That is a viable alternative to 23% nuke, balance renewables.
Best Hopes,
Alan
That's about what I would like to see in the long term. But I don't think we will see it. First of all that's not the way complex system evolve. Basicly they evolve following the natural path of least resistance and this spells more like "coal". Especially when the very real energy problem starts to replace that abstract "climate change" problem. Let's take a look at the country pursuing most agressive renewable energy program - Germany:
http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/energytrends/germany/2/
Now if a rich country like Germany can't make it how do you suggest poor countries like China or India make it? How are you going to defend building pumped storages for example in countries like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?
I see renewables as mostly suitable for fuel (biodiesel, ethanol from cane or cellulosic ethanol if it makes it) or for powering remote or isolated areas. Hopes that they (excluding hydro) will replace a major portion of the baseload electricity generation... will remain just what they are - hopes. Sorry, but this is what my observations are telling me.
After having followed the wind industry for 2+ decades, it is FINALLY about to cross a cusp from "large scale demonstration + gain operating experience (confidence)" yo early stage maturity as a significant source of electrical generation.
Wind is not truly through that cusp yet. All Vestas WTs in a large offshore wind farm were recalled for bad gearboxes. Such issues need to be worked out before wind becomes dominant. And they will be :-))
Check out the AWEA site some time.
http://www.awea.org/
I chekc out "projects" every few months.
best Hopes,
Alan
As you said yourself, any predictions of proposed technologies as they existed during the age of oil would be badly misleading. The lack of build-up of Solar Electric and Solar Heating is fully a function of the availability of cheap oil. There were booming businesses in the US at the start of the 20th century for Solar Batch Heaters which went bust when oil furnaces became available with ridiculously cheap fuel. The WindGenerators on thousands of American Farms were beautiful machines, and many would still be producing voltage to this day, if Rural Electrification hadn't made them seem less worthy.
I don't propose that they (Solar and Wind solutions, generally) will fill ALL our energy needs, and certainly not those 'needs' as seen in our energy-corpulent perspective today. In fact, I have said before that I don't expect ANY of the proposed sources can do it. There is simply no one substitute for the Oil we've so fully enjoyed. These technologies WORK, and they LAST, and should be maximised. I don't think Nuclear can survive WITHOUT the oil subsidy as an economic environment to flourish within. Complexities, Monopolies and another reliance on a steady diet of a diminishing poison make it a poor option to rest our hopes on.
Well, if I'm a techno-cornucopian then so must be Edison, Maxwell, Flemming, Write brothers and many others. Personally I prefer to be put in the same group with them, than with that always-right, but largely unknown group of the defeatists.