Department of Agriculture

[Tal]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out just where you're going with this statement.

[Jester]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out just where you're going with this statement.

Presumably, that "nature" is despoiled by the addition of an iPod. Nudity would probably also be an improvement.

-Jester

[Tal]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out just where you're going with this statement.

Presumably, that "nature" is despoiled by the addition of an iPod. Nudity would probably also be an improvement.

-Jester

So would I be required to stop and observe a cat messily disemboweling a bird when I'm on a run? Or to watch a pair of bunnies getting it on?

[Hammerskjold]

I have the same concern about having China manufacture and invest energy into rubber novelty toys, to fill container ships to be sent all over the world.

Yeah. Because China just for the pure LULZ, just make these things.

Well ok this one maybe is pretty lulzy.



China is just the manufacturer. They won't manufacture much if there isn't any order from oh I dunno, a customer? Who is one of their biggest clients I wonder, can't be us right? I mean, it just can't be!1111

Seriously, China is not unreasonably called the world's factory. And the factory only makes what the client wants. (Set aside for a second some unscrupulous manufacturer etc.) And what most of the clients wants right now, are what I'd consider disposable level merchandise.

I'm concerned about heedless consumption, and whenever we take finite materials which within a decade or less will end up in a landfill, or wash up as trash on a beach.

While I agree in general, your next sentence is what confuzzles me.

Rather than jobs that waste energy and materials, I'd rather they were employed to dig a hole one day, then fill it in the next. It would be less harmful to our planet and save the resources. I'm sure we can think of something better to do.

So solar\wind projects, are in the same category as literally dig this hole, then fill it type of job to you? Really. What about the cost of burnt oil in manufacturing\smelting the handle and the steel for all those shovels though?

It's a part of the problem of the whole hand outs to corporate special interests crap.

Yes, but what prompted my reply aside from having a bit of fun is why the selective outrage.

And if you think solar\wind are 'special interest' crap, IMO you're probably only half right. As in in the big picture, it's still somewhat specialized interest at best. But energy independence as a national security issue, will sooner or later come to the front burner. If a large scale water war doesn't break out first. (I personally include fusion as part of 'alt energy source tech', then again I try to be less 'either or, my way is the only and right way' kinda guy.)

I'm not much of a betting man, but even I can be sure of one thing. The buffet made possible by cheap oil will end, and the bill for that buffet we're all having will be coming.

Another thing. You seem to be shouting, at least to me, 'go big or go home'. Well that's not how it always works. Some things can work in smaller scale, but in more numerous quantities, and in a more de-centralized fashion.

I dunno about you, but having some decentralized energy infrastructure seems like a more secure thing to me, vs having a terrorist drive a truck bomb into one centralized place.

By the same logic, it would be best for the economy if we burned everything down. That way, we'd employ more people to rebuild it. Waste is waste. If you turn something into nothing, you've actually lost, not gained. If you walk in a big enough circle, it just look like progress.

Puhlezze. This is the same level of argument as '
-We need to reduce overpopulation.
- Are you advocating killing babies?!!11'

Are you advocating human hamster wheels? It might actually be productive if you put generators on them.

Yes, yes I am. And mandatory too, as in forced at the sharp and pointy end of a giant flying squid mecha a la matrix. /rolleyes.gif

On a more benign approach though more pansy and less muscularly centralized, I'd put the generators on equipments on those fancy membership gyms.

If that works, even if it only supplements and not 100% directly powers the gym, I'd sell the home version equipment. I'd make it as easy and popular as buying a mini digital satellite dish or a portable basketball net that seems to be a common fixture in my neigbourhood.

I will not falsely advertise that it will power all your household needs, but it can with smarter energy management at least cut down on your power bill. And get you into better shape too!

I'll get Salma Hayek or a look alike to be the sexy spokesmodel for my products. I'll name it something catchy too, like the John-Galternator or something.

We are in a a debt hole, with a failing world economy because we've borrowed more money than we can repay (and mostly built a huge military that didn't attack much).

Must resist.....so much thread rant can be generated from the above sentence.

If only I have a device that can capture the energy from the endless arguments and debates that above sentence can generate. I'd be a gajillionaire and making turducken in my speedo, in my mansion that is running both the heater AND air conditioning on. At the same. Time. Because that's how I'd be rollin' when I'm that rich.

TL,DR Version:

You know dude, I'm somewhat having fun at teasing some of your more interesting, ideas. But in all seriousness, while there are parts that I actually agree with. (Hey and I'm sure you're a swell guy on a personal level.)

Seriously consider that sometimes, scale matters, and going big is not always the most apt. Solar\wind tech-projects does not necessarily have to be at Hoover dam level to have a meaningful and positive impact.

---

Presumably, that "nature" is despoiled by the addition of an iPod. Nudity would probably also be an improvement.

-Jester

Nudity is always an improvement.
Why, I'm typing this in the b.....asement

What, did you think I was going to say I type in the buff\nude? Well you're all wrong. I have the radio on.

[Lissa]

3) Most alternates only work in certain areas or at certain times of day which makes them bad for "peak" times where you have to fall back on other energies source for when you need to get up to power quick for peak demand (this is done normally by use of gas turbines burning methane).

You have a good internet knowledge about energy, but you opinions on fusion make me think you only use certain specific sources to make up you mind.
Me, a beta scientist who loves innovation and spending money on R&D have absolutely no believe that in the coming 200, 300 years we will be able to construct a working fusion reactor.
Although (in your defence) I must say that nuclear and especially fusion R&D also suffers from the fact that politics and energy industry are only supporting oil, gas and coal.

Internet knowledge huh? I guess you don't know what my degree is in. My signature is a hint, it's Nuclear Engineering and most of my engineering electives were spent in classes involving other energy sources, both fossil (coal, oil, and gas) along with alternates (moreso alternates because our department was called the Nuclear and Energy Engineering). So, I know a lot more than just internet knowledge.

And as to some of your comments, yes, Fusion isn't getting the funding it should, but take 200 to 300 years, hardly. You haven't been following what's going on at Lawerence Livermore here in the US or at Princeton not to mention what's going on at JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxfordshire, UK. JET is actually the furthest along at this time and has been creating more power than they use, but it's miniscule, mostly because they can't keep the confinement going long enough. But will it take 200 years, no way, 50 years maybe and that's being conservative (more likely we'll see it in the next 30 to 40 years).

[eppie]

I've been sitting here for awhile

Quiet day at work?

[shoju]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out just where you're going with this statement.

Presumably, that "nature" is despoiled by the addition of an iPod. Nudity would probably also be an improvement.

-Jester

I find that Nature is enhanced by the addition of my Iphone. This weekend, I went fishing, and even commented on my FB, that it was "Just me, a pole, and Dave Grohl" I had a blast.

I was out, enjoying the lake, I could still hear the buzzing of the insects, and the chirping of the birds, and sat/stood fishing for 3-4 hours, all by myself. It was the single most relaxing thing I did all weekend, and probably the most enjoyable thing I did, even though I didn't catch a damn thing.

The tunes in my ear just let me zone out, and gave me something to focus on besides the fact that I was in a terrible mood when I left the house, or that my wife MADE me go fishing to get some time to myself (I always feel bad not taking the kiddoes fishing with me).

She's a social worker, and it was one of "those" weeks... The kind where the kids and I chill at home, and the interaction before bedtime was a facetime call from a McD's WiFi because she was dealing with crisis(es). So by Saturday, everything was getting under my skin.

Nothing completes a good nature setting for me better than a soundtrack of my favorite tunes.

[Tal]

I've been sitting here for awhile

Quiet day at work?

Not really, no.

[kandrathe]

Seriously consider that sometimes, scale matters, and going big is not always the most apt. Solar\wind tech-projects does not necessarily have to be at Hoover dam level to have a meaningful and positive impact.

I'll distill to your main point. I'm not disagreeing. I believe in a right sized distribution (for redundancy) in most systems. The right size is near the point where further efficiency by being bigger flattens out.

There are point applications, usually in a desert or powering a remote roadside devices, where solar makes a ton of sense. Not so much for Alaska. Regionally in the US, there are a some places that are mostly barren of people where some humongous eye sore farm of whirly blades may not annoy, and maybe there is enough wind energy to repay the energy investment in building it. For the same investment, you could probably implement 4 times as much Ng generation in 1/100th the land space and even implement carbon sequestration. Plus, you could locate small plants close enough to your major cities where they actually use the power. I guess my point is that the economics should drive it, not the politics. I also think "special interests" include the fossil fuel guys, as well as those who are itching to be the next darlings to get in bed with our politicians.

I've researched for my home, both solar, and wind generators, and they just aren't money, or energy saving devices for me. I live in a bad place for solar, wind and geothermal. Mostly, unless they perfect the miniaturized nuclear reactor -- home edition, I'm stuck tied to the grid. The one thing that would make sense for my dwelling some day would be to implement co-generation with a geothermal heat pump. I live on about 2 acres (which also abuts a wetland, so there is room for the piping.

[eppie]

I guess my point is that the economics should drive it, not the politics.

The big problem here is that our current judeo-christian supercapitalistic form of economy tells us to consume more and things will go better. We also don't need to worry about where we take stuff from because god gave us the earth and we can do whatever we want with it.
It is of course already known some 50 years that it doesn't work like this. So unless we start including effect on the planet and it's resources in costs of things, simply using (current) economics to drive change will not work.

I also think "special interests" include the fossil fuel guys, as well as those who are itching to be the next darlings to get in bed with our politicians.

I've researched for my home, both solar, and wind generators, and they just aren't money, or energy saving devices for me. I live in a bad place for solar, wind and geothermal. Mostly, unless they perfect the miniaturized nuclear reactor -- home edition, I'm stuck tied to the grid. The one thing that would make sense for my dwelling some day would be to implement co-generation with a geothermal heat pump. I live on about 2 acres (which also abuts a wetland, so there is room for the piping.

For solar; do you have a lot of clouds where you live?
Otherwise you are quite a bit more south than Holland if I am correct, and the amount of rainy days and cloudy days can almost not be worse than in Holland. SO probably this is solely based on that normal grid electra is much cheaper where you live or energy companies don't allow you to sell back to the grid (or at least compensate the generated and used amounts). I guess you can connect you solar cell system to the grid where you live?

[kandrathe]

I guess my point is that the economics should drive it, not the politics.

The big problem here is that our current judeo-christian supercapitalistic form of economy tells us to consume more and things will go better. We also don't need to worry about where we take stuff from because god gave us the earth and we can do whatever we want with it.
It is of course already known some 50 years that it doesn't work like this. So unless we start including effect on the planet and it's resources in costs of things, simply using (current) economics to drive change will not work.

Yeah, that's the problem. Christianity. Without religion telling them to spend, people wouldn't want to consume so much. I guess you have some evidence showing that there is a correlation between religiosity and conspicuous consumption. For a smart guy, sometimes you deal out some whoppers. In fact, much of the Christian philosophy is based upon shedding worldly riches for spiritual riches. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

For solar; do you have a lot of clouds where you live? Otherwise you are quite a bit more south than Holland if I am correct, and the amount of rainy days and cloudy days can almost not be worse than in Holland.

You are actually further north by latitude, but have a more moderate climate due to the currents coming from the equator. By moderate the standard deviation for HDD (Heating Degree Days) in Amsterdam is about 265, while here it is more like 470. You have HDD year around, while in summer we have a few months without heating (or the opposite, air conditioning). Because of the high peak load in winter (during the darkest times), and not wanting to invest thousands in energy storage, I'd still remain on the grid. My house is 100% electric - not ideal. I'd like to convert to natural gas heating or as I said above, a geothermal heat pump may be better. I figured it out once before that I'd pay back the investment in solar infrastructure every 26 years, just in time to replace it. That wouldn't include my perpetual maintenance. It's cheaper to buy it, than to make it locally. If the utility company gets greener, then so do I.

A bigger sun problem for me is that I live in a heavily forested area, and I won't cut down the 100+ year old trees that share my living space. So, cloudy, yes. Severe winter, yes.

SO probably this is solely based on that normal grid electra is much cheaper where you live or energy companies don't allow you to sell back to the grid (or at least compensate the generated and used amounts). I guess you can connect you solar cell system to the grid where you live?

We pay between $.05 - .06 per Kwh. They let you sell back. I doubt I'd ever generate more than I consume.

[eppie]

We pay between $.05 - .06 per Kwh. They let you sell back. I doubt I'd ever generate more than I consume.

I see, In Holland (with today's exchange rate) we pay about 5 times as much for grid electricity. Now I understand why solar is not an option in your area.

[eppie]

Internet knowledge huh? I guess you don't know what my degree is in. My signature is a hint, it's Nuclear Engineering and most of my engineering electives were spent in classes involving other energy sources, both fossil (coal, oil, and gas) along with alternates (moreso alternates because our department was called the Nuclear and Energy Engineering). So, I know a lot more than just internet knowledge.

My apologies, I am happy about this.

And as to some of your comments, yes, Fusion isn't getting the funding it should, but take 200 to 300 years, hardly. You haven't been following what's going on at Lawerence Livermore here in the US or at Princeton not to mention what's going on at JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxfordshire, UK. JET is actually the furthest along at this time and has been creating more power than they use, but it's miniscule, mostly because they can't keep the confinement going long enough. But will it take 200 years, no way, 50 years maybe and that's being conservative (more likely we'll see it in the next 30 to 40 years).

Some comments based on internet knowledge.
Fusion receives more public funding than any other energy source. Of course looking at the potential this is not strange. So I woll not make any negative comments about that rather than the fact that there is indeed a nice funding for this research.

About timeline. Some sources say that in 2050 we should have the first commercial fusion reactor working.
Looking at the time it takes to build a new fission reactor (know technology) this to me seems be an absurdly positive estimation.
Man, bringing a new shampoo to the market costs a company 3 years alone.

As is obvious we cannot use a 40 year gap (using the most positive estimates) be a basis for our future energy use. Don't forget, solar and wind power use technologies that are available now..
And what are we talking about (using the most negative estimation) paying 20 cents more to do one washing in your washing machine?

As a final note. It will of course be an obvious thing that fusion will be the major energy source once we are able to make it work. Untill that time we have no other choice but to increase the share of solar and wind power.

[kandrathe]

Fusion receives more public funding than any other energy source.

Um... I must take issue with that statement.

Google Fu

In the US over the five year period(2002-2008) of the study,
Renewable = $29 Billion, with 50% going to subsidize corn based ethanol
Fossil Fuels Subsidies = $72 Billion

For Fusion research, according to http://fire.pppl.gov/ ~$300/year over the same 5 year period is $1.5 billion.

"As I write this, ITER, a fusion facility that will cost more than $10 billion, is being built by an international consortium—the European Union, Japan, Russia, the US, South Korea, China, and India—in Cadarache, France. The device is scheduled to begin operation by 2019, and scientists plan to demonstrate 500 million watts of fusion power for several minutes' duration a decade later." -- Physics Today, "How long is the fuse on fusion?", August 14, 2012, By H. Frederick Dylla

It seems the plan, based on the current meager international funding, is to have a 500MW demonstration reactor ready by 2029. Who knows what might be possible if we diverted 1/2 of the oil subsidies into fusion research?

[Lissa]

And as to some of your comments, yes, Fusion isn't getting the funding it should, but take 200 to 300 years, hardly. You haven't been following what's going on at Lawerence Livermore here in the US or at Princeton not to mention what's going on at JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxfordshire, UK. JET is actually the furthest along at this time and has been creating more power than they use, but it's miniscule, mostly because they can't keep the confinement going long enough. But will it take 200 years, no way, 50 years maybe and that's being conservative (more likely we'll see it in the next 30 to 40 years).

Some comments based on internet knowledge.
Fusion receives more public funding than any other energy source. Of course looking at the potential this is not strange. So I woll not make any negative comments about that rather than the fact that there is indeed a nice funding for this research.

About timeline. Some sources say that in 2050 we should have the first commercial fusion reactor working.
Looking at the time it takes to build a new fission reactor (know technology) this to me seems be an absurdly positive estimation.
Man, bringing a new shampoo to the market costs a company 3 years alone.

As is obvious we cannot use a 40 year gap (using the most positive estimates) be a basis for our future energy use. Don't forget, solar and wind power use technologies that are available now..
And what are we talking about (using the most negative estimation) paying 20 cents more to do one washing in your washing machine?

As a final note. It will of course be an obvious thing that fusion will be the major energy source once we are able to make it work. Untill that time we have no other choice but to increase the share of solar and wind power.

The fact that JET is producing more power than consuming says we're closer that you realize. The problem right now is control of the magnetic bubble holding the plasma. JET can maintain the bubble long enough to produce more power, but it's not staying up for more than a few seconds before control of the bubble is lost and in those few seconds, they're producing around just over 10 MW of power and JET consumes just shy of 10 MW of power (the difference is in the 100s of watts right now, so not really viable). Once they work out maintaining the bubble long enough, Fusion will become a reality and it's not going to take another 40+ years to figure that out (considering CERN just found Higgs to 5 sigmas, just have to nail down the actual energy where Higgs shows up). As knowledge increases and material science also increases, we'll get there more quickly.

You're forgetting the most basic problems with both Wind and Solar, they can only reach maximum efficiency is specific areas. As was noted earlier in this thread, the incident solar radiation to best spots on Earth (fewest cloudy days a year, largest time in daylight) gets a maximum of 100 W per square foot (or about ~1 kW per square meter) which is before you take into account efficiency. With Solar presently being around 20% efficiency, that means it takes 5 m^2 to get 1 kW of energy. Again, this is the best locations on Earth. It gets worse with less optimal locations around the world.

Wind is in a similar situation. You need a good amount of air movement for it to be most efficient.

Similarly, the other alternative power sources have the same issue, the most efficient means to production can either only be done on small scale or in specific areas. This is why things like Nuclear and Fossil fuels exist, because they can be efficient pretty much anywhere and they're dense on production. So while alternative power sources are nice on the small scale (like a home), they don't work for large power consuming, dense areas like cities.

[NuurAbSaal]

And as to some of your comments, yes, Fusion isn't getting the funding it should, but take 200 to 300 years, hardly. You haven't been following what's going on at Lawerence Livermore here in the US or at Princeton not to mention what's going on at JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxfordshire, UK. JET is actually the furthest along at this time and has been creating more power than they use, but it's miniscule, mostly because they can't keep the confinement going long enough. But will it take 200 years, no way, 50 years maybe and that's being conservative (more likely we'll see it in the next 30 to 40 years).

Stumbled across this BBC article on a new fusion reactor project under construction in France.

In short: "Fusion - always 30 years away", "JET not producing more than it takes to run", "we'll know more in... 30 years!".

Might be of interest to some .

take care
Tarabulus

[Lissa]

And as to some of your comments, yes, Fusion isn't getting the funding it should, but take 200 to 300 years, hardly. You haven't been following what's going on at Lawerence Livermore here in the US or at Princeton not to mention what's going on at JET (Joint European Torus) in Oxfordshire, UK. JET is actually the furthest along at this time and has been creating more power than they use, but it's miniscule, mostly because they can't keep the confinement going long enough. But will it take 200 years, no way, 50 years maybe and that's being conservative (more likely we'll see it in the next 30 to 40 years).

Stumbled across this BBC article on a new fusion reactor project under construction in France.

In short: "Fusion - always 30 years away", "JET not producing more than it takes to run", "we'll know more in... 30 years!".

Might be of interest to some .

take care
Tarabulus

That's rather weird on JET cause I remember a big commentary by the JET team that they created more power than used back in 2001 or 2002, but it was miniscule like I noted (less than a tenth of a percent in efficiency).

[Jester]

That's rather weird on JET cause I remember a big commentary by the JET team that they created more power than used back in 2001 or 2002, but it was miniscule like I noted (less than a tenth of a percent in efficiency).

Wiki says those numbers weren't ever actually achieved, merely extrapolated from other results achieved using pure deuterium plasma. I don't know nuclear physics from a hole in the ground, but I'm with the skeptics. Great if it works eventually, but we have no current reason to pin our hopes on it.

-Jester

[Taem]

That's rather weird on JET cause I remember a big commentary by the JET team that they created more power than used back in 2001 or 2002, but it was miniscule like I noted (less than a tenth of a percent in efficiency).

Wiki says those numbers weren't ever actually achieved, merely extrapolated from other results achieved using pure deuterium plasma. I don't know nuclear physics from a hole in the ground, but I'm with the skeptics. Great if it works eventually, but we have no current reason to pin our hopes on it.

-Jester

Article is related: Nuclear Fusion

Looks like they still have a lot of work to do before this becomes a reality.