How to respond to climate change

Subduction Zone · Apr 4, 2020

ZNP said:
Read the articles we have several working models. They have been able to control a fusion reaction in the lab and generate electricity. The issue is that they are using more power than is generated, which means it is not economic. So the issue is no longer that it is not realistic, so your comment in post #87 "Fusion does not exist right now. It may never exist. You might as well say coordinated butterflies are the answer. Let's try to keep this real." is wrong. Fusion is real, not being economic is not evidence of not being real. Fission is also not economic because of the lawsuits and difficulty in getting permits and the difficulty in dealing with the nuclear waste. When we started working on the Panama canal they argued it wasn't economic, France had tried and failed, tropical diseases were an issue, etc.

In 2016

Germany's Wildly Complex Fusion Reactor Is Actually Working

Germany had a working fusion reactor. It generated electricity from the controlled fusion reaction. It wasn’t economic, but it was a proof of concept.

Full Page Reload

Over the past several years, more than two dozen research groups—impressively staffed and well-funded startups, university programs, and corporate projects—have achieved eye-opening advances in controlled nuclear fusion. They’re building fusion reactors based on radically different designs that challenge the two mainstream approaches, which use either a huge, doughnut-shaped magnetic vessel called a tokamak or enormously powerful lasers.

What’s more, some of these groups are predicting significant fusion milestones within the next five years, including reaching the breakeven point at which the energy produced surpasses the energy used to spark the reaction. That’s shockingly soon, considering that the mainstream projects pursuing the conventional tokamak and laser-based approaches have been laboring for decades and spent billions of dollars without achieving breakeven.

In Cambridge, Mass., MIT-affiliated researchers at Commonwealth Fusion Systems say their latest reactor design is on track to exceed breakeven by 2025. In the United Kingdom, a University of Oxford spin-off called First Light Fusion claims it will demonstrate breakeven in 2024. And in Southern California, the startup TAE Technologies has issued a breathtakingly ambitious five-year timeline for commercialization of its fusion reactor.

Oh the irony. From your own quote, they should hit the breakeven point in 2025. Remember what I said about being five years away from fusion for fifty years?

Sorry, no working models yet.

Subduction Zone · Apr 4, 2020

ZNP said:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

They say that this $22 billion fusion reactor is 65% completed and will be ready in 2025.

I suppose if people spent $22 billion on a coordinated butterfly project you might suspect they were onto something as well.

There is that notorious five year figure again.

ZNP · Apr 4, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
There is that notorious five year figure again.

Mean construction time for the Fission reactors you were pushing is 7.5 years. and you still haven't told us how you plan to get a community in the US to approve one.

How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?

Subduction Zone · Apr 4, 2020

ZNP said:
Mean construction time for the Fission reactors you were pushing is 7.5 years. and you still haven't told us how you plan to get a community in the US to approve one.

How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?

I did not propose fission. I pointed out that it was the greenest option available today. If we build enough wind and solar fission is not needed, even if it is not quite as green.

ZNP · Apr 5, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
I did not propose fission. I pointed out that it was the greenest option available today. If we build enough wind and solar fission is not needed, even if it is not quite as green.

How do you propose to store the energy so that when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining you still have power?

Subduction Zone · Apr 8, 2020

ZNP said:
How do you propose to store the energy so that when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining you still have power?

If one is in an area with elevation one could pump water up behind a dam when one had excessive solar or wind. Let it back out to drive a generator when needed. That is just one example.

ZNP · Apr 8, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
If one is in an area with elevation one could pump water up behind a dam when one had excessive solar or wind. Let it back out to drive a generator when needed. That is just one example.

2/3 of the US population lives within 5 miles of the coastline. There are very few people living in the mountains. Every river damned that can be damned has been.

This suggestion is quite simple, it has been thought of. It is feasible if you are next to a dam, you don't have to build or do anything other than put in the equipment to pump it up. But if you are not next to a dam it isn't practical or economic.

Subduction Zone · Apr 24, 2020

ZNP said:
2/3 of the US population lives within 5 miles of the coastline. There are very few people living in the mountains. Every river damned that can be damned has been.

This suggestion is quite simple, it has been thought of. It is feasible if you are next to a dam, you don't have to build or do anything other than put in the equipment to pump it up. But if you are not next to a dam it isn't practical or economic.

This sort of system would work where there are no rivers. One only needs a slope and an area where one could make a large pool at the top and at the bottom. The water could flow through pipes the entire way. More efficient use of energy and no loss to evaporation while moving. Dams rely on a large source of water building up and releasing it back to the sea. This would cycle the same water back and forth through the system as needed.

timothyu · Apr 24, 2020

Solar winds
Solar Winds Hitting Earth Are Hotter Than They Should Be, And We May Finally Know Why

ZNP · Apr 24, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
This sort of system would work where there are no rivers. One only needs a slope and an area where one could make a large pool at the top and at the bottom. The water could flow through pipes the entire way. More efficient use of energy and no loss to evaporation while moving. Dams rely on a large source of water building up and releasing it back to the sea. This would cycle the same water back and forth through the system as needed.

You are going to build and create dams? In what land? Are you going to flood people's houses or are you going to go where it is so remote no one lives (and also no one uses electricity). You can't build a dam unless the bedrock can hold the water and there needs to be an impermeable layer like clay. It is expensive to build dams, like I said before we have pretty much damned every river there is.

One application that would be very inexpensive and intelligent to install would be make all pumps that fill the water towers throughout this country to be powered by solar. You could also use the top of the water tower for solar panels.

Subduction Zone · Apr 24, 2020

ZNP said:
You are going to build and create dams? In what land? Are you going to flood people's houses or are you going to go where it is so remote no one lives (and also no one uses electricity). You can't build a dam unless the bedrock can hold the water and there needs to be an impermeable layer like clay. It is expensive to build dams, like I said before we have pretty much damned every river there is.

One application that would be very inexpensive and intelligent to install would be make all pumps that fill the water towers throughout this country to be powered by solar. You could also use the top of the water tower for solar panels.

You do not understand what is being done. Dams need huge supplies of water. They build up water during the winter and spring and release it steadily throughout the year. Much larger reservoirs are needed for that. A system like this could be run on a daily or at most weekly basis. A much smaller reservoir would be needed. This would not be a traditional dam.

ZNP · Apr 24, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
You do not understand what is being done. Dams need huge supplies of water. They build up water during the winter and spring and release it steadily throughout the year. Much larger reservoirs are needed for that. A system like this could be run on a daily or at most weekly basis. A much smaller reservoir would be needed. This would not be a traditional dam.

You haven't answered any of the questions.

1. The places that need and use electricity do not have land that is not owned and not used. Buying land for this purpose would be expensive. Anything that you do will raise the cost of the electricity.

2. Most locations are not suitable for a "dam". You could put up a water tower, but again that is an expense that has to be factored into the cost of the power. One solar tower plus the pump.

3. It is not practical to go to remote areas because transmitting electricity is inefficient and costly.

Do the math -- find out how much electricity could be stored in a water tower, compare that to the cost of the tower, give the tower a 25 year period to pay back the investment and find out how much it raises the cost of the power.

You can have small water towers on virtually all buildings, it is certainly practical and feasible.

Also, would this be a closed system or would this water also be part of the plumbing?

timothyu · Apr 25, 2020

This looks at it from both sides and addresses the op head on... and all lose (even the investors)

Subduction Zone · Apr 25, 2020

ZNP said:
You haven't answered any of the questions.

1. The places that need and use electricity do not have land that is not owned and not used. Buying land for this purpose would be expensive. Anything that you do will raise the cost of the electricity.

2. Most locations are not suitable for a "dam". You could put up a water tower, but again that is an expense that has to be factored into the cost of the power. One solar tower plus the pump.

3. It is not practical to go to remote areas because transmitting electricity is inefficient and costly.

Do the math -- find out how much electricity could be stored in a water tower, compare that to the cost of the tower, give the tower a 25 year period to pay back the investment and find out how much it raises the cost of the power.

You can have small water towers on virtually all buildings, it is certainly practical and feasible.

Also, would this be a closed system or would this water also be part of the plumbing?

I have answered but you have not listened.

ZNP · Apr 26, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
I have answered but you have not listened.

Oh, point me to the cost analysis that you did, I missed it. Thanks

Subduction Zone · Apr 26, 2020

ZNP said:
Oh, point me to the cost analysis that you did, I missed it. Thanks

Why do you think that one would be needed by me? You seem to have some strange concepts of what is required. Electricity can be sent up to 300 miles economically through power lines. I never proposed that this be used in urban areas. In fact wind farms and solar energy plants tend to be rather remote from populated areas. Yes, storing energy would be an obvious part of infrastructure cost, but it would not be impossibly expensive. A storage pool would be far smaller than any dam on a river so comparing the cost of a dam is a poor strategy. All you had was naysaying.

ZNP · Apr 26, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Why do you think that one would be needed by me? You seem to have some strange concepts of what is required. Electricity can be sent up to 300 miles economically through power lines. I never proposed that this be used in urban areas. In fact wind farms and solar energy plants tend to be rather remote from populated areas. Yes, storing energy would be an obvious part of infrastructure cost, but it would not be impossibly expensive. A storage pool would be far smaller than any dam on a river so comparing the cost of a dam is a poor strategy. All you had was naysaying.

Everyone has run the numbers. As soon as some form of solar is economic someone moves into the niche. The biggest improvement to solar was to run the excess back into the grid eliminating the need for a battery. This was very efficient. Your roof is an ideal location, you are already connected to the grid, and most people didn't use their electricity during the day when the sun was shining, so the city got your electricity at prime time and then you bought electricity from them at off peak hours.

However, the issue is that you could never get 100% of your power this way, you could never get 50% of your power this way.

The minute you add storage of electricity to the equation you add a lot to the cost. That additional cost makes it uneconomic, which is why no one is doing what you are suggesting. Everyone knows that pumping water has the potential to be a very efficient battery. The problem is you need water, you need a pump, you need a generator that can convert the motion of water to electricity and you need land for all of this set up. Yes, you will get a higher efficiency than a battery, but the other costs are far greater. You obviously don't believe me so this debate goes nowhere till you verify for yourself that this is true. That is why it is needed by you. So you stop pushing this as a solution when you haven't run the cost benefit on it.

Subduction Zone · Apr 26, 2020

ZNP said:
Everyone has run the numbers. As soon as some form of solar is economic someone moves into the niche. The biggest improvement to solar was to run the excess back into the grid eliminating the need for a battery. This was very efficient. Your roof is an ideal location, you are already connected to the grid, and most people didn't use their electricity during the day when the sun was shining, so the city got your electricity at prime time and then you bought electricity from them at off peak hours.

However, the issue is that you could never get 100% of your power this way, you could never get 50% of your power this way.

The minute you add storage of electricity to the equation you add a lot to the cost. That additional cost makes it uneconomic, which is why no one is doing what you are suggesting. Everyone knows that pumping water has the potential to be a very efficient battery. The problem is you need water, you need a pump, you need a generator that can convert the motion of water to electricity and you need land for all of this set up. Yes, you will get a higher efficiency than a battery, but the other costs are far greater. You obviously don't believe me so this debate goes nowhere till you verify for yourself that this is true. That is why it is needed by you. So you stop pushing this as a solution when you haven't run the cost benefit on it.

You have not run the numbers nor has anyone that you can name. You have also relied on endless strawman arguments. Lastly people do not automatically move into areas where solar energy is being generated. The best sites for that tend to be in the southwestern United States. Vast open areas that will not be filled for some time. There are many other methods as well. A "shippable" form would be to generate hydrogen on site. Though that is riskier to ship than natural gas. It takes a very low concentration for ignition. Wind right now appears to be the best source for renewable energy. And I still like nuclear. Thorium is rather promising as a source.

timothyu · Apr 26, 2020

Environmentalism once cleaned up the air and water 50 years ago. The industrial and financial polluters suffered. Like anything good it is eventually hijacked and turned into a profitable endeavour, where financiers and industrialists offer solutions to their own destructive ways, which are great for their coffers but accomplish nothing as they not only still pollute but destroy what God grows in the process. We call that environmentalism today.

Just as the world of man cannot solve the problems/sins created by man but need an outside source to set it right, the destroyers cannot fix the environment they destroy, especially when their only motive is profit and a new age of industry.

ZNP · Apr 26, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
You have not run the numbers nor has anyone that you can name.

You are clueless about what I have done and what my involvement in renewable energy is.

Subduction Zone said:
You have also relied on endless strawman arguments.

Once again you are clueless. Your argument is that we should use water as a kind of battery by pumping it up into a dam or some other structure, and then when we need the energy let the water back down. I know what your argument is. My response is everyone in the energy industry is aware of the benefits of using water, we have damned every river we can. Still you persist on saying you have a solution. I don't disagree, I ask you to show me, you refuse. And my request for you to show me the numbers is a "strawman arguement". If it is so easy for me to defeat your argument because the numbers will prove you don't have one, then you don't have one.

Subduction Zone said:
Lastly people do not automatically move into areas where solar energy is being generated. The best sites for that tend to be in the southwestern United States. Vast open areas that will not be filled for some time. There are many other methods as well. A "shippable" form would be to generate hydrogen on site. Though that is riskier to ship than natural gas. It takes a very low concentration for ignition. Wind right now appears to be the best source for renewable energy. And I still like nuclear. Thorium is rather promising as a source.

So are you talking about a solar farm, a wind farm or nuclear energy. Do you even know what your argument is?

How to respond to climate change

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads