Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

About damn time.

The true barriers to rational use of clean, sustenaible, renewable energy are political and economic not technological. Cold fusion isn't solve shit. Placing faith in technological progress as the answer to our environmental and social problems is dellusional.

As long as there's money to be made on 'conventional' energy generation fusion power will never be a reality for the majority of the world.

I can see it becoming important in hypothetical outer space colonization and exploration however where there are bigger concerns than making a buck.

so what exactly is this? it will make its own power?

Originally posted by 753
The true barriers to rational use of clean, sustenaible, renewable energy are political and economic not technological. Cold fusion isn't solve shit. Placing faith in technological progress as the answer to our environmental and social problems is dellusional.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As long as there's money to be made on 'conventional' energy generation fusion power will never be a reality for the majority of the world.

Quoted for truth.

It'll be just like Chain Reaction with Keanu Reeves.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As long as there's money to be made on 'conventional' energy generation fusion power will never be a reality for the majority of the world.

I can see it becoming important in hypothetical outer space colonization and exploration however where there are bigger concerns than making a buck.

There are absurd amounts of money to be made with fusion power . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are absurd amounts of money to be made with fusion power . . .
Vs fossil fuels though?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Vs fossil fuels though?

Yes, absolutely.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, absolutely.
Interesting. How do you make money off of what is often advertised as 'cheap' energy?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Interesting. How do you make money off of what is often advertised as 'cheap' energy?

The same way you make money with "expensive" energy, by charging people money to use the electricity you produce. The way to take the lead is by charging people less than than other companies, since your energy is cheap you still make the same amount of profit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The same way you make money with "expensive" energy, by charging people money to use the electricity you produce. The way to take the lead is by charging people less than than other companies, since your energy is cheap you still make the same amount of profit.
My impression though is that fusion is seen as an answer to having to pay for energy.

Charging for idealized fusion power is a bit like charging for air or water if you live in an area with a rich watershed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My impression though is that fusion is seen as an answer to having to pay for energy.

Then you don't understand anything about physics or economics. Power plants don't magically maintain themselves and even fusion requires raw materials to keep running.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Charging for idealized fusion power is a bit like charging for air or water if you live in an area with a rich watershed.

Sure but "idealized fusion power" is a myth invented by idiots and shysters that has been bought into by people who are either naieve or so blindly anti-capitalist that they'll believe anything.

And that's a terrible metaphor. Fusion doesn't appear naturally on Earth, if it did there wouldn't people people racing to develop it.

I think the idea is that cold fusion would be so cheap that the government or some random non-profit group could easily maintain the plants and charge people close to nothing thus ending the private sector's humongous profits.

Originally posted by 753
I think the idea is that cold fusion would be so cheap that the government or some random non-profit group could easily maintain the plants and charge people close to nothing thus ending the private sector's humongous profits.

And I'll admit that if we invent "idealized fusion", "cold fusion" or some other kind of magic then that could happen.

Originally posted by 753
I think the idea is that cold fusion would be so cheap that the government or random some non-profit group could easily maintain the plants and charge people close to nothing thus ending the private sector's humongous profits.

the cheaper the costs of production and upkeep, the higher the profits one can charge on it though.

I accept if it was a state run thing, they could charge the exact same as costs, but if we are talking about a company competeing against conventional power suppliers, they would only have to reduce costs proportionate to oil or whatever else is on the market.

sure, over time competition is going to drive this down, but even as we see with oil, the price consumers pay is not based only on the costs of production (gasoline, at least as of a couple of years ago, was something like 15cents inflated per gallon compared to just the costs associated with getting it to the pump)

Originally posted by inimalist
the cheaper the costs of production and upkeep, the higher the profits one can charge on it though.

I accept if it was a state run thing, they could charge the exact same as costs, but if we are talking about a company competeing against conventional power suppliers, they would only have to reduce costs proportionate to oil or whatever else is on the market.

sure, over time competition is going to drive this down, but even as we see with oil, the price consumers pay is not based only on the costs of production (gasoline, at least as of a couple of years ago, was something like 15cents inflated per gallon compared to just the costs associated with getting it to the pump) Agreed, but the point is that if a non profit entity has the means to do it, they'd break the game.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And I'll admit that if we invent "idealized fusion", "cold fusion" or some other kind of magic then that could happen. how expensive would you say any real cold fusion would be? just the costs of producing and distributing it compared to the use of oil or hidreletrics.

Originally posted by 753
how expensive would you say any real cold fusion would be? just the costs of producing and distributing it compared to the use of oil or hidreletrics.

Real cold fusion?

Well I'd say it would cost as much per MWh as it does to get a ticket to Hogwarts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Real cold fusion?

Well I'd say it would cost as much per MWh as it does to get a ticket to Hogwarts. I had to google hogwarts, but so you think it'd be impossible, then speaking of an idealized cold fusion versus a more realistic one becomes meaningless. there's no reason to even believe a company could or couldn't make a huge profit out of it compared to oil.

Originally posted by 753
Agreed, but the point is that if a non profit entity has the means to do it, they'd break the game.

but then, we are dealing with the point you made before

clean, renewable, and relitively cheap power is available today (though with huge investment costs). Its not a matter of lacking technical know-how, or some "magic-machine", but rather the fact that the market doesn't favor moving to anything that isn't the status quo.

I'd agree ultimately that a lot of the issues come from the fact that we have comodified something that probably never should have been, but our society has this 1/0 mentality. If the government is ineffective, then we have to privatize and deregulate.

EDIT: some day I will learn how to properly use "is" and "are"....

Originally posted by 753
I had to google hogwarts, but so you think it'd be impossible, then speaking of an idealized cold fusion versus a more realistic one becomes meaningless. there's no reason to even believe a company could or couldn't make a huge profit out of it compared to oil.

I don't believe in cold fusion at all, since researchers aren't producing anything consistent from that end yet. I don't believe in any idealized technology either, given that we've has 12,000 years to perfect just one thing (where are my perfect wheels I ask you?)

Obviously I have no idea how much a future fusion plant would cost to run an operate but any even vaguely realistic fusion will have costs associated with it. I can't imagine how that can be denied. If the cost happen to be low per MWh, and that seems to be the part of reason people are pouring money into the technology, they will be able to compete with other methods of energy production. If it's clean, and that seems to be the other reason it gets money, government subsidies are likely. There is definitely money to be made in fusion, not just for businesses but for scientists. If you're the guy heading the team that gets sustainable fusion working for the first time you'll never have to do anything again, universities will pay you whatever you want.

Costs for running the plant mean it is reasonable to charge people for the power produced. Once you start charging people it's reasonable to want to make a profit. Non-profits are fine but youcan't base an industry around them. Putting entirely in the hands of the government is okay but that means it has a nearly unlimited budget which will introduce inefficiencies, I'd rather save that for things where getting it done is more important than anything else.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Real cold fusion?

Well I'd say it would cost as much per MWh as it does to get a ticket to Hogwarts.



Well played.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't believe in cold fusion at all, since researchers aren't producing anything consistent from that end yet. I don't believe in any idealized technology either, given that we've has 12,000 years to perfect just one thing (where are my perfect wheels I ask you?)

Obviously I have no idea how much a future fusion plant would cost to run an operate but any even vaguely realistic fusion will have costs associated with it. I can't imagine how that can be denied. If the cost happen to be low per MWh, and that seems to be the part of reason people are pouring money into the technology, they will be able to compete with other methods of energy production. If it's clean, and that seems to be the other reason it gets money, government subsidies are likely. There is definitely money to be made in fusion, not just for businesses but for scientists. If you're the guy heading the team that gets sustainable fusion working for the first time you'll never have to do anything again, universities will pay you whatever you want.

Costs for running the plant mean it is reasonable to charge people for the power produced. Once you start charging people it's reasonable to want to make a profit. Non-profits are fine but youcan't base an industry around them. Putting entirely in the hands of the government is okay but that means it has a nearly unlimited budget which will introduce inefficiencies, I'd rather save that for things where getting it done is more important than anything else.

Cold fusion happens all the time in even stupid little processes. The problem isn't making cold fusion, the problem is making cold fusion work in a concerted effort, on a large scale, enough to pull energy from it. We are quite successful at making fusion happen at the microscopic level...like sparse sprinkles on a very large doughnut. But, I mostly agree with your sentiments at this being just a pipe dream of sorts. It's more magic than "usable."

Cold fusion is real and we can do it in a controlled fashion. Just no where near on a large enough scale or of any economic feasibility.

Also, I watched a documentary on cold fusion and Fleischmann and Pons were somewhat vindicated as "quacks." That they really did accomplish something and never got more than hushed apologies. There was no "mass" media apology for their efforts or something like that. I tried googling but I could not find what I was looking for.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cold fusion happens all the time in even stupid little processes. The problem isn't making cold fusion, the problem is making cold fusion work in a concerted effort, on a large scale, enough to pull energy from it.

We are quite successful at making fusion happen at the microscopic level...like sparse sprinkles on a very large doughnut. But, I mostly agree with your sentiments at this being just a pipe dream of sorts. It's more magic than "usable."

Huh? I've never heard anything like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cold fusion is real and we can do it in a controlled fashion. Just no where near on a large enough scale or of any economic feasibility.

Never heard about this either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I watched a documentary on cold fusion and Fleischmann and Pons were somewhat vindicated as "quacks." That they really did accomplish something and never got more than hushed apologies. There was no "mass" media apology for their efforts or something like that. I tried googling but I could not find what I was looking for.

Documentaries on subjects are usually done by people who either love the subject or hate it (or like What the Bleep Do We Know? are employed by an cult that worships one of the interviewees). I'm more inclined to follow the finding of the American Physical Association which has been for decades (most recently in 2004) that the work has never been convincing.

In 2009 the American Chemical Association admitted that one paper on cold fusion presented to them was (paraphrasing) "neat" but that was before they did a full analysis of the data.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? I've never heard anything like that.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050427_fusion_table_A1.html

"neat", though nothing to write home about

Originally posted by inimalist
but then, we are dealing with the point you made before

clean, renewable, and relitively cheap power is available today (though with huge investment costs). Its not a matter of lacking technical know-how, or some "magic-machine", but rather the fact that the market doesn't favor moving to anything that isn't the status quo.

I'd agree ultimately that a lot of the issues come from the fact that we have comodified something that probably never should have been, but our society has this 1/0 mentality. If the government is ineffective, then we have to privatize and deregulate.

EDIT: some day I will learn how to properly use "is" and "are".... Yes, this is true. I don't agree with the cold fusion enthusiasts that the technology will change the world and solve the energy and environmental crisis. I was just going through what I think is their reasoning for their enthusiasm and why the private sector might even prefer more expensive and less effective technologies.

Some sectors indeed shouldn't be comodified, energy among them, but specially water supply.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd agree ultimately that a lot of the issues come from the fact that we have comodified something that probably never should have been

Is commodification the right word there? Electricity has to be manufactured, that means it always had a market value.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? I've never heard anything like that.



Never heard about this either.



Documentaries on subjects are usually done by people who either love the subject or hate it (or like What the Bleep Do We Know? are employed by an cult that worships one of the interviewees). I'm more inclined to follow the finding of the American Physical Association which has been for decades (most recently in 2004) that the work has never been convincing.

In 2009 the American Chemical Association admitted that one paper on cold fusion presented to them was (paraphrasing) "neat" but that was before they did a full analysis of the data.

You know? It really doesn't matter if you haven't heard of it because, as inimalist said, it is nothing to write home about. I am not shocked that you hadn't heard bout those useless experiments. (Currently, useless...but may breed some results in the future or something.)

Also, on the other stuff, those two dudes apparently where on to something and it was legit. It wasn't a full and complete vindication but it was more of a proof of concept or something and some of the other scientists were calling for a mass apology for those guys but, obviously, it hasn't happened yet.

I'll try and remember the name of the documentary. (unlikely.)


Well, I google searched and found stuff, but it doesn't seem to be it:

"Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion."

"More Than Junk Science" A 60 minutes special.



Here is an obviously biased website that has links where you can watch both.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/energycrisissolutionsvideodocumentary


Then there's "Cold Fusions: Fire from Water."

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/cold-fusion-fire-from-water/

I'm not sure if that one is it, either. But it looks closer to what I thought was it. edit - Just watched some of this one; that wasn't it, either.


If you are bored one weekend, give them all a watch and put your thoughts in this thread. Myself personally? I'll probably watch some of them.

Edit - In fact, it doesn't look like I found the documentary I was looking for. I saw this thing maybe 3-4 years ago. It actually interviewed Pons and he was noticeably bitter about the ordeal, still, after more than 15 years.