Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI 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.
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 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 inimalistYes, 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.
but then, we are dealing with the point you made beforeclean, 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 [b]have
to privatize and deregulate.EDIT: some day I will learn how to properly use "is" and "are".... [/B]
Some sectors indeed shouldn't be comodified, energy among them, but specially water supply.
Of course there are other ways to produce enough energy to supply mankind. One of which is to put loads of solar panels in desert like areas, the drawback being the lack of sunlight at night. I suppose batterys of some sort could be used, but a more effective way to solve the overnight blip is to use a fraction of the daytime energy to do something like pump water up hill, the let it run back overnight driving turbines.
I read this at the link below.
The unpopulated area of the Sahara desert for example is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 750 terawatts total. The Earth's current energy comsumption is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power).
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Of course there are other ways to produce enough energy to supply mankind. One of which is to put loads of solar panels in desert like areas, the drawback being the lack of sunlight at night. I suppose batterys of some sort could be used, but a more effective way to solve the overnight blip is to use a fraction of the daytime energy to do something like pump water up hill, the let it run back overnight driving turbines.I read this at the link below.
The unpopulated area of the Sahara desert for example is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 750 terawatts total. The Earth's current energy comsumption is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power).
Hmm, powering the planet or even one continent based on stored energy probably isn't a good idea. And even before we get to that there is the issue of transporting all that energy from the Sahara to Europe without superconducting wires.
Still, I eagerly await that going into practice. If nothing else it be a great large scale test case and (hopefully) provide employment for people living in the area.
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.