BigMike Loc: yerington nv

We are wasting time and money hand-wringing about f****l f**ls and CO2 levels! F****l f**ls aren't going anywhere until we find a suitable ENERGY DENSE fuel to replace them. America needs to get ahead of the curve on this!

Bringing Fusion Electricity to the Grid


Jan. 16, 2013 — The European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) has published a roadmap which outlines how to supply fusion electricity to the grid by 2050. The roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy breaks the quest for fusion energy down into eight missions. For each mission, it reviews the current status of research, identifies open issues, proposes a research and development programme and estimates the required resources. It points out the needs to intensify industrial involvement and to seek all opportunities for collaboration outside Europe.

The goal of fusion research is to make the energy of the stars available on Earth by fusing hydrogen nuclei. Fusion energy is nearly unlimited as it draws on the abundant raw materials deuterium and lithium. It does not produce greenhouse gases or long-lived radioactive waste. It is intrinsically safe, as chain reactions are impossible.

So far, fusion scientists have succeeded in generating fusion power, but the required energy input was greater than the output. The international experiment ITER, which starts operating in 2020, will be the first device to produce a net surplus of fusion power, namely 500 megawatts from a 50 megawatt input.

Europe holds a leading position in fusion research and hosts ITER. The fact that the ITER project is funded and run by six other nations besides Europe reflects the growing expectations on fusion energy. China, for instance, is launching an aggressive programme aimed at fusion electricity well before 2050. "Europe can keep pace only if it focusses its effort and pursues a pragmatic approach to fusion energy" states Dr Francesco Romanelli, EFDA Leader.

Focussing on the research and engineering activities needed to achieve fusion electricity, the roadmap shows that these can be carried out within a reasonable budget. The amount of resources proposed are of the same level as those originally recommended for the seventh European Research Framework Programme -- outside the European investment in the ITER construction.

The roadmap covers three periods: The upcoming European Research Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, the years 2021-2030 and the time between 2031 and 2050.

ITER is the key facility of the roadmap as it is expected to achieve most of the important milestones on the path to fusion power. Thus, the vast majority of resources proposed for Horizon 2020 are dedicated to ITER and its accompanying experiments. The second period is focussed on maximising ITER exploitation and on preparing the construction of a demonstration power plant DEMO, which will for the first time supply fusion electricity to the grid. Building and operating DEMO is the subject of the last roadmap phase.

In the course of the roadmap implementation, the fusion programme will move from being laboratory-based and science-driven towards an industry- and technology-driven venture. ITER construction already generates a turnover of about 6 billion euro. The design, construction and operation of DEMO requires full involvement of industry to ensure that, after a successful DEMO operation, industry can take responsibility for commercial fusion power.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

This article, dated a little later mentions the need for America to be part of the research and development of fusion power. If the environmentally conscious focused their attention to the REAL fuels of the future the demise of f****l f**ls would be accomplished much sooner and more completely.

Potential Benefits of Inertial Fusion Energy Justify Continued Research and Development


Feb. 20, 2013 — The potential benefits of successful development of an inertial confinement fusion-based energy technology justify investment in fusion energy research and development as part of the long-term U.S. energy R&D portfolio, says a new report from the National Research Council. Although ignition of the fusion fuel has not yet been achieved, scientific and technological progress in inertial confinement fusion over the past decade has been substantial. Developing inertial fusion energy would require establishment of a national, coordinated, broad-based program, but achievement of ignition is a prerequisite.

"The realization of inertial fusion energy would be a tremendous achievement capable of satisfying the world's ever-growing need for power without major environmental consequences," said Ronald Davidson, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University's Plasma Physics Laboratory and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report. "These possibilities form an extremely compelling rationale to continue R&D efforts toward this goal."

Inertial fusion energy technology (IFE) would provide an essentially carbon-free energy source with a practically unlimited supply of fuel. IFE relies on a process in which a fuel pellet the size of a pinhead is compressed by an external energy source, raising the temperature and density enough that the nuclei of the some of the fuel atoms fuse together, releasing nuclear energy. The aim is ignition, in which the fusion energy produced by the initial compression causes the remaining fuel to undergo fusion.

"The fuel used in the fusion process is lithium and deuterium; deuterium is derived from water and therefore virtually unlimited," explained Gerald Kulcinski, associate dean for research and director of the Fusion Technical Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who served as co-chair of the report committee. "And unlike nuclear fission plants, it would not produce large amounts of high-level nuclear waste requiring long-term disposal. The potential is for a sustainable energy source that could power the Earth for millions of years."

U.S. research on inertial confinement fusion has been supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy. NNSA's objective is nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship, but much of the R&D is also applicable to IFE development. There are several external energy source or "driver" technologies under development: lasers, particle beams, and pulsed magnetic fields. NNSA's National Ignition Facility, located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently completed a National Ignition Campaign aimed at achieving ignition. While much was learned in the process, ignition was not attained. In view of this result, the committee concluded that a range of driver technologies should continue to be pursued, rather than choosing a single technology at this time.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

This is all new to me, BigMike, but it would seem a viable alternative. Of course, it is all over my head, but I say: Why not?

Of course, the benefits will not so much be available for ours, but for following generations. That seems worthwhile, wouldn't you think?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. :thumbup:

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

And for those of you who are saying to yourself, "I doubt I'll be able to afford a fusion powered car!", here's hydrogen!

Water With Carbon/Charcoal Powder


Aug. 28, 2013 — In the latest advance in efforts to find an inexpensive way to make hydrogen from ordinary water -- one of the keys to the much-discussed "hydrogen economy" -- scientists are reporting that powder from high-grade charcoal and other forms of carbon can free hydrogen from water illuminated with laser pulses.


A report on the discovery appears in ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry C.

Ikuko Akimoto and colleagues point out that traditional approaches to breaking down water, which consists of hydrogen and oxygen, involve use of expensive catalysts or electric current passed through water. Since economical production of hydrogen from water could foster a t***sition from coal, oil and other f****l f**ls, scientists have been searching for less expensive catalysts. Those materials speed up chemical reactions that otherwise would not work effectively. Based on hints from research decades ago, the scientists decided to check out the ability of carbon powder and charcoal powder, which are inexpensive and readily available, to help split hydrogen gas from oxygen in water.

Akimoto's team tested carbon and charcoal powders by adding them to water and beaming a laser in nanosecond pulses at the mixtures. The experiment generated hydrogen at room temperature without the need for costly catalysts or electrodes. Its success provides an alternative, inexpensive method for producing small amounts of hydrogen from water.

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

I like how you think, if we take the same 8 criteria they are using for this tech devolopement let's use the same for our other thread conversation topic for discussion. Using it on as the president says "all if the above" even though that's not what he really means but we do.

Fusion is very iffy tech at the moment, personally I think the answer lies in photoelectric cells. If we can capture and reuse just a few more percentage points of the sunlight available it would be a massive leap forward.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

The problem with hydrogen is that it is very explosive. Submarines make their own oxygen by removing the oxygen from the water molecule, and dumping the hydrogen over the side. They call the device that removes the oxygen from the water molecule "the bomb" because of the hydrogen's potential to blow up.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

2050 is only 36 years from now. What I'd like to stress is that this is something that is not "generations" from now. That thought process automatically relegates it to the "back burner". If we dev**e the same amount of effort to it that we did to win WWII or put a man on the moon it could be significantly LESS than 36 years.

My purpose in bringing this up relates to the thread Tasine started...I want to focus on things that the right and left can both agree upon in an attempt to get folks used to the idea of working together again.

The ONLY people who could possible be against the ideas in these articles are the same people who have been busily dividing the American people - namely the Establishment of both parties. Big oil is part of that crowd.

Ironically, Big Oil stands to make some pretty decent profits if the Environmental folks focus their attention on the development of the REAL, clean fuels of the future rather than fight a useless battle against f****l f**ls - useless for two reasons, one being their days are numbered anyway, and it's not that far off, and two, f****l f**ls aren't going anywhere until a suitable replacement is found.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Yes it is, but I'm trying to get folks to think in terms of solutions rather than problems. Hydrogen's propensity to explode is well known, yet in Iceland they have hydrogen filling stations for hydrogen cars. Not only is hydrogen suitable for this purpose, I'm assuming that there are conditions in which it can be made safe, otherwise the Icelander's wouldn't be doing it.

Even if it were not safe at this time, neither was going to the moon when Kennedy vowed to put a man there by the end of the decade. This is something we MUST do and we must approach it with the "Can do!" kind of attitude that made America what it is!

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

I have only started a couple of threads one of them was about this topic, I am with you on it, now where do we start?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

The energy density of solar power is the problem. It is great to augment existing homes and businesses because the space required and the wiring already exists, but to power the world's 30 year expected INCREASE in demand (30 trillion watts or so if my memory is correct - might be kilowatts) it would take a swath of solar panels 5 miles wide from coast to coast. Note, INCREASE. That does not account for the demand already present. Even if photelectric cells efficiency are significantly improved it would still require vast amounts of land and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles of t***smission lines.

As I mentioned, putting a man on the moon was "iffy" when Kennedy made his vow, but we did it! Whether or not the airplane would fly was iffy when the Wright brother pioneered it. Now scramjets can fly at mach 10.

This is something we can do! And it's not far off. Are we going to let the Europeans and the Chinese beat us to the punch?

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

Just some cons on using hydrogen as fuel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against alternative energy sources, but some are not the panacea they seem. Also, the cost to produce, distribute, and store is currently very expensive.

Hydrogen isn't always clean to produce. It's expensive to pull hydrogen from water. Non-renewable sources of hydrogen, such as oil and natural gas, are much cheaper, but using them still puts a drain on our f****l f**ls supplies. Ironically, the carbon dioxide released in the process of producing hydrogen from f****l f**ls cancels out any benefits to the environment. Experts say hydrogen that escapes during the production process could erode the ozone layer even further and exacerbate g****l w*****g (source: PBS). There are other problems as well: Scientists are still struggling with the challenge of how to store hydrogen. Because it has such a low energy density, hydrogen needs to be stored and t***sported under high pressure -- which makes it bulky and impractical. The pressure issue compounds another issue with hydrogen energy; like gas, hydrogen is highly flammable, but unlike gas, it has no smell. Sensors must be used to detect a leak before hydrogen can combust. Another issue is the need to provide enough refueling stations to supply all the hydrogen-powered cars throughout the country. Are hydrogen fuel producers willing to put a hydrogen station on virtually every corner?

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

I happen to have some experience with solar. I am currently developing a 20-acre property that is off-grid. I had to install a solar panel system for power. In all it cost me a little over $55k to install a fairly modest 15-panel 4kw solar panel system with a 14kw LP gas back-up generator. The battery bank alone was $11k. I figure the payback is about 25 years, which I most likely will not live that long. I love the system, and it works beyond my expectations...but, it wasn't cheap.

BTW, for anyone out there who desires to go off-grid, an interesting tidbit is that the house can not be insured, or mortgaged until there is power to the house. I didn't need the mortgage, but I couldn't get insurance until the solar system was up and running.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

"Currently" being the key word here. I'm trying to STRESS that it's the future - the not so distant future I'm pursing my point in. Currently, f****l f**ls are the way to go and the cleaner burning ones especially.

The Environmental movement, in it's frantic attempts to save the planet from g****l w*****g are, in effect, asking us to bulldoze the economy into the ocean to offset the rising sea levels.

My point is that this is not necessary! In a decade or two (or three) f****l f**ls could be obsolete IF we have the proper VISION.

I'm suggesting there is a confluence of goals if we allow ourselves to think in these terms. The Environmentalists achieve their goals in regard to emissions, but not at the expense of the economic well-being of everyone else. We could accomplish something that would benefit the whole world and the happy side-effect would be relearning the art of cooperation.

I'm asking you to forget the present as it relates to the ideas I'm putting forth, it is a distraction, and concentrate on where we could be in 30 years if we plan with some wisdom.

emarine

Good post Big Mike :thumbup: It is a crime that The DOE dropped the funding back in 1989 when 2 American electrochemists were getting close.... unfortunately it was more political than science .... had we continued the experiments we would now be world leaders in this technology.... It is a shame how many times big money has stopped American exceptionalism in energy.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

We start by educating ourselves and everyone else we can about the possibilities for clean, abundant energy.

We do it with the secondary (but not by much!) goal of getting people on the right and left to learn to look for, and work together on things they can both agree upon.

We do this in the realization that Establishment forces of both parties, in bed with corporate and banking interests, are actively trying to keep us divided in an effort to maintain a status quo favorable to THEM.

We do it remembering that many people are not aware that they are being manipulated, and it is more important and will be more effective to demonstrate that cooperation between the right and left is possible, than it will be to convince folks of this manipulation.