The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Donal's picture

    Free Energy

    By Donal on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 11:36am | Technology

    Americans select dilithium crystals to power the next generation
     

    In a Gallup poll released today, Americans chose dilithium crystals as the top choice of fuel to run both cars and power plants, with 84% of Americans choosing the crystals over other options including nuclear, hydrogen, corn ethanol, shale gas, and photovoltaic solar panels.
    Respondents indicate that dilithium crystals are popular for providing quiet, clean energy, with a proven track record including over seven-hundred twenty-six episodes in four different Star Trek television series.

    Professor Stephen Palmer, of MIT, reports that dilithium crystals have “literally unlimited potential” for the future of energy. He states, “Based on my research, which includes careful observation of over ten thousand hours of Deep Space Nine and Voyager re-runs, my calculations indicate that dilithium crystals have an infinite capacity for power generation.”

    He explains, “The crystals provide power for starship warp drives by channeling electro-plasma released by mutual annihilation caused by extremely high temperatures and electro-magnetic radiation. And since Spock and Scotty solved the problem of gradual decrystalization during their time travel mission to the twenty-third century, all we have to do is harness this energy, and BAM! - we’re pretty much set for the next five thousand years.”

    OK maybe that won't work. In a related vein, the NY Times carried this OpEd about fusion, How Seawater Can Power the World:
     

    Debate about America’s energy supply is heating up: gas prices are rising, ethanol is under attack and nuclear power continues to struggle in the shadow of the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

    But an abundant, safe and clean energy source once thought to be the stuff of science fiction is closer than many realize: nuclear fusion. Making it a reality, however, will take significant investment from the government at a time when spending on scientific research is under threat.

    Harnessing nuclear fusion, the energy that powers the sun and the stars, has been a goal of physicists worldwide since the 1950s. It is essentially inexhaustible and it can be created using hydrogen isotopes — chemical cousins of hydrogen, like deuterium — that can readily be extracted from seawater.


    I've been reading science fiction about cheap fusion power almost since I could read. In the 1960s, I read about about using lasers and plasmas to initiate the fusion process, and I thought it was just a matter of time. In the 1990s, one of my roommates brought home DOE studies on fusion that read just like the scifi books I read when I was a kid. This OpEd says the same thing. Maybe they're getting somewhere, but it sure is hard to tell.

    Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
     

    Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan -- a mother of 6, law-abiding citizen, and gardener -- is facing 93 days in jail after being charged with a misdemeanor.

    Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden in the front yard.

    Bass says that she planted the garden after her front yard was torn up for some sewer repairs. Rather than wasting the opportunity to start with a clean slate by planting a lawn, she decided to really put the area to use, and plant a vegetable garden.

    Her garden consists of 5 raised beds, where she grows a mix of squashes, corn, tomatoes, flowers, and other veggies. Bass received a warning from the city telling her to remove the vegetable garden, because it doesn't adhere to city ordinances (more on that later.) When she refused, she was ticketed and charged with a misdemeanor. Her trial, before a jury, is set to begin on July 26th. If she is found guilty, she can be sentenced to up to 93 days in jail.


    If you want to lobby the government for a few million dollars in research grants or tax incentives, that's just fine. If you want to do something that is proven to use free energy, like planting a garden or putting up a clothesline, go directly to jail.

     

    Topics: 
    Technology

    Comments

    The simplest solution would be to place several hundred million magnifying glasses in stationary orbit between the earth and the sun, all focused on Lake Michigan.

    Then we would build a transparent dome over the lake to a) allow the transmission of the sun's rays, and b) capture steam.

    The steam can then be piped to a series of dynamos stretching from Chicago to Detroit (replacing the employment frittered away by the automobile industry), with a new smart electric grid reaching out to the entire country. The condensed steam (in the form of H2O) should be piped back into the closest Great Lake.

    I have retained the services of the internationally reknowned engineering firm of Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones and Palin to elaborate the details of this proposal, which should be forthcoming shortly.

    In the meantime, if you are impatient, we might try conservation (Yukk!).

    I haven't checked recently; does Oak Park have an ordinance outlawing conservation?


    by Red Planet on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:58pm

    How do you prevent one of those VW sized space debris,  from striking the lenses and the next thing you know, the intensified beam is hitting Richards house in Minnesota.

    I have friends that work for Dewey, Scruem and Howe.

    Your idea is causing me anxiety.


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:27pm

    Nikola Tesla had a car that ran on dilithium crystals in the 1870s, but the railroad barons sabotaged it and blackmailed him to abandon his development of it.


    by Rootman on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:27pm

    Yeah, Artemus Gordon drove one on Wild, Wild West.


    by Donal on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:01pm

    I had the same reaction to that op-ed. In a word, "Seriously?" That guy could have written virtually the exact same piece at any time in the past forty years or so, give or take a few million watts. In fact, many other already have.

    It's depressing to me. In the early 1990s, my uncle who worked in the Energy Department was debating whether to commit some funds to fusion research. I encouraged him to do so.

    I say, let the Chinese and Europeans put some money into fusion research. If they come up with something, it will be fantastic for the world. But we've put in our share already. I'd rather fund basic science.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:21pm

    Gotta disagree, Genghis.  The headline on the NYT oped is indeed an outdated cliche, but the content is intriguing. Obviously Prager has a vested interest in promoting fusion. But if his estimate of $30 billion for a working U.S. fusion reactor within two decades is anywhere near realistic, well, that's chickenfeed.

    By comparison, that's almost exactly the estimated cost, over a similar period, for Canada`s projected fleet of 65 U.S.-built F-35s -- whose only possible purpose would be to back up American control over Middle Eastern oil supplies. Canada would be better off investing in its own fusion research, rather than enabling continued addiction to fossil fuels.

    "Give or take a few million watts?" I'm sure you realize that's the whole point Prager was making: progress toward the practical generation of fusion power has been exponential. I remember like yesterday the day researchers reached break-even -- when the amount of energy produced (over a brief period of time) actually exceeded the energy being pumped into the experiment. (I recall the day; I've long since forgotten which year it was.)

    Given little money we're talking about, why cede the initiative to the Chinese and Europeans? So we can later buy prefab reactors from them, like we do our big-screen TVs? Sounds like false economy.

    You were right in the 1990s.


    by acanuck on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:53pm

    If we knew that it would be $30B and 20 years, well sure, that's a no-brainer. But we don't know that, and Dr, Prager doesn't not know it either. His willingness to throw out 20 years, which I highly doubt that he can validate, suggests that he's playing the salesman. And history suggests that 20 years from now, another physics prof will write an optimistic article estimating that we're 20 years away.

    If someone does eventually build anything close to a commercially viable fusion reactor, the country that builds it first will not necessarily be the one selling prefab reactors to the world. When and if it happens, there will be a global race to perfect and commercialize the product that will take the form of corporate subsidies, not massive science grants. For example, China did not become the world leader in solar panel production by pioneering the technology.

    Speaking of science grants, where do you think that $30B will come from? We're not going to give up any F-35s for it. It will come out of the government's research budgets--most likely from the Energy Department--and that means less money for other worthy science grants. So the question is not, "Should we spend the money?" but rather, "Is fusion research the best way to spend the money?"


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 8:27pm

    As I hinted in my nuanced way, I also thought the $30 billion figure might be optimistic. But my pal Wiki predicts commercial fusion power will take another $100 billion of R&D over about 50 years. So the proposed U.S. share of $30 billion sounds about right; it's the goal of having a working plant in 20 years that is pie-in-the-sky.

    I get the mood of Congress. But the potential benefit to all mankind is so great, I can't see a rationale for penny-pinching. Even a scaled-back NASA spends $18 billion a year. The current crop of senseless wars costs almost that much each month. Spread out over half a century, the fusion project would cost the U.S. less than a billion a year, and it might actually improve the world.

    While we're at it, scrapping the delay-plagued, ridiculously overpriced F-35 sounds like a great idea.

     


    by acanuck on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:07am

    I don't disagree about cutting the military budget, but that's neither here nor there.

    Let's put it another way. Suppose that I get you $30 billion by cutting military costs and, if necessary, selling off my snow globe collection. You may distribute the money into any scientific research projects you choose.

    Would spend spend it all on fusion research? In 1990, I would have. Today, I would not.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:47pm

    We were also promised that fission nuclear plants were going to provide energy so cheap they wouldn't bother to meter it. That didn't happen, did it?

    I wonder if putting that money into Solar PV would pay off. PV can be decentralized, which would cut down on transmission lines, and losses across transmission lines. PV doesn't have to be thrust into untouched wilderness, either


    by Donal on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:06pm