dagblog - Comments for "Free Energy"

We were also promised that

Donal — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:06:00 +0000

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

I don't disagree about

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:47:53 +0000

In reply to As I hinted in my nuanced

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.

As I hinted in my nuanced

acanuck — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:07:03 +0000

In reply to If we knew that it would be

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.

If we knew that it would be

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:27:00 +0000

In reply to Gotta disagree, Genghis. The

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?"

Gotta disagree, Genghis. The

acanuck — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:53:03 +0000

In reply to I had the same reaction to

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.

How do you prevent one of

Resistance — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:27:00 +0000

In reply to The simplest solution would

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.

I had the same reaction to

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:21:42 +0000

In reply to Free Energy

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.

Yeah, Artemus Gordon drove

Donal — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:01:08 +0000

In reply to Nikola Tesla had a car that

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

Nikola Tesla had a car that

Rootman — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:27:16 +0000

In reply to Free Energy

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.

The simplest solution would

Red Planet — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:58:58 +0000

In reply to Free Energy

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?