Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My
favourite SF film; it never ages, and the special effects are
years ahead for its time.
So was Robbie.
Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though
it is odd to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities.
Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote in news:XnsAE4741A47FDAFidtokenpost@
144.76.35.252:
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities.
How is it \"clear\"? Damn I hate stupid twerps downplaying scientific
advancement. Are you Larkin\'s brother?
Your mother claiming you were human was a fraud, because CLEARLY you
are a piece of shit.
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.
The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
demonstrated in the 1960\'s and ran for years with no significant
problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
and the wind stops blowing.
On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times
the amount of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
\"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
\"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets
immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the
future\". These are not the same things at all.
I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s
position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using
less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.
None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
The entire argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.
The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\" (Arthur C.
Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate the basic
observations.
Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.
At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
parts of the globe.
So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
future.
I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
your points are covered there.
Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few
decades, in developed countries.)
Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has
improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying
efficiency could be doubled, and that still won\'t last long against
exponential increase.
Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.
On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
As with AI: \"In the next decade...\" :
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Yes. The Krell. :
And look what happened to them; \"Monsters from the id!\" My favourite SF
film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
OTOH, Athena posited the idea of \"a VAX of your own\" long before it was
practical for every home to have one.
Taking that as a model, it seems like \"endless energy\" would end up being used
\"for entertainment purposes\"!
I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor
for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for
places liked the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.
Jeroen Belleman
\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?
and will
never power cities.
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
Huh? Doesn\'t the sun shine where you are?
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...
Same as Edison\'s light bulb in year one, or Volta\'s battery in year 100
and will
never power cities.
Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
ITER is a test bed; it \'works\' if it gives test results, it isn\'t
intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
parts in the display, and attached computer, that\'s in front of you now?
That\'s all very weak argument.
On 2/23/2022 21:57, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
Huh? Doesn\'t the sun shine where you are?
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...
Same as Edison\'s light bulb in year one, or Volta\'s battery in year 100
and will
never power cities.
Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
ITER is a test bed; it \'works\' if it gives test results, it isn\'t
intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
parts in the display, and attached computer, that\'s in front of you now?
That\'s all very weak argument.
You are right of course but he made a good point about the small
fission reactors which we can have in mass production for many years
now.
I remember about 20 years ago some announcement of a Toshiba reactor,
lasting for 30 years without being refueled. I then did a rough
cost calculation and it was at least twice cheaper to have it
power a village (and the prices here in Bulgaria were really low).
Someone had posted it to the radsafe mailing list, don\'t know
what happened to the design, did it really work, was it killed off
for political reasons etc. but it surely looked good.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
Huh? Doesn\'t the sun shine where you are?
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...
Same as Edison\'s light bulb in year one, or Volta\'s battery in year 100
and will
never power cities.
Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
ITER is a test bed; it \'works\' if it gives test results, it isn\'t
intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
parts in the display, and attached computer, that\'s in front of you now?
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 2:57:29 PM UTC-5, whit3rd
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett
wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
Huh? Doesn\'t the sun shine where you are?
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...
Same as Edison\'s light bulb in year one, or Volta\'s battery in
year 100
and will
never power cities.
Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it
work,
ITER is a test bed; it \'works\' if it gives test results, it isn\'t
intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up
the parts in the display, and attached computer, that\'s in front
of you now?
ITER is intended to achieve significant energy over it\'s own
operating requirements. I see the number 500 MW tossed around.
Given its cost, that may not be a goal for practical electrical
generating system, but it\'s pretty durn good! If they can lower
the cost, fusion will become *the* energy source for virtually all
needs. But they will need to *seriously* lower the cost of the
installation.
I read recently that the core is in sections which have to be
welded together. Some of them were dropped, yes, DROPPED, so that
they have to be assembled differently. This is requiring
different inspection and approvals now, so they are held up until
this can be addressed.
\"Hey! Watch out! Don\'t drop that! It\'s expensive!!!\"
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
body radiator. \"Assume a spherical cow...\" and all that.
More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.
You\'re a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
that work.
How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
each about 4\" x 14\"?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, âeconomic growth
cannot continue indefinitely,â just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsânot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn\'t a prediction!
Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.
On 23/02/22 16:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
body radiator. \"Assume a spherical cow...\" and all that.
More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.
You\'re a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
that work.
I\'ve made low-noise analogue electronic products,
semi-custom digital products, radio propagation,
and many incidental things including system design
tradeoffs. Plus hard realtime and soft realtime software.
I can\'t be bothered to trawl the s.e.d. archives to
find something you would ignore.
How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
each about 4\" x 14\"?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0
Irrelevant w.r.t. black body radiation, of course.
The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
author\'s superiority and to make article filler. \"The conversation
recreated here...\" One sees a lot of that.
Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...
\"Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, economic growth
cannot continue indefinitely, just to see where things would
go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
constraintsnot for the first time, but here it was up-close
and personal.\"
Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.
Gedankenexperimenten are /always/ \"fabricated\"; they have to be!
I don\'t think you know what a straw man argument is.
The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
moot. He\'s not thinking ahead.
Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn\'t a prediction!
Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.
You were insulting.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount of
energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\" energy?
Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.
What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
economists.
Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
dishonest. Coder thinking. It\'s amusing, so I\'m not complaining.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:
Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly nasty.
The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
demonstrated in the 1960\'s and ran for years with no significant
problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
and the wind stops blowing.
Europe is the big regressive experiment in energy poverty.
On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"
I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?
Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.
Jeroen Belleman
\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?
It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
sorry.
Jeroen Belleman
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:
Fusion is Fraud
It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it
will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost
of renewable sources like solar and wind.
The tokamak versions don\'t look promising, except as giant money
sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.
We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly
nasty.