Hydrogen snafu.

It has been done many times, in the form of H-bombs. And it has been done in the lab for the tiniest fraction of a millisecond. It has never been sustained and controlled. The physics is sound, but the technology to control it is far enough away to be regarded as science fiction, at best.

Meanwhile, we have the technology to meet our energy needs today, in an environmentally sound manner, in the form of solar, wind, and other renewables.

As far as subs, they are very real, if out of the reach of most of us. I've been down in a submarine. I forget what I paid. $20? $30? It held something like 20 people and they took us down about 30 feet to see the fishes around a coral reef for half an hour or so.

 

I believe he was referring to the fact that we were talking about not just any subs, but 78 million dollar luxury subs, specificly. :mrgreen:

 

Controlled fusion for power production is hideously difficult, even using the easiest choices of reaction. Neutron-free fusion, which is what would be required for fusion without producing radioactive waste, is among the most difficult reactions. Barring some major breakthrough in catalysis or who-knows-what I doubt that any of us will live to see fusion power generation.

 

Yeah, we probably won't live to see that, but who knows. While it may be science fiction currently, it seems to be a very admirable science fiction goal, so as we see other energy sources depleted and find renewable sources can't meet our needs fully, research will probably be boosted by the increased demand for such a technology.

This is kind of like what I would have to say when people suggest we could run out of freshwater...we'll find a way to get that salt out of the oceans really fast once things get too much out of hand. Necessity is the mother of invention...it's simply a question now of if fusion is really a necessity, which at this point, it isn't.

 

In terms of the solution to our energy needs, what a lot of people don't realize is all the R&D money that has been spent over the years on the ICE. It has amounted to multiple billions since it's invention.

(ICE= Internal Combustion Engine
R&D= Research and Design)

The only reason we drive around in the internal combustion engine is because of the way energy is stored to run it.

The Stanley steamer worked better than the ICE back in 1900, but for that car, you needed gallons of water as well as gallons of gas to run it. Plus it took hours to start it up.

Electric cars are better than ICE, but the storage issues are (?were) horrendous.

The only reason we went down the ICE path is because gasoline is relatively--or was- plentiful.

But in order to make the ICE work, they had to invent generators, distributors, intake valves, exhaust valves, charging systems, starters and carburetors or fuel injection, mufflers and cooling systems and all kinds of pumps and etc etc etc etc.

An ICE requires dozens of added gadgets to make it work and every one of those gadgets had to be researched and designed.

I've read that the total money that has been spent on the R&D for the ICE over the last 100 years is well above 100 billion. And this doesn't even include all the money spent on the procurement, development and distribution of gasoline.

So when people squawk about the expense of electric research or hydrogen research or any other alternative research, it angers me that they use such a different yardstick when they do that.

To be fair, we need to be willing to spend at least 25% of the money spent on the ICE before we give up on any alternative.

And if you add up all the R&D dollars that gets spent on electric, I bet it still pales in comparison to what is still being spent on R&D for the ICE even today.

And the reason for that is the ICE has a vested interest and that vested interest is extremely wealthy and very entrenched, not to mention it owns our current government.

Solar energy has made some phenomenal progress in the last 20 years. Battery technology has also made some phenomenal strides. And these industries have done this with a pitifully tiny access to R&D money, at least in comparison to what is spent on the ICE.

But there is another problem with solar and battery and the whole electic side for the power industry. Solar and battery and electricity generation run the risk of being decentralized. If it could be figured out how to make cheap power from the sun and store it in a cheap way, it would likely be done by thousands of smaller entrepreneurs all over the planet. This means profits would be spread out for thousands or millions of people all around the world. And when profits are spread out they are by definition not centralized. And when they can't be centralized, you can't have megamillionairs. Instead you get thousands or millions of thousandnaires. Some people just don't like the idea of that.

So why would the oil industry, or the current power industry go down a road that might result in their losing control of mega profits? And fusion just not be any better for common people because it too would probably result in the concentration of power and control and profits all in one place, or in a few places.

All I can say, if we had spent multiple billions on R&D for solar power and better batteries over the last 80 years, like we did on the ICE, we would all have solar collectors on our roofs and batteries that could store enough power for 300 mile trips. There would be no need for fission nor fusion.

But the profits just could not be concentrated enough for those that control this country's destiny. Hence where we are today.

But Toyota doesn't seem to be as concerned with the next quarterly report. They seem to focus on a 20 year plan. And right now that focus seems to be more on making great products than on making and protecting great profits. I think that's great, but I'm not sure it can last.

 

most scientists agree that the technology curve for viable fusion reactors to generate power would not be available until at least 2055 and more like 2075.

so some may see it... i doubt that i will.

 

imprezza:

very insightful post. and you are right. the scare of fission, fusion, solar, etc is more mind control than real dangers.

if you had control of a multi billion dollar industry, you would not stop at anything to maintain it...

well maybe you wouldnt but the current oil industry would and does.

 

I think fusion power will be the single most important source of energy in the world.

In fact, it already is.

But I think it ought to continue to take place in the sun where it belongs.

 

I don't suspect anyone here is suggesting otherwise.

 

well fusion like the sun will stay there im sure. the future is supposedly in cold fusion. it is supposed to be possible although other than the movie "The Saint" ive never seen it discussed much.

the technical hurdles are formidable but reportedly we are making progress towards that end. but most predict a turn of the century before practical applications start showing up using the technology.

 

Cold fusion was a hoax. There is no reason to belive it has any scientific basis whatsoever.

Impreza hit the nail right on the head. The decision to go renewable has to be a political one. Politics is owned by money. And money will never willingly give up power. Decentralization is good for the country but bad for the folks who hold the power.

 

Hindenberg

Sure have enjoyed the hydrogen discussion. This forum is really unique, intelligent, informative and civil ... rare commodities in forums these days.
They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks but here's one old dog who learns something every waking moment of the day. Maybe it's because I'm forgetting the stuff I'd squirreled away over the last couple of years. Anyway the only thing relevant that I can contribute is that at the age of 5 in Corner Brook, Newfoundland in 1937 (years before Canada joined Newfoundland March 31, 1949) I watched the Hindenberg fly over-head low enough to see the faces of the passengers looking out of the windows. I remember the airship but the name has been related to me by my father a number of years later.
P.S. For the nit pickers the info contained within the parentheses is correct and not reversed ...at least that's the way this Newfie see's it ) 8)

 

a hoax??

a press conference by a pair of University of Utah scientists who claimed to have discovered the mechanism behind cold fusion were attacked for sloppy record keeping and an inability to reproduce their lab results. as a result their funding was rescinded so they werent afforded the opportunity to support their claims and they sunk into obscurity. ever since then, cold fusion has be stigmatized as smoke screen science and most refuse to take the idea seriously despite that fact that several dozen countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year researching cold fusion and have made steady progress in the field. that list includes the US of A.

In 1997, Edmund Storms a retired scientist created a reproduceable phenomena that creates heat without a discernable power source. the heat is released for days at a time. he claims it is cold fusion.

some other scientists who have reviewed his paper and reproduced his experiments

* George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society for more than 15 years: "There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results - as do my own."

* John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry: "Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist."

* Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International: "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear."

as i said, most experts currently working in the cold fusion field, estimate viable commerical products available in 5 decades.

later independent experiements to reproduce the original cold fusion announcement indicated the presence of tritium, a radioactive component of "heavy water" which virtually assured that cold fusion had taken place. although this discovery was announced, the momentum against the two originators was already at critical mass.

another reason why the first cold fusion announcement was debunked so quickly was because the two scientists who announced the discovery were not physicists, they were chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Physicists were upset that such a simple solution eluded their expertise as it has long been considered that atomic physics was a more advanced science than lowly chemistry so they immediately dismissed the two as not knowing what they were doing.

although it is true that their documentation was incomplete and not very thorough, it was later proven by an independent research team at Oxford University that MIT's announcement debunking the Utah scientists findings were based a purposely altered data.

this information was taken from a paper i wrote a few years ago. at the time of writing there had been over 400 papers published supporting the original Utah announcement.

out of all this, one of Toyota's greatest mistakes they have ever made was when they stopped funding Fleischmann's attempts to clear his name. This was done as new research supporting Fleischmann's claims were rolling in.

For interesting reading by a former MIT researcher who resigned in disgust over the treatment of the cold fusion investigation, read the book Fire From Ice by Eugene Mallove.

 

Seeing the Hindenburg fly over...wow. One of my old high school librarians was on the most famous (and last) trip of the Andrea Dorea, to throw up another destruction-on-transit-systems story. :mrgreen:

And also, yes, it's crazy how this forum stays civil...I've never seen such a thing before as a civil forum. :mrgreen:

 

Yes, a hoax. And until there is some theoretical explanation of how you can supposedly get two helium nucleii to fuse at room temperature (overcoming the astronomical repulsive force of the positively-charged protons without the high velocity of high temperature) it will continue to be seen as a hoax by all but the science-fantasy crowd.

If this thing could be done in a chemistry lab there'd be people all over the world doing it today.

 

Re: Hindenberg

Maybe not, but humans are not dogs.

And I like your attitude about the fusion of the two countries in 1949. ... I guess what really happened was they joined each other, kind of like marriage.

 

I don't think I'd use The Saint as a technical reference for much of anything (except that Elizabeth Shue is gorgeous, and Val Kilmer can't pick a winning picture to save his life.)

(Excepting Real Genius.)

 

Isn't it amazing? Even the technical forums on Usenet aren't this polite.

You folks deserve a collective pat on the back.

 

i think the aura of Prius ownership has transcended all differences to help us tolerate and understand each individual in this forum a little better.

the sense of brotherhood (or sisterhood) is simply stronger here.

just as the Prius has reduced or eliminated road rage in many of us, the Prius' calming effects have started to affect other parts of our personality...

 

*pats self on back*
*purrs*