For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy
than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes
or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
On 12/22/2022 8:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's
very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which
released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're
interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
It's a good recap of the situation, but the same information was
reported a couple weeks ago by others in the New York Times, Washington
Post, our local paper, and elsewhere. It seems possible that utility
scale fusion generators might really be only 20 years away, but I don't
think I'll ever see even prototype utility scale systems in operation,
though people 10 years younger might. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
On 12/22/2022 11:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's
very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which
released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're
interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
On 12/22/2022 8:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:Eric, don't be so convinced that Fusion will be a cure all for the power industry. Where is all the Tritium going to come from, it is not that abundant and making Tritium blankets from lithium has a long way to go. Taking a gallon of seawater and
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy
than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes
or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43It's a good recap of the situation, but the same information was reported a couple weeks
ago by others in the New York Times, Washington Post, our local paper, and elsewhere. It
seems possible that utility scale fusion generators might really be only 20 years away,
but I don't think I'll ever see even prototype utility scale systems in operation, though
people 10 years younger might. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:00:17 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:producing more energy that 300 gallons of fossil fuel sounds good, yet the laboratory is much different than the real world. Nuclear power is still the way to go, NP needs to be revived in this country and expanded. Wind turbines are a non-profit waste,
On 12/22/2022 8:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:Eric, don't be so convinced that Fusion will be a cure all for the power industry. Where is all the Tritium going to come from, it is not that abundant and making Tritium blankets from lithium has a long way to go. Taking a gallon of seawater and
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.It's a good recap of the situation, but the same information was reported a couple weeks
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy
than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes
or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
ago by others in the New York Times, Washington Post, our local paper, and elsewhere. It
seems possible that utility scale fusion generators might really be only 20 years away,
but I don't think I'll ever see even prototype utility scale systems in operation, though
people 10 years younger might. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind and
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid.
subsidy for building them. There is a wind farm south of Moriarty that took the blades down and cut them up for burial in a landfill only halfway through their expected 25-year life. They replaced the blades in order to requalify for the subsidy.Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind and
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid.
Eric-
Wind Turbines do NOT sprout from magic beans. The energy required to build one is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy they will provide (intermittently!) over their lifetime. Texas wouldn't have 15,000 wind turbines if there was no Federal
And would you please point out the solar-powered solar cell factories? Right, there AREN'T any. It takes more energy (once again) to manufacture solar cells than they can produce. The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics cannot be repealed, no matter howhard politicians and unicorn herders try. Oil & Gas aren't going away anytime soon, as we need the energy to make inefficient replacement technologies that will satisfy the dreamers.
Our only real hope is for nuclear energy to be adopted on a larger scale. I agree that smaller reactors are a much better choice than the monolithic plants that use 1950's designs for the fission core. More modern designs, such as the Thorium reactorscurrently being tested are superior to the Uranium-based designs presently in use.
subsidy for building them. There is a wind farm south of Moriarty that took the blades down and cut them up for burial in a landfill only halfway through their expected 25-year life. They replaced the blades in order to requalify for the subsidy.Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind andEric-
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid.
Wind Turbines do NOT sprout from magic beans. The energy required to build one is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy they will provide (intermittently!) over their lifetime. Texas wouldn't have 15,000 wind turbines if there was no Federal
And would you please point out the solar-powered solar cell factories? Right, there AREN'T any. It takes more energy (once again) to manufacture solar cells than they can produce. The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics cannot be repealed, no matter howhard politicians and unicorn herders try. Oil & Gas aren't going away anytime soon, as we need the energy to make inefficient replacement technologies that will satisfy the dreamers.
Our only real hope is for nuclear energy to be adopted on a larger scale. I agree that smaller reactors are a much better choice than the monolithic plants that use 1950's designs for the fission core. More modern designs, such as the Thorium reactorscurrently being tested are superior to the Uranium-based designs presently in use.
subsidy for building them. There is a wind farm south of Moriarty that took the blades down and cut them up for burial in a landfill only halfway through their expected 25-year life. They replaced the blades in order to requalify for the subsidy.Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind andEric-
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid.
Wind Turbines do NOT sprout from magic beans. The energy required to build one is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy they will provide (intermittently!) over their lifetime. Texas wouldn't have 15,000 wind turbines if there was no Federal
And would you please point out the solar-powered solar cell factories? Right, there AREN'T any. It takes more energy (once again) to manufacture solar cells than they can produce. The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics cannot be repealed, no matter howhard politicians and unicorn herders try. Oil & Gas aren't going away anytime soon, as we need the energy to make inefficient replacement technologies that will satisfy the dreamers.
Our only real hope is for nuclear energy to be adopted on a larger scale. I agree that smaller reactors are a much better choice than the monolithic plants that use 1950's designs for the fission core. More modern designs, such as the Thorium reactorscurrently being tested are superior to the Uranium-based designs presently in use.
So, I will ask the question again. Where are the solar powered solar cell factories?
returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so it
returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why aren't they using it instead of taking energy from some other source that may be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or (horrors!) nuke or coal?
On 12/23/2022 1:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:producing more energy that 300 gallons of fossil fuel sounds good, yet the laboratory is much different than the real world. Nuclear power is still the way to go, NP needs to be revived in this country and expanded. Wind turbines are a non-profit waste,
On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:00:17 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/22/2022 8:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:Eric, don't be so convinced that Fusion will be a cure all for the power industry. Where is all the Tritium going to come from, it is not that abundant and making Tritium blankets from lithium has a long way to go. Taking a gallon of seawater and
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.It's a good recap of the situation, but the same information was reported a couple weeks
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy
than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes
or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
ago by others in the New York Times, Washington Post, our local paper, and elsewhere. It
seems possible that utility scale fusion generators might really be only 20 years away,
but I don't think I'll ever see even prototype utility scale systems in operation, though
people 10 years younger might. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
I agree that nuclear power is likely a good choice, but not with large power plants as
we've done in the past: too expensive and too long to build and bring online. A company in
Richland (where I live) will soon be testing a small modular reactor that overcomes many
of the disadvantages of former reactors, like the one just 12 miles north of Richland.
https://www.tricitiesbusinessnews.com/2021/12/x-energy/?cn-reloaded=1
Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind and
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid. Note that there is essentially NO maintenance on a solar panel, and a huge
installation can be serviced with just a few employees.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so itI don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located in
returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why aren't
they using it instead of taking energy from some other source that may
be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or (horrors!) nuke or coal?
an area that has enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they arrange with
their utility to purchase the electricity produced by renewables or
nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if the
factory is using electricity from fossil sources, what it produces
allows society to avoid 10 times that much electricity from fossil
fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel consumption that
much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a century! It's really a
good trade off, not a bad thing or an embarrassment.
On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 5:53:06 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:producing more energy that 300 gallons of fossil fuel sounds good, yet the laboratory is much different than the real world. Nuclear power is still the way to go, NP needs to be revived in this country and expanded. Wind turbines are a non-profit waste,
On 12/23/2022 1:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 2:00:17 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/22/2022 8:49 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:Eric, don't be so convinced that Fusion will be a cure all for the power industry. Where is all the Tritium going to come from, it is not that abundant and making Tritium blankets from lithium has a long way to go. Taking a gallon of seawater and
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.It's a good recap of the situation, but the same information was reported a couple weeks
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy
than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes
or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
ago by others in the New York Times, Washington Post, our local paper, and elsewhere. It
seems possible that utility scale fusion generators might really be only 20 years away,
but I don't think I'll ever see even prototype utility scale systems in operation, though
people 10 years younger might. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
I agree that nuclear power is likely a good choice, but not with large power plants as
we've done in the past: too expensive and too long to build and bring online. A company in
Richland (where I live) will soon be testing a small modular reactor that overcomes many
of the disadvantages of former reactors, like the one just 12 miles north of Richland.
https://www.tricitiesbusinessnews.com/2021/12/x-energy/?cn-reloaded=1
Nonetheless, the cheapest, quickest way right now to add new power to the grid is wind andThe REAL cost of wind and solar must also include the cost of the standby fossil plants that supply the electricity when the wind isn't blowing or the 18-24 hours a day the sun doesn't shine.
solar energy. The wind and solar farms are profitable because they are cheap and quick to
build, so the financial risk is very small; they are scalable, so more units can be added
as needed. Texas would not have 15,000 wind turbines if they weren't valuable assets for
their grid. Note that there is essentially NO maintenance on a solar panel, and a huge
installation can be serviced with just a few employees.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
To quote the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice" if we could actually believe the claims of
the purveyors of all things great, green, glorious, and planet saving? When I hear claims
of 10 times more <enter your favorite claim here> my BS detector goes wild.
Dan
5J
On 12/23/22 17:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so itI don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located in an area that has
returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why aren't they using it
instead of taking energy from some other source that may be one of the "devil" sources
like oil & gas or (horrors!) nuke or coal?
enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they arrange with their utility to purchase the
electricity produced by renewables or nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if the factory is using
electricity from fossil sources, what it produces allows society to avoid 10 times that
much electricity from fossil fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel
consumption that much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a century! It's really a
good trade off, not a bad thing or an embarrassment.
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 1:07:37 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:...
On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 5:53:06 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
to get back to soaring, the question has been asked whether a solar farm is a good thermal source.
Given that the panels are designed to use as much of the solar spectrum as possible, I had naively
assumed they would be hotter that most of the agricultural land or forest. However, the best panels are converting 35% of the radiation, leaving only 65 % as waste heat.
Of that , some is re-radiated, so we may be left with an array that is actually cooler , or at least no hotter
than the terrain.
Anyone care to do a proper analysis?
John Firth
in Ottawa where the snow reflects most of the incoming energy.
So, why aren't they terrific thermal sources (only some reporting success over solar panel
farms)? I don't know, but maybe it's how they are mounted: they slope at 30 degrees or so,
have large venting for the backside, unlike a flat parking lot. That might release the
heat continuously, instead of building up and then releasing, like same-size flat parking
lot would do.
to get back to soaring, the question has been asked whether a solar farm is a good thermal source.
Given that the panels are designed to use as much of the solar spectrum as possible, I had naively
assumed they would be hotter that most of the agricultural land or forest. However, the best panels are converting 35% of the radiation, leaving only 65 % as waste heat.
Of that , some is re-radiated, so we may be left with an array that is actually cooler , or at least no hotter
than the terrain.
Anyone care to do a proper analysis?
John Firth
in Ottawa where the snow reflects most of the incoming energy.
Do the math. It's quick and easy - 10 minutes or less.
On 12/24/2022 8:19 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
To quote the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice" if we could actually
believe the claims of the purveyors of all things great, green,
glorious, and planet saving? When I hear claims of 10 times more
<enter your favorite claim here> my BS detector goes wild.
Dan
5J
On 12/23/22 17:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so it >>>>> returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?I don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why aren't
they using it instead of taking energy from some other source that
may be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or (horrors!) nuke
or coal?
in an area that has enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they arrange
with their utility to purchase the electricity produced by renewables
or nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if the
factory is using electricity from fossil sources, what it produces
allows society to avoid 10 times that much electricity from fossil
fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel consumption
that much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a century! It's
really a good trade off, not a bad thing or an embarrassment.
But I don't believe the claims that go into the math. If 10 times the energy comes from solar, then there'd be no fossil fueled devices around.
BTW, whatever happened to Solyndra, other than their principals and government supports got rich?
Dan
5J
On 12/24/22 10:44, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Do the math. It's quick and easy - 10 minutes or less.
On 12/24/2022 8:19 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
To quote the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice" if we could actually
believe the claims of the purveyors of all things great, green,
glorious, and planet saving? When I hear claims of 10 times more
<enter your favorite claim here> my BS detector goes wild.
Dan
5J
On 12/23/22 17:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so it >>>>>> returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?I don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why
aren't they using it instead of taking energy from some other
source that may be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or
(horrors!) nuke or coal?
in an area that has enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they
arrange with their utility to purchase the electricity produced by
renewables or nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if
the factory is using electricity from fossil sources, what it
produces allows society to avoid 10 times that much electricity from
fossil fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel
consumption that much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a
century! It's really a good trade off, not a bad thing or an
embarrassment.
Solyndra got caught spiking their solar cells with copper, whichWe fly over some of the largest solar farms in the country, a few of them are within three miles from X52, FPL has recently become one of the largest land owners in Florida, converting marsh land to solar panel farms. Not all the heat that is derived
increased their output enough to meet their performance goals, but gave
them terrible lifetime. The principals got hundreds of millions in
federal loan guarantees, the taxpayers got the shaft (and warehouses
full of toxic waste). O'Dumbo got reelected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
The solar cells got infused with copper, the whole "green energy"
program got infused with a heavy dose of politics.
On 12/24/22 12:26 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
But I don't believe the claims that go into the math. If 10 times the energy comes from solar, then there'd be no fossil fueled devices around.
BTW, whatever happened to Solyndra, other than their principals and government supports got rich?
Dan
5J
On 12/24/22 10:44, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Do the math. It's quick and easy - 10 minutes or less.
On 12/24/2022 8:19 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
To quote the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice" if we could actually
believe the claims of the purveyors of all things great, green,
glorious, and planet saving? When I hear claims of 10 times more
<enter your favorite claim here> my BS detector goes wild.
Dan
5J
On 12/23/22 17:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so it >>>>>> returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?I don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located >>>> in an area that has enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why
aren't they using it instead of taking energy from some other
source that may be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or
(horrors!) nuke or coal?
arrange with their utility to purchase the electricity produced by
renewables or nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if
the factory is using electricity from fossil sources, what it
produces allows society to avoid 10 times that much electricity from >>>> fossil fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel
consumption that much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a
century! It's really a good trade off, not a bad thing or an
embarrassment.
Solyndra got caught spiking their solar cells with copper, which increased their output
enough to meet their performance goals, but gave them terrible lifetime. The principals
got hundreds of millions in federal loan guarantees, the taxpayers got the shaft (and
warehouses full of toxic waste). O'Dumbo got reelected.
Solyndra got caught spiking their solar cells with copper, whichWe had a similar example of energy BS, Ineos and NPE duped us taxpayers out of about 500 million and the plant never went into production. Same administration funded that ponzi scheme. OBTP
increased their output enough to meet their performance goals, but gave
them terrible lifetime. The principals got hundreds of millions in
federal loan guarantees, the taxpayers got the shaft (and warehouses
full of toxic waste). O'Dumbo got reelected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html
The solar cells got infused with copper, the whole "green energy"
program got infused with a heavy dose of politics.
On 12/24/22 12:26 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
But I don't believe the claims that go into the math. If 10 times the energy comes from solar, then there'd be no fossil fueled devices around.
BTW, whatever happened to Solyndra, other than their principals and government supports got rich?
Dan
5J
On 12/24/22 10:44, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Do the math. It's quick and easy - 10 minutes or less.
On 12/24/2022 8:19 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
To quote the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice" if we could actually
believe the claims of the purveyors of all things great, green,
glorious, and planet saving? When I hear claims of 10 times more
<enter your favorite claim here> my BS detector goes wild.
Dan
5J
On 12/23/22 17:36, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 12/23/2022 3:26 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Are you asking why it doesn't have onsite panels to power it, so it >>>>>> returns a net of 10 watts instead of "only" 9 watts?I don't know what they are doing, but the factory may not be located >>>> in an area that has enough room, or enough sun. Or maybe they
That's exactly what I am asking. If the energy is "free", why
aren't they using it instead of taking energy from some other
source that may be one of the "devil" sources like oil & gas or
(horrors!) nuke or coal?
arrange with their utility to purchase the electricity produced by
renewables or nuclear power that the utility has available to it.
But really, I think it's the net amount that's important. Even if
the factory is using electricity from fossil sources, what it
produces allows society to avoid 10 times that much electricity from >>>> fossil fuels. That's huge: if we could reduce our fossil fuel
consumption that much, we'd be meeting our emission goals for a
century! It's really a good trade off, not a bad thing or an
embarrassment.
both shades the ground, preventing the absorption heat into the earth, as well as allowing airflow around and under the panels to dissipate the heat energy from transferring to the air.So, why aren't they terrific thermal sources (only some reporting success over solar panel
farms)? I don't know, but maybe it's how they are mounted: they slope at 30 degrees or so,
have large venting for the backside, unlike a flat parking lot. That might release the
heat continuously, instead of building up and then releasing, like same-size flat parking
lot would do.
Thermals are formed from convection, as the heat source transfers its energy to the air mass above it. Even though the panels get hot, they simply do not have the thermal mass that the ground does. And, as you suspect, the mounting above the surface
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.I started my post military occupational life in the nuclear industry working in health physics at a number of nuclear power plants, I saw well run to poorly run facilities. I was contracted by Westinghouse, Generous Electric, Combustion Engineering, all
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
--
Dan
5J
On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 11:49:51 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:all of them and developed serious concerns. I had intentions of getting a degree in nuclear engineering but did a paper on waste disposal and along with NIMBY realized the industry had many obstacles to overcome, both political and scientific/
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's veryI started my post military occupational life in the nuclear industry working in health physics at a number of nuclear power plants, I saw well run to poorly run facilities. I was contracted by Westinghouse, Generous Electric, Combustion Engineering,
informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which
released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're
interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43
--
Dan
5J
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 11:49:51 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:all of them and developed serious concerns. I had intentions of getting a degree in nuclear engineering but did a paper on waste disposal and along with NIMBY realized the industry had many obstacles to overcome, both political and scientific/
For a long time I've watched Sabine Hossenfelder on Youtube. She's very informative.
Last night she said something about a successful lab experiment which released more energy than the lasers input to the target. If you're interested, watch the first three minutes or so of this video:
https://youtu.be/Zr0Q_LGrQcg?t=43I started my post military occupational life in the nuclear industry working in health physics at a number of nuclear power plants, I saw well run to poorly run facilities. I was contracted by Westinghouse, Generous Electric, Combustion Engineering,
--
Dan
5J
Walt ConnellyWalt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTP
Former Tow Pilot
Walt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTP
\a reactor containment area. They sit in the office drinking coffee and bitching about the time it takes to do a shut down, clean up and repair and restart and how much it is going to cost.
Walt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTPNo Bob, the engineers make it happen, the health physics people (MY CREW) keep everyone from being over exposed to radiation and the MBAs f--k everything up by thinking in dollars. Never met an MBA who would put on Anti C's, a Scott Air Pack and enter
WaltNo Walt us guys were smart enough to stay away from the reactor, we spent more time making money! OBTP
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 8:25:38 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:enter a reactor containment area. They sit in the office drinking coffee and bitching about the time it takes to do a shut down, clean up and repair and restart and how much it is going to cost.
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:33:28 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
\
Walt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTPNo Bob, the engineers make it happen, the health physics people (MY CREW) keep everyone from being over exposed to radiation and the MBAs f--k everything up by thinking in dollars. Never met an MBA who would put on Anti C's, a Scott Air Pack and
than the MBAs are the lawyers and the Human Resources "professionals." While it takes everyone to make the system function, it's the engineers, physicists and operators who are the linchpins. I would like to see nuclear power expanded in this country andWell Bob, it depends on what you are talking about when you say "make it happen." At a nuclear facility the admin boys might make the paychecks appear on Friday but their ability to facilitate the operation of the plant leaves much to be desired. WorseWaltNo Walt us guys were smart enough to stay away from the reactor, we spent more time making money! OBTP
WaltWalt, I am glad that I am not the bottom of the food chain! Old Bob, The Purist
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:33:28 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:enter a reactor containment area. They sit in the office drinking coffee and bitching about the time it takes to do a shut down, clean up and repair and restart and how much it is going to cost.
\
Walt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTPNo Bob, the engineers make it happen, the health physics people (MY CREW) keep everyone from being over exposed to radiation and the MBAs f--k everything up by thinking in dollars. Never met an MBA who would put on Anti C's, a Scott Air Pack and
Well Bob, it depends on what you are talking about when you say "make it happen." At a nuclear facility the admin boys might make the paychecks appear on Friday but their ability to facilitate the operation of the plant leaves much to be desired. WorseWaltNo Walt us guys were smart enough to stay away from the reactor, we spent more time making money! OBTP
A well flown glider is fusion powered after launch.
The pilots play Maxwell's Demon.
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:33:28 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:enter a reactor containment area. They sit in the office drinking coffee and bitching about the time it takes to do a shut down, clean up and repair and restart and how much it is going to cost.
\
Walt, MBA's make it happen, engineers are jealous, they sit in a cubicle scratch their heads and work in groups, while the MBA takes it to the bank! OBTPNo Bob, the engineers make it happen, the health physics people (MY CREW) keep everyone from being over exposed to radiation and the MBAs f--k everything up by thinking in dollars. Never met an MBA who would put on Anti C's, a Scott Air Pack and
WaltNo Walt us guys were smart enough to stay away from the reactor, we spent more time making money! OBTP
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes.
https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility predicting commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that
didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that the
ten year projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to be a
figment of the imaginations of ignorant politicians, rather than based
on reality. They keep trying to tie it to the climate change narrative.
A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
When I started this thread, I linked to a video by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In that video the description of the amount of energy produced by the fusion reaction was "enough to boil a few of kettles of water". Since these terms are seldom used in the US in the context,
we'd say, "a couple of pots of water", I suspect the author copied from Hossenfelder.
That said, just like all climate liars, the author neglected to include
the energy required to fire the lasers which caused the fusion reaction.
So, to be fair, how many dinosaurs had to be burned to generate the 400-odd megajoules required to fire the lasers to impact the target with
2 megajoules to cause the fusion to generate 3 megajoules (or thereabouts)?
And the politicians aren't necessarily ignorant, they're simply cynical, knowing that the ignorant rubes will vote for them if they hear the
party line often enough.
In 1869, before Lenin was even born, in "The Crown of a Life" it was
written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if
such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief,
a dogma, and men will die for it.
Not much has changed since...
Dan
5J
On 1/2/23 07:57, kinsell wrote:
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. >>> https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility
predicting commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that
didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that
the ten year projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to be
a figment of the imaginations of ignorant politicians, rather than
based on reality. They keep trying to tie it to the climate change
narrative. A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
When I started this thread, I linked to a video by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In that
video the description of the amount of energy produced by the fusion reaction was "enough
to boil a few of kettles of water". Since these terms are seldom used in the US in the
context, we'd say, "a couple of pots of water", I suspect the author copied from
Hossenfelder.
That said, just like all climate liars, the author neglected to include the energy
required to fire the lasers which caused the fusion reaction. So, to be fair, how many
dinosaurs had to be burned to generate the 400-odd megajoules required to fire the lasers
to impact the target with 2 megajoules to cause the fusion to generate 3 megajoules (or
thereabouts)?
And the politicians aren't necessarily ignorant, they're simply cynical, knowing that the
ignorant rubes will vote for them if they hear the party line often enough.
In 1869, before Lenin was even born, in "The Crown of a Life" it was written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is
repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.
Not much has changed since...
Dan
5J
On 1/2/23 07:57, kinsell wrote:
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. >>> https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility predicting
commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that the ten year
projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to be a figment of the imaginations
of ignorant politicians, rather than based on reality. They keep trying to tie it to
the climate change narrative. A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
The author in the article I cited didn't ignore the power required for
the lasers:
"The net-energy gain that NIF achieved is truly impressive, until you
realize that another 300 or so megajoules were used to actually power
the lasers; a fusion power plant would need to scale up its output by a factor of 100 or more — and it would need to offer a bit more than a few trillionths of a second of energy."
It's actually much worse than just comparing megajoules, the energy
input to the lasers was in a very useful form known as electricity, the output was a burst of light, heat, and x-rays, which would produce considerably less then 3 megajoules if converted into electricity.
He did spout the party line on climate change, but that's not relevant
to the infinitesimal prospects of fusion being a viable energy source in
the next decade.
-Dave
On 1/2/23 11:07 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
When I started this thread, I linked to a video by physicist Sabine
Hossenfelder. In that video the description of the amount of energy
produced by the fusion reaction was "enough to boil a few of kettles
of water". Since these terms are seldom used in the US in the
context, we'd say, "a couple of pots of water", I suspect the author
copied from Hossenfelder.
That said, just like all climate liars, the author neglected to
include the energy required to fire the lasers which caused the fusion
reaction. So, to be fair, how many dinosaurs had to be burned to
generate the 400-odd megajoules required to fire the lasers to impact
the target with 2 megajoules to cause the fusion to generate 3
megajoules (or thereabouts)?
And the politicians aren't necessarily ignorant, they're simply
cynical, knowing that the ignorant rubes will vote for them if they
hear the party line often enough.
In 1869, before Lenin was even born, in "The Crown of a Life" it was
written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and
if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of
belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.
Not much has changed since...
Dan
5J
On 1/2/23 07:57, kinsell wrote:
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting
quotes.
https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility
predicting commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that
didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that
the ten year projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to
be a figment of the imaginations of ignorant politicians, rather than
based on reality. They keep trying to tie it to the climate change
narrative. A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
I've been following reports on fusion progress for decades. Commercial power is always 15 yrs away. Close enough to attract funding, far away enough to not have to provide real evidence for feasibility.
The latest result was never a "breakthrough" as the media wanted to call it. It was a milestone after long slow progress in an experiment that I don't think is suited to go commercial. How often can those lasers fire without overheating?
When I started this thread, I linked to a video by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In that video the description of the amount of energyActually, I thought it was started by a "US founding father", if you repeat a lie enough, it can become "fact".
produced by the fusion reaction was "enough to boil a few of kettles of water". Since these terms are seldom used in the US in the context,
we'd say, "a couple of pots of water", I suspect the author copied from Hossenfelder.
That said, just like all climate liars, the author neglected to include
the energy required to fire the lasers which caused the fusion reaction.
So, to be fair, how many dinosaurs had to be burned to generate the
400-odd megajoules required to fire the lasers to impact the target with
2 megajoules to cause the fusion to generate 3 megajoules (or thereabouts)?
And the politicians aren't necessarily ignorant, they're simply cynical, knowing that the ignorant rubes will vote for them if they hear the
party line often enough.
In 1869, before Lenin was even born, in "The Crown of a Life" it was
written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if
such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief,
a dogma, and men will die for it.
Not much has changed since...
Dan
5J
On 1/2/23 07:57, kinsell wrote:
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. >> https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility predicting commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that
didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that the ten year projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to be a figment of the imaginations of ignorant politicians, rather than based
on reality. They keep trying to tie it to the climate change narrative.
A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
On 1/2/2023 3:19 PM, Bret Hess wrote:
I've been following reports on fusion progress for decades.
Commercial power is always 15 yrs away. Close enough to attract
funding, far away enough to not have to provide real evidence for
feasibility.
The latest result was never a "breakthrough" as the media wanted to
call it. It was a milestone after long slow progress in an experiment
that I don't think is suited to go commercial. How often can those
lasers fire without overheating?
The experimental test chamber was not designed to produce power, and the lasers aren't intended to fire more than a few times a day.
They are still a long way from a prototype power production unit.
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:07:38 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:same numbers say different things.
When I started this thread, I linked to a video by physicist SabineActually, I thought it was started by a "US founding father", if you repeat a lie enough, it can become "fact".
Hossenfelder. In that video the description of the amount of energy
produced by the fusion reaction was "enough to boil a few of kettles of
water". Since these terms are seldom used in the US in the context,
we'd say, "a couple of pots of water", I suspect the author copied from
Hossenfelder.
That said, just like all climate liars, the author neglected to include
the energy required to fire the lasers which caused the fusion reaction.
So, to be fair, how many dinosaurs had to be burned to generate the
400-odd megajoules required to fire the lasers to impact the target with
2 megajoules to cause the fusion to generate 3 megajoules (or thereabouts)? >>
And the politicians aren't necessarily ignorant, they're simply cynical,
knowing that the ignorant rubes will vote for them if they hear the
party line often enough.
In 1869, before Lenin was even born, in "The Crown of a Life" it was
written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if
such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief,
a dogma, and men will die for it.
Not much has changed since...
Dan
5J
On 1/2/23 07:57, kinsell wrote:
On 12/31/22 8:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
For all of you "what will never work" posters, a few interesting quotes. >>>> https://www.dumpaday.com/funny-pictures/really-wrong-predictions-made-pretty-smart-people-16-pics/
Steve
One quote they missed was the head of the National Ignition Facility
predicting commercial production of fusion power was ten years away.
Unfortunately, that was in 2012, so now we can officially say that
didn't come true.
I don't think many people have claimed it will never work, only that the >>> ten year projection is extraordinarily optimistic. It seems to be a
figment of the imaginations of ignorant politicians, rather than based
on reality. They keep trying to tie it to the climate change narrative. >>> A more sober assessment of the situation is here:
https://www.grid.news/story/climate/2022/12/26/calling-nuclear-fusion-a-potential-climate-solution-may-undermine-actual-solutions/
That whole "repeating history" and stuff...
The recent news is a step forward....yes....lots of wasted energy leading to this step. But I believe a first to generate more energy out than going in......ignoring the power generation charging the lasers....it's like statistics, you can make the
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:03:12 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,530 |