|
U-Know! Forum » Mr Grufty Jim Sir !! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 11, 2001, 11:41
|
||
|
in theory you should have it by now... sent to the address linked from yer name at the top of yer messages... if not, let me know and i'll resend it... jim.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 13:20
|
||
|
hey morfe, just had a look over the Sandia labs page, and it sparked off a memory that sent me scurrying to the archives of an energy mailing list. the Z-Machine / Z-Accelerator is basically one of a number of nuclear fusion projects currently on the boil (pun intended). and as i said previously, i do think fusion is the most likely of the "technology saves the day" scenarios for the future. however, we are a long long way from it becoming a reality. i've yet to read a single message from someone working in the field who thinks it will go beyond the "theoretical" within the next 20 years. and if we see a major economic collapse before then? well, it's unlikely it'll ever happen. one subscriber to the mailing list has a friend at Sandia (albeit in the solar energy dept) and he didn't object to the consensus that 2020 is a very optimistic prediction for commercial fusion... there are so many massive problems still to be overcome, and there's a substantial body of opinion that thinks fusion will never get beyond the theoretical. on the other hand, technology has a habit of surprising us, and if Sandia (or CERN or JPL or someone else) announced tomorrow that they'd made the definitive fusion breakthrough and the first commercial reactors will be built next year... i wouldn't be surprised, and i would be very relieved. but nor would it surprise me if that announcement was never made. certainly i hate to think that humanity is unconsciously betting its future on the theoretical possibility that is nuclear fusion.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 14:31
|
||
|
Thanks for that Jim, I'm glad I wasn't barking up the wrong tree or going orgone accumulator on your arse! I'd be interested to know what you think of the following? 1. How safe AND clean is nuclear fusion? 3. I believe we are seemingly bound/hypnotised to be committed to a 'infinite growth' policy on earth, this is very much Western thinking, so it's no surprise that we want our cake and eat it. Thing is, with overpopulation, longer lifespans, massive-scale energy projects, and all the power in the hands of the few, it's a perfect recipe for disatster. I believe it's crucial to look at providing long-lasting small-scale renewable energy options, and to SERIOUSLY begin some positive thought about where, as a race, we are heading, rather than being led by the nose up a one way alley that narrows at the end. What do you think? Personally I have nothing against re-employing the ENTIRE PR and advertising industry in hamster wheels, generating energy for a year-long global festival/summit where all countries can discuss where we want to be going. Drinks provided free by Bush, who also serves and has no say in the matter. &c... PS I'm a secret luddite, but if technology can outweigh it's costs with benefits (rarely seen) I'm all for it. *Time is not a measured march of linear progress* Morfe
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 14:33
|
||
question 2 is far TOO profound to exist.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 15:41
|
||
|
> Thanks for that Jim, I'm glad I wasn't barking up > the wrong tree or going orgone accumulator on > your arse! > heh heh... i have to admit when i heard the term "Z Machine" i was unjustifiably sceptical. but in my defence, it *is* a very Star Trek name. plus, there are some very weird ideas out there for new energy sources. that's not to say that they are all necessarily junk... i mean, how weird is nuclear fusion? (get two atoms of deuterium, fuse them together in a magnetically sealed ring of super-hot plasma, and pop! two atoms become one and loads of energy gets released... very strange indeed - but as i say, perfectly possible - that is, after all, how the sun works). > > 1. How safe AND clean is nuclear fusion? > an excellent site to find out more about fusion is http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/ (though one needs to be aware that much of the material here is produced by people who are trying to bolster dwindling research grants). the related issues of safety and environmental impact are naturally a concern whenever the word "nuclear" gets used. thankfully, let me put your mind at rest, and point out that nuclear fusion is a _very_ different kettle of fish to nuclear fission (our current nuclear technology). on the safety issue. a nuclear fusion reactor is essentially a massive, ongoing, contained explosion. truly massive. i personally would not wish to live next door to one of the things. if a terrorist crashed an airliner into a fusion plant, or if a catastrophic failure occurred in the magnetic containment field, then the resulting explosion would probably not something you want to be within a couple of miles of. for the same reasons, i would choose not to live next door to an oil refinery or an explosives factory. fusion plants could be made very safe indeed, but never 100% safe. more importantly though, is the issue of how clean fusion is. would such an explosion be another chernobyl? and what about waste disposal? and nuclear proliferation? thankfully, here the story is much better. there are a whole host of different nuclear fusion reactions. the vast majority of them produce zero (yup, that's right, zero) radioactive byproducts. however, the one that we are closest to achieving is the deuterium - tritium (D - T) fusion reaction. this does not have a zero radiation output. however, the D-T reaction produces tiny (truly, very small) quantities of radioactive tritium. these are absorbed by a lithium shield within the reaction chamber (both lithium and deterium are extremely plentiful in sea water... so fuel supply is not an issue really). most importantly (and pleasantly) however is the fact that tritium, unlike plutonium or uranium has a radioactive half-life of just over 12 years. so yes, the most likely version of fusion that we would develop would have a small quantity of "hot" waste. but it's nothing like the long term problem of fission reactors. i am confident that the safe storage of slightly radioactive material is possible for periods of a decade or two. also, in reality, if D-T fusion ever became a reality, then it would almost certainly be a step on the road towards a more advanced tritium-free form of fusion. certainly there are concerns; but i think most people would agree that for cheap, abundant, renewable energy the potential risks are more than worth it.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 16:14
|
||
|
> > 3. I believe we are seemingly bound/hypnotised to > be committed to a 'infinite growth' policy on > earth, this is very much Western thinking, so it's > no surprise that we want our cake and eat it. > Thing is, with overpopulation, longer lifespans, > massive-scale energy projects, and all the power > in the hands of the few, it's a perfect recipe for > disatster. I believe it's crucial to look at > providing long-lasting small-scale renewable > energy options, and to SERIOUSLY begin some > positive thought about where, as a race, we are > heading, rather than being led by the nose up a > one way alley that narrows at the end. What do > you think? > actually, i don't think we're being "led" at all. i get the feeling that our civilisation is sleep-walking towards a cliff. if there are a bunch of rich guys puffing expensive cigars in darkened rooms who are leading, or pushing us anywhere, then they're not doing a great job of self-preservation. if market capitalism collapses due to an energy shortage, then bank-balances and stock portfolios ain't gonna save anyone. that's a tad simplistic, i know, and the super rich will certainly be the last to feel the bite of a major crash; but those hypothetical people - if they really have so much power - could be doing a lot more to preserve their way of life than is being done now. so i really do think it's just collective carelessness and ignorance, rather than wilful malice, that will scupper us. not to say that there's not plenty of powerful people who have a lot to answer for... but i doubt any malicious conspiracy exists. i don't think that centralised energy projects are _by definition_ a bad thing. fusion - for example - could best be done by building large generation facilities along the coast (in fairly remote locations - see my previous post regarding fusion safety, etc.) and using the electricity to power and heat our homes, and run industry. with such unlimited electricity supply, hydrogen would then become a possibility for fueling transport (forget cars though; buses would be the order of the day - along with electrified trains and trams). the other applications for oil and gas would still have to be dealt with of course (agricultural products, plastics, etc etc) and that might still be very problematic. that's all pie-in-the-sky without those fusion generators though; but i'm keeping my eyes peeled for them. > > Personally I have nothing against re-employing > the ENTIRE PR and advertising industry in > hamster wheels, generating energy for a year-long > global festival/summit where all countries can > discuss where we want to be going. Drinks > provided free by Bush, who also serves and has no > say in the matter. &c... > ah, what a glorious vision of the future. :) sadly there are a few of flaws which of you're no doubt aware... those people in the hamster wheels are using muscle energy to produce electrical energy. that muscle energy comes from chemical energy supplied by food... and food production and distribution is kind of a big problem in the post-petroleum paradigm... still, a nice thought! > > PS I'm a secret luddite, but if technology can > outweigh it's costs with benefits (rarely seen) > I'm all for it. > i'm not. i'm a huge fan of technological development. i don't think we evolved these comparitively massive brains and the power for rational / scientific thought for no good reason. that we've generally misused our intellectual powers and squandered our opportunities isn't technology's fault. it's ours. and it's very sad. as for question 2... the answer shall be revealed to us all, late december 2012.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Dec 13, 2001, 16:36
|
||
|
>> if they really have so much power - could be >> doing a lot more to preserve their way of life than >> is being done now May I refer the honourable gentleman to Ben Elton's Stark !? Especialy with all these space tourists! ... you've gotta larf! :-)
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 14, 2001, 18:53
|
||
hey FW, do you have the name of that report handy? (better yet a web link?) that 27% number needs some analysis methinks.
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Jan 12, 2016, 19:15
|
||
|
Annexus Quam wrote: "i firmly believe that the next 8 to 10 years or so will be the last in which the world has access to cheap oil (note: there's still plenty of oil, we've probably yet to use up half of it in total, the issue is the fact that we are reliant not on oil, but on *cheap* oil, and that will be what disappears when production starts to drop off, as a lot of geologists think will happen at the end of this decade)." does this prediction include undrilled places like alaska? One of the few things I remember from school is that the US was reserving their own oil for themselves alone and for moments like the one you point out. that would mean, they would be allowed to fuck up the planet at ease, delaying green technologies, while the rest struggle to make a living in a basically ultra-backward 1950s oil dependent economic system. in other words, will the system ever be forced out of oil addiction? I don't know where I got this one from but Master Morfe left a link one day and I made it into a document. Here's a quote: """The general, unspoken consensus of opinion amongst the hidden heads of the paranoid’s shadow government was that the Earth was royally and irredeemably fucked (as befits such a cosmic whore), and so—these “heads” reasoned—they may as well go on fucking her, while she’s still good for it. If this seems an overly vulgar way of speaking, we are simply endeavoring to illustrate as best as we are able the manner in which such hypothetical world-controllers, dedicated to the great indulgence as they would be, are likely to have perceived it themselves. At the same time as this merciless plundering and perpetual violation was continuing, then, the eyes of the future were being cast heavenward, towards that great, unexploited land beyond the sky. In other words: the great fucker’s dick was still in the whore, but his mind was on the virgin.""" should i divest me holdings in the energy sector rite now...?
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
