Posted on 11/17/2023 11:35:43 AM PST by Red Badger
Best you stick to facts and stay away from internet mind reading.
///////
So did you listen to their freaking presentation?
“I can be swayed by the charlaton ceo’s at fusion companies Helion and Massachusetts Commonwealth Systems.”
Helion doesn’t even have a working prototype.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems INTENDS to have a plant in the early 30’s.
Neither company has proven technology.
Neither company has proven technology.
/////
agree. but its not the product that is generating their confidence. its the the iterative process that generates their confidence.
There is one thing that I have heard in the last year that I have never heard before.
I think the guy who runs a Mars society Dr. Robert Zubrin mentioned it in a recent book. (nuclear is topical for that crowd because they’re going to need some kind power that’s denser than solar for mars.)
Zubrin mentioned that the onerous regulations on nuclear developed after 3 mile island —came from the sierra club. At that time the sierra club mentioned that their aim was not to regulate nuclear power but to kill it. why? the sierra club was and is against developement. they want fewer people and more nature. they feared that nuclear power would be so successful that it would wildly promote development and advance civilization.
the proof texts on that are in zubrin’s book. I just saw an interview where he discussed it.
“Zubrin mentioned that the onerous regulations on nuclear developed after 3 mile island —came from the sierra club. “
The regulations did not come from the Sierra Club. They came from engineering technical and human factors review of the accident. The regulations were not onerous.
“its the the iterative process that generates their confidence.”
UF qb hurt so I took some time to view the video. I heard nothing technical in the first 20 minutes.
Definitely no iterative process. Commonwealth, with no proven tech, is building a 100 Mw unit! Helion, with no proven tech, is saying they are “skipping steps”.
So you go for the 20 years in the future (and maybe always will be 20 years in the future) ITER promises as being more believeable. That is the current conventional wisdom.
That was a long conversation those people had on stage. I get your impatience.
I heard nothing technical in the first 20 minutes.
//////
It was not a technical conversation because the audience was non technical.
The regulations did not come from the Sierra Club. They came from engineering technical and human factors review of the accident. The regulations were not onerous.
/////////
so why did the US nuclear power industry die as competitive entity in the international market place? Heck I’ve read that the Koreans can produce nuclear power for .03@kwh. might be a lie but the US is not a major player in nuclear power business except in the USA and even here—they stopped making nuclear reactors decades ago. Oh yes there is one nuclear power plant that was developed down south somewhere—maybe georgia but that was the first one in a long time.
“So you go for the 20 years in the future (and maybe always will be 20 years in the future)”
Stop with the false projections and stick with what I post.
Commonwealth says they will have a 100 Mw plant operating in 2025. Do you believe that?
Lots of reasons. Nuclear plants require huge upfront investments. Money, staff, training etc. Along came cheap gas turbine units. All a utility had to do was sign the contract. No mess, no fuss. Also, gas plants could be added as smaller units to be added quickly as needed.
Remember the high interest rates in the 80’s? A real killer!
“Heck I’ve read that the Koreans can produce nuclear power for .03@kwh.”
That would be only the operating costs. Does not include cost to build the plant.
I worked at two of the plants that my company sold to Korea.
“Zubrin mentioned that the onerous regulations on nuclear developed after 3 mile island —came from the sierra club. “
Just for fun and because I enjoy research on the fly. I checked.
There are three questions.
Did zubrin say it.
Was the sierra club anti growth? (and for that matter anti human.)
Did the sierra club influence nuclear regulations.
......
Did zubrin say it.
Yes, here’s a tweet in which he says “The Sierra Club original statement in opposition to nuclear power frankly admitted they were opposing it because it could lead to “excessive economic growth.”
https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1394005943101181953
////////////////
Was the sierra club anti growth? (and for that matter anti human.)
yes.
Here’s an article in Foreign Affairs entitled “who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/05/who-killed-nuclear-energy-and-how-to-revive-it/
“For our purposes, it must be noted that Erlich’s book {the population bomb} was written at the request of David Brower, president of the Sierra Club. According to Erlich and his wife, The Population Bomb was “written in response to a request that Paul summarize arguments he had been making in the media that the population issue should be taken up by the growing environmental movement “
The article goes on to show how the sierra club and the environmentalists tarred nuclear power as a way to limit growth in the usa. that is, their eugenic roots got bad name —so they segwayed to limiting growth. What you’ll notice in tthe article is that the environmentalists were heavily into shaping policy before any policy prescriptions were even written. Much the same thing happens today.
///////////////
Did the sierra club influence nuclear regulations?
I asked bing’s ai this question. their answer was
“After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Sierra Club advocated for greater protection for public health and safety. They called for the appointment of a special citizens’ advisory group to advise the president, Congress, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the implementation of reforms recommended by the Kemeny Commission and such additional reforms as may be recommended by other studies now underway of the events leading to the Three Mile Island accident. The Sierra Club also advocated for the making of appointments to this advisory group, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to staff positions in the NRC from a pool of individuals not committed by past experience to the nuclear industry. Such appointments should have a demonstrated commitment to public health and safety.”
Their references for this answer were sierraclub.org and the nrc.gov.
So the Sierra Club recommended that the nuclear regulations follow the recommendations of the Kemeny commission.
Ok I asked AI as to whether the recommendations of the Kemeny Commission were used to create nuclear regulations following three mile island.
The answer:
ChatGPT
“The Kemeny Commission, officially known as the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, was established to investigate the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979. The commission’s report included a number of recommendations aimed at improving nuclear plant safety and regulatory oversight. These recommendations indeed influenced subsequent regulations in the nuclear power industry.”
“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other regulatory bodies used the findings and recommendations of the Kemeny Commission to enhance safety protocols, improve emergency preparedness, strengthen regulatory oversight, and increase the involvement of public and independent experts in decision-making processes regarding nuclear power. The Kemeny Commission’s report played a significant role in shaping the modern regulatory framework for the nuclear power industry in the United States.”
Does this actually mean anything?
the answer to that question lies with competitors to the USA in the nuclear power industry. What role did the regulations of the nuclear power industries in countries like china, russia south korea and france have to do with their success?
I don’t have an answer to that. Maybe you can color that in.
the foreign affairs article above has suggested changes.
The president of helion described the advice of his advisors in college during the 1990s. He was interested in nuclear power but his advisors said that was dead end field. He went into some kind of IT and at some point realized about 2010 the implications of what he was doing for fusion power and then switched back into nuclear power.
These days nuclear power for both fission and fusion is far more exciting. The excitement in the field harkens back to the 1960’s.
Of course it could all be smoke and mirrors. We’ll see
Commonwealth says they will have a 100 Mw plant operating in 2025. Do you believe that?
......
well if you believe that fusion power is 20 years away and always will be—which is the conventional wisdom for the last 70 years—then no.
but commonwealth is not alone.
as well, Helion has signed a contract with microsoft to provide fusion powered electricity in 2028. there is a wall st journal article about that. (google wall st journal helion, microsoft contract)
now think about that.
proof is in the pudding of course. but you have to say that these guys do have their considerable reputations on the line. and they are competitive. and they don’t sound like goofs. why would they otherwise stick their necks out to make such bold predictions? these guys are no less engineers than you. that means they’re looking at something completely different than you.
What also makes it believable is that one or the other company is not an outlier. these guys know each other. they go to the same conferences. they’re only two out of many other fusion power companies that have sprung up in the last five years or so. why are there so many fusion company start ups? we’re talking about a technological change on a broad front.
the other thing that makes it believable is that the funding coming into fusion is private capital. Government funding for r&d doesn’t have any required payback time. Private capital is different. Private capital needs a return on investment within 5-10 years—preferably within 5 years.
So people with deep pockets have been convinced that they will get a return on capital in a reasonable amount of time.
So here is a huge group of people with serious skin in the game who are betting that fusion energy is right around the corner.
So, I would say based on the evidence that I’ve seen—fusion power is right around the corner.
Until disproven, I believe these guys.
but that’s just me.
You’re free to say the opposite. that is, until proven otherwise, fusion energy is vaporware.
we are both just speculating.
“Does this actually mean anything?
the answer to that question lies with competitors to the USA in the nuclear power industry. What role did the regulations of the nuclear power industries in countries like china, russia south korea and france have to do with their success?”
Since Korea bought our plant designs and modeled their licensing process on ours you have your answer.
“So the Sierra Club recommended that the nuclear regulations follow the recommendations of the Kemeny commission.”
It was a presidential report and would of course be reviewed for upcoming regulations. The SC recommendation was meaningless in the big picture.
“the other thing that makes it believable is that the funding coming into fusion is private capital.”
It’s GREEN! CFS is mainly funded by Bill Gates. Along with Temasek. Temasek has a great track record. Lost their shirt in FTX.
“the other thing that makes it believable is that the funding coming into fusion is private capital.”
The major donor for Helion is Dustin Moskovitz, founder of Facebook and a big time leftist.
Don’t get me wrong. I am glad these global warming billionaires are funding these efforts but they are not funding expecting a profit.
Dustin invested $20 million on Hillary!
Strange bedfellows. Peter Thiel was first outside investor in Facebook. Peter put $1700 in his Roth IRA. into the company that became PayPal. Now worth $5 billion which becomes tax free!
” I believe these guys.”
-———————Helion————————
You might wish to take those claims with a healthy dose of salt. Diving through past coverage of the fusion upstart reveals the company has made some rather fantastic claims. In a 2018 article, the company claimed it would produce a 50MW reactor by 2021. And in 2014, the company was claiming commercial fusion by 2019.
Helion’s habit of insisting fusion power is almost here led Daniel Jassby, who ran the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999, to label the company’s tech as voodoo fusion in a 2018 article [PDF].
Jassby defines voodoo fusion energy as “those plasma systems that have never produced any fusion neutrons, but whose promoters make the claim of near-term electric power generation.”
https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/17/microsoft_bet_on_fusion/
Trivia:
How are ChatGPT and Helion related?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.