CONSORTIUM FORMED TO STUDY ACOUSTIC FUSION;

Grass Valley Group was sold to Thompson, but still doing a thriving business here.

well what people are thinking is ...can you do fusion on the cheap. Can you set a reactor outside beside the port-a-pot?

Even if it works, it's still going to be radioactive. It creates neutrons which create radioisotopes and it will generate radioactive wastes just like fission reactors. That's not a problem. The problem is people who have been indoctrinated to fear radiation. It doesn't do any good to tell them that the problem is minimal.

Hydro hasn't been tapped out. We could double the amount we get from hydro if it weren't for environmental restrictions.

What everyone ignores is that the supply of a resource increases with the price. When the price increases, it becomes more viable to mine marginal sources. If the price of oil increases enough, it becomes economical to produce gasoline from coal or from oil shale. And as the price rises people conserve and demand falls. They spend more on insulation, fluorescent lights, and more efficient transportation. They cut back on luxury consumption, ski trips, vacation travel, etc. The real danger will be price controls that stops that feedback process.

The tricky thing about estimated oil supplies is that oil companies don't develop resource more than about ten years in advance. Why look for oil with today's technology when we will have better exploration techniques in ten years? Why pay taxes on proven reserves for any longer than you have to? So no one really knows how much we have. Some say that depleted wells are replenishing themselves from deep earth sources.

I read an article written about 1860 in Scientific American that said we would be out of coal in 100 years. These predictions always turn out wrong because the free market and technology always will provide. Our problem is people who hate technology and free markets. It is a political problem.

Think about it. The only energy sources that are not under attack from environmentalists are the ones that don't work -- wind and solar. If they were to become viable, they will also be attacked.

That's how progress is made.

Paging Pons and Fleishmann...

Deuterium can be extracted from water by physical or chemical processes that are relatively cheap. ($28 a pound).

Where did you get this value. The price of heavy water is several times this and after you break out the Deuterium you then have to multiply it by 4 and add the energy costs. That would make it about $1000 per pound?

You're right. That price was in 1956 dollars.

http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/rdd-3/rdd-3b.html

But even at $1000 a pound for deuterium, that's pretty cheap considering the amount of energy available.

We don't speak of Thomson in our family except in the past tense, and then with contempt reserved only for the worst of the French.

Thus the reference to GVG in the past tense.

Even if it works, it's still going to be radioactive. It creates neutrons which create radioisotopes and it will generate radioactive wastes just like fission reactors. That's not a problem. The problem is people who have been indoctrinated to fear radiation. It doesn't do any good to tell them that the problem is minimal.

does this mean that hydrogen fusion would also have radioactive wastes? that the promise of real hydrogen fusion with only water as a byproduct is a chimera. or does this mean that this lesser form of fusion--because it does not sustain a reaction--burns incompletely--and therefor leaves radioactive wastes?

Hydro hasn't been tapped out. We could double the amount we get from hydro if it weren't for environmental restrictions.

are you talking about daming big rivers or putting paddlewheels in small streams. (the former is cheaper but politically difficult these days. the left wants to blow up dams in fact. the later is more expensive but easier to get on the grid.)

What everyone ignores is that the supply of a resource increases with the price. When the price increases, it becomes more viable to mine marginal sources. If the price of oil increases enough, it becomes economical to produce gasoline from coal or from oil shale. And as the price rises people conserve and demand falls. They spend more on insulation, fluorescent lights, and more efficient transportation. They cut back on luxury consumption, ski trips, vacation travel, etc. The real danger will be price controls that stops that feedback process.

all true. I don't think price controls will go in. rather I think there is and will be a concerted effort going forward to get away from foreign energy dependence as the matter has become a national security issue because oil money has found its way into the hands of terrorists.

The tricky thing about estimated oil supplies is that oil companies don't develop resource more than about ten years in advance. Why look for oil with today's technology when we will have better exploration techniques in ten years? Why pay taxes on proven reserves for any longer than you have to? So no one really knows how much we have. Some say that depleted wells are replenishing themselves from deep earth sources.

US oil production peaked in the early 70's. This was predicted by a guy in the late 1950's. Using the same technique in the late 1990's world wide oil production was predicted to peak about 2006-2010.

I read an article written about 1860 in Scientific American that said we would be out of coal in 100 years. These predictions always turn out wrong because the free market and technology always will provide. Our problem is people who hate technology and free markets. It is a political problem.

the first great industrial revolution that came in 1830 was powered by the steam engine and water works. besides water and wood,the US industrial economy in 1860 was coal powered. the second great industrial revolution came in +-1900. This was powered by the internal combustion engine and electricity. incrementally more power was got from coal for electrical generation. but mostly the added power came from oil. that's why coal resources now stretch so long into the future. coal mostly got a pass in the 20th century. just as there was a 20-30 year transition from a steam powered coal based economy from 1890-1920--we are currently entering a transitional period from an oil based economy to a hydrogen based economy. But this doesn't mean we'll stop using oil any more than we stopped using coal.

Think about it. The only energy sources that are not under attack from environmentalists are the ones that don't work -- wind and solar. If they were to become viable, they will also be attacked.

wind is ok as long as its not off nantucket. the price points on wind are pretty good too. wind energy production has been going up by 30% annually in the US and in places like germany--by 100% in the last couple years. wind is considered green there. but as I mentioned before wind can only do a small portion of energy needs. solar is still very expensive and is most appropriate for isolated places.

does this mean that hydrogen fusion would also have radioactive wastes? that the promise of real hydrogen fusion with only water as a byproduct is a chimera.

It depends on which fusion process we are talking about. The helium 3 reactions are, as I recall, relativly aneutronic -- they don't produce as many neutrons. But you need a fission reactor to make helium 3 (or mine the moon). But deuterium fusion creates radioactive byroducts because stray neutrons are captured by the surroundings and become radioactive.

If you compare it to one of the new designs of fission breeder reactor where the fuel is reprocessed on-site and there are no long-lived isotopes remaining at the end of the reactor life, fission and fusion are pretty much the same as far as nuclear waste goes.

are you talking about daming big rivers or putting paddlewheels in small streams

Smaller rivers and creeks, yes. Paddle wheels no. Usually the solution is the pelton wheel, a small turbine appropriate for small volume hydro projects with about a 100 foot head. We have an enormous untapped potential for local projects like this but state and federal regulations make them prohibitive. And, like you say, it is going to be a battle to prevent them from dynamiting existing hydro plants.

the matter has become a national security issue because oil money has found its way into the hands of terrorists.

I think it's worse than that. The oil money is finding it's way into the hands of US politicians, bureaucrats and media and opinion makers. Former state dept officials typically retire and go to work for Saudi's for big fat salaries -- providing that they made had the correct decisions on the job.

US oil production peaked in the early 70's. This was predicted by a guy in the late 1950's. But I don't think it was caused by a drop in US supplies. The Saudi's quadrupled their oil production in the early 70's and priced it to sell. After we became dependent on it, they embargoed it. So now they have a club to hit us over the head with.

we are currently entering a transitional period from an oil based economy to a hydrogen based economy.

Until someone invents fusion power, hydrogen is not a source of energy. But, yes, that is the reason we will never run out of coal, and for the same reason we won't run out of oil -- we will start using other resources.

But I think there are a lot of other sources of alternative energy that are a lot more economical than wind or solar. The numbers you get from those people are skewed in many ways. Usually they don't account for the tax benefits or the government subsidies.

CONSORTIUM FORMED TO STUDY ACOUSTIC FUSION

A lot like Ska but without the techno-synch. I give it a 10, but you can't dance to it. Maybe they'll get better next CD.