text:
Greenpeace: Nuclear Fusion Research is Risky and Ignorant
Eric Worrall / December 6, 2015
Greenpeace has strongly condemned investment in the International ITER Fusion Project, claiming the money spent on ITER should instead be spent on renewables.
According to Australian SBS;
… Greenpeace nuclear and energy campaigner, Sebastien Blavier, said the cost and uncertainty of fusion mean investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available clean energy options is risky and ignorant.
"We are opposed to this argument of fusion being the future of power for humanity, that's totally false for us," he said. "Today the world is facing massive challenges like poverty, like access to electricity for people, poor people, for development."
"We now how have the solution with renewables like solar and wind – they are affordable, they are cheap. For the moment ITER is presented as being the solution for the future power of humanity and I think that's a big mistake."
"If you look at the costs, it's a massive amount of money that could be invested in renewables that are already ready to take off and be competitive; so it's not a solution to future power, it's only research." …
Read more: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/06/nuclear-fusion-shadows-clean-energy-debate
Greenpeace also opposes nuclear fission. From their website;
Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants. …
Read more: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/
Given that leading greens like James Hansen, former NASA GISS director, think nuclear is an essential part of any plausible low carbon energy scenario, because renewables can't be scaled up economically, and given that even Google couldn't find a way to make renewables work, it seems likely that renewables will not "take off" anytime soon, regardless of how much Greenpeace thinks we should.
In my opinion, the evidence suggests Greenpeace vigorously opposes all low carbon energy solutions which might actually work. The question is, why?
December 6, 2015 in Fusion power.
Behold the mayo: Experiments reveal 'instability threshold' of elastic-plastic material
MIT continues progress toward practical fusion energy
The bright light of nuclear fusion might burn away climate doomsters' fears
← A simple demonstration of chaos and unreliability of computer models
Cooler Heads to livestream climate skeptic conference at #COP21 →
204 thoughts on "Greenpeace: Nuclear Fusion Research is Risky and Ignorant"
GreatGreyhounds says:
Still waiting for any 'renewable' to be able to power a Bessemer Blast Furnace. Maybe, just maybe, then I will think about renewables as being viable.
Sal Minella says:
While fusion is perpetually "thirty years away", Rossi's ECAT is only "one year away". I'd suggest the ECAT.
Rossi's ECAT has been only one year away for quite a few years now. I suspect it will be quite a few years more before ECAT gets to "Any Day Now".
Dawtgtomis says:
I don't mind my taxes going to help speed that to the market. It is how many orders of magnitude denser as a source of power than solar or wind? With none of the wildlife menaces that they present? These 'brownpiece' nuts really are off in their own little ignorant paradigm, aren't they.
visionar2013 says:
Molten Salt Reactors from ORNL is the way forward, MRSE ran for 20,000 hours. MSRs are what Fusion would like to be; easy and cheap to build. http://www.egeneration.org http://www.thorcon.com
MikeP says:
I'm waiting to see what comes out in February or March at the end of the one year test. That would represent over 8000 hours of operation …
RockyRoad says:
Rossi is now working in China with the support of the Chinese government. If the ECAT does become a viable energy solution, it will be sad that the West rejected it and we'll be buying yet another consumer item "Made in China".
TRM says:
I think the molten salt (LFTR) designs will be on line and providing energy long before fusion or LENR get ready for prime time. Interesting that China is "all in" on about a dozen different approaches to nuclear (including LFTR) and we'll start to see the results of their experiments within a decade.
There's a joke going around that Greenpeace is the group that never met an energy source that they liked except for those that they could spell (wind, sun) 😉
Nuclear anything and hydroelectric are way too long I guess despite being the cleanest.
george e. smith says:
I can wait for that.
I've got some extra NZ woollens to see me through this winter.
We're almost 'home and hosed' as they say in the horse circles.
Sodium-cooled reactors are better than molten salt — many have been & are now in operation (Russian), unlike the molten-salt types. They can use just about any type of fissionable fuel including nuclear waste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor
Sal, I thought the Ecat had been debunked. Do you have any references to independent tests of the device?
Like anything else, renewables (e.g. PV) are a good solution when applied correctly. For California residential, PV is clearly cost effective if you are paying Tier 5 rates ($0.35/kWh).
It probably does not make sense to try to generate every kWh you use if you are grid connected. But if you can easily and cheaply produce 50% or 90%, that's great!
And no, PV isn't a great solution for heavy industrial, but much of that is already near existing hydro, and I'll bet it eventually relocates to areas where there is plenty of wind power and the cheap power it makes available.
Lastly, LED lighting and more efficient appliances and computers are bringing down residential power consumption which will further reduce the size of the PV system you need. Plus prices continue to fall, and efficiency keeps increasing. All of this makes PV more and more attractive, for the right applications.
Installed PV capacity is growing on an exponential curve. Do the math on how that works out over the next 30 years.
sarastro92 says:
Here's a cogent analysis describing exactly why PVs are the worst possible energy system.
"There is no solution to this imbalance between winter and summer insolation which is the primary reason that solar power is so ineffective in Germany.
….A recent report states that Germany has in effect wasted over $100 billion by focusing on solar power. The study suggests that if the same amount of financial support had been directed towards developing solar power in Spain together with additional transmission capacity in central Europe then northern European Countries would have access to much more renewable energy when they need it most in the winter.
It is undeniable that solar panels generate a lot of electricity in Germany. But it is also true that the return on the investment made in solar power has been very poor both in financial and environmental terms."
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/
Greg, California produces too much solar now, has to pay Nevada Power $.08KWh to take excess durning solar duck. ERoEI on solar with storage isn't viable. Europe spent €1 Trillion on 210 GWs and only get 38GWs
James Bolivar DiGriz says:
"Lastly, LED lighting and more efficient appliances and computers are bringing down residential power consumption"
No, making appliances more efficient does not reduce electricity demand. People buy more stuff, for example, a computer (laptop, tablet, etc) and a TV in every room rather than just one of each.
CD153 says:
@Greg: You say: "Installed PV capacity is growing on an exponential curve. Do the math on how that works out over the next 30 years."
Well Greg, take a good look at the the Energy Information Agency link below.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3.
Here is some math for you Greg: The solar PV panel was invented back in 1954 (look it up if you don't believe me). That's 61 years ago Greg. While you may argue that solar use is growing, it still has only provided us with about 0.4.% of our electricity needs here in the U.S. as of March of this year according to the EIA link above. IIRC, that is up from about 0.23% in 2014. I'm sorry Greg, but that doesn't impress me as far as "exponential" growth is concerned. The reason, among other things, is solar's poor energy density. And we still have all those solar companies that have been going under in the past. To me, it is rather odd to see that happening if the use of their product is growing at such a wonderful pace. If solar is going to represent the future for energy, the future is taking a long time to get here…. in excess of 61 years. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head which took that long to scale up to meaningful commercial levels.
I haven't done the math to determine if solar PV panels make sense in areas where electricity rates are high (such as in Hawaii where the residential rate is $0.36 per KWh, the highest in the nation IIRC). Maybe they would. Elsewhere, solar PVs might make sense if you choose to live somewhere where there is no access to the grid, such as a remote offshore island, a remote cabin in the mountains, or out in the middle of the desert.
I don't know if you are Greg, but if you are one of those individuals who expect solar to make a SIGNIFICANT contribute to the nation's power grid someday, I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for it if I were you.
Les Johnson says:
Greg: Wind and solar are projected to only be 2.4% of energy use by 2040. In other words, not much.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/672800205952126976/photo/1
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/weo2015/
Both wind and PV, as well as solar thermal require 100% peak capacity backup by existing on demand real energy sources (even maybe coal).
Better to "clean up" the backup, than waste resources on something that can't stand on its own.
Todd Foster says:
PV makes sense for off grid power because the alternative (unless you have a stream for water power generation) is a fossil fuel generator. I have both — PV/ lead acid batteries and an old, now oil burning propane generator and a std Chinese Harbor Freight gasoline generator. Oil changes, smelly gas cans in car trunk, generator noise are prices paid. You can buy a nice Honda generator for 5X the cost of the cheap ones. Much quieter too.
You won't know how limited PV is until you build and run a system. You can multiply your peak solar generation by 6 hours to approximate your total energy generation on a clear day. That means you are relying on 6 hours power generation for a 24 hour day. Most of it has to be stored if you want lights, TV, Internet at night.
But lead acid batteries don't handle deep discharges very well. They build up sulfate which noticably lowers capacity in one year, markedly in 2 years. High current desulfation correction, to the extent it works, is beyond the capacity of my PV array.
Then there is the radically reduced capacity of lead acid in cold weather, which means all winter unless a heated, insulated battery box is provided. Not fun and disappointing when you have to run a generator most winter nights, even though your battery set is only 2 years old. I'm still chasing the Holy Grail of silent, reliable, adequate solar electricity.
I'm switching to lithium batteries soon. A completely different tech that requires special battery management and low voltage cut off circuitry. More low temp tolerant, I will nevertheless house these much lighter batteries in styrofoam coolers with thermostatic heaters to maintain full capacity year round. The goal is gasoline/propane generation only on rare cloudy days, as backup only.
For lihium battery conversions check:
http://www.electriccarpartscompany.com
and their competitors. You better be very handy with electricity to do this yourself. I'm a retired electronics tech. Or buy Tesla's $7K system when it's available.
Keith Willshaw says:
Even in California the sun doesn't shine at night.
Berényi Péter says:
I am sure in 30 years the Sun will shine most brightly in winter nights…
Well I wouldn't put LED lighting "lastly". It might be the only disruptive technology that can really make a world wide impact on energy consumption.
My first foray into LED technology was in early 1966, and it actually was a design for an Infra Red solid state source.
But I ended up having to make a red LED version of it anyway, to visually convince the end customer (IBM) that it did NOT work in any way that they had imagined, or assumed, but was a far simpler concept.
Almost at the same time, I demonstrated music transmission on a red LED light beam, over a few meters distance between a couple of 50 mm diameter " antennas " .
The corporate R&D brass, (Monsanto Chemical) were quite impressed that they could interrupt the music, by putting their hands into the light beam to block it. Strictly PR stuff, and not really either new or novel; simply demonstrative. That was but a dull glow in a darkened amphitheatre; and we jokingly laughed that one day we would light the world.
We also joked that we could get rich, by selling short the stock of any company stupid enough to invest in Gallium Nitride technology.
Well that was then and GaN was thought to be a zinc blende (diamond like) cubic crystal as Gallium Arsenide is. And nobody seemed to be able to make both P type and N type cubic GaN to get a diode.
That was also decades before the LED industry was in full swing with several colored indicators except that illusive blue.
And it was before Shoji Nakamura and Wurtzite lattice GaN which is a hexagonal Crystal; not cubic like diamond.
The rest as they say, is history.
So LED solid state lighting did not exactly grow exponentially, although the early visible (vanilla red) LED indicator growth was very spectacular.
Blue GaN was like a big bang that changed everything.
Now I don't know how solar PV does anything comparable, although Nakamura disciples are trying to make a break through in multi band gap, multi junction concentrator solar cells.
The current 43% roughly solar conversion efficiency, might get raised to circa 60% in the next decade.
But Dr. Svalgaard and his associates have not been able to raise TSI much above 1362.xx W/m^2 extra terrestrially, so it seems like it's a question of acreage availability.
Well it's not their fault Goldilocks put us where we are in the solar system.
But I think some solar progress will happen, but no idea in what form.
Not holding my breath for solar towers though. That seems asinine.
You could probably hitch a bunch of captured wild horses to a circular walking track to eat their way around in circles harnessed to a multipole alternator, and generate more energy for the same land acreage.
Hivemind says:
In the right application, photovoltaics are a great solution. For instance, if it doesn't matter that your lights went out at nightfall. If it doesn't matter that you can't cook in the dark…
" if you are paying Tier 5″
Translation: Solar is competitive when govt taxes the heck out of the alternatives.
I don't know how transformative LED lights are going to be. Lighting makes up less than 5% of the energy used in this country, and a good portion of that is already fluorescent. If the entire country switched to LED, it might reduce overall energy usage by 2 or 3 percent.
I am posting this reply at 8:30 p.m. on December 7, 2015. The sun set 3 hours ago. PV is useless.
Btw, efficency does not reduce consumption. see Jevon's Paradox.
The transparent covers of PVs cloud up relatively quickly here in NZ due to the high UV, and bird poo and dust accumulations greatly reduce efficiency so necessitate frequent cleaning. These are high cost maintenance items often not taken into account by promoters (we don't have Mexicans to do low cost jobs here).
Deterioration of the PV units is a "hidden" cost that is much like the number of non-functioning and broken windmills on energy farms that never appear in their R&M accounts.
In any case, hydro and geothermal are far better sources. But we do need to research fusion as it is a good bet for the long term, and the knowledge gained of plasma physics and highy temperature engineering will be invaluable for the future.
Clunking Fist says:
Wow, that's pretty marginal stuff. My 2000watt heater is till 2000watts, even when I replace it with a new 2000watt heater. If the new one is 5% more efficient, am I really going to use less power?
When I was a child, every room in the house had a single 70watt or 100watt electric bulb (230v) and little else. Now we have computers, bedside lights, stereos, chargers for cellphones, tablets, drones, electronic photoframes, synthesisers, printers, TVs, BD, STB, PlayStation, Xbox, AV receivers and heat pumps. All very efficient, but still way more power than ever. And then these Greenies want us to plug in our electric cars (well, Greenpeace probably want us to have NO car).
We may rely on the microwave oven a little more, the electric oven a little less, but the coffee grinder and blender may take up the slack.
Your desire for PV overlooks the fact that co2 is likely NOT the demon it's made out to be. And it (and wind) contribute much to grid instability and cost, whilst delivering little in co2 reductions. All those good intentions are getting us closer along the road to a misanthropic hell.
I'd be happy just to see any renewable supply of energy stand on its own two feet, without taxpayer subsidies.
I don't mind renewables entrepeneurs like Elon Musk, investing their own money in the schemes they believe in; nor do I mind if they get filthy rich doing it. But don't try and piggy back on already viable sources of energy, which you detest so much.
So let your desert mirror scam start itself by itself from the sun, instead of having it run mostly on natural gas.
And anybody familiar with non imaging optical design can tell you what a totally lousy optical design you are using. Its collection efficiency (W/m^2) is pitiful.
philohippous says:
Musk invested some of his own money, primarily as a startup kicker. His companies have received about $5 billion in subsidies in about 5 years, with $1.29 billion going to Tesla. and more to SpaceX, Solar City, and factories in Nevada, New York, California, Michigan, and Texas.
A hydroelectric dam is a renewable power source which can power a Bessemer blast furnace. Wait, green slimes are trying to erase hydro from the "renewables" list – "because salmon".
Are they going to create more rivers? I think we are pretty much maxed out on hydro.
My comment was to dispute "Still waiting for any 'renewable' to be able to power a Bessemer Blast Furnace." And I stand by it. What's your point? In this context, a river never ceases to flow (just as the wind never ceases to blow, or the sun to shine) therefore it is a "renewable source".
A Bessemer furnace was used for converting blast furnace molten iron into steel.
Goldrider says:
Aren't these people supposed to be campaigning for endangered wildlife or cleaning up pollution or something? When the hell did they start being an authority on ENERGY policy? Whatever good work they have done in the last 40 years will be quickly undone as they discredit their organization poking their nose where they have no credibility.
Thai Rogue says:
That's not sexy enough. Who wants to be really helping the planet by cleaning up the gazillions of tonnes of plastic in the Pacific when you have photogenic polar bears to "save" by launching terrorist attacks on Russian oil rigs?
They have to stay employed or go and get a real job where screaming obscenities at normal people is of part of the perks. Seriously – they like no solutions because the solutions do not propose to get rid of a substantial portion of the human population. Just suggest e "some how" eliminate 6/7 of the human population and watch their approval of teh plan skyrocket.
dccowboy says:
"renewables like solar and wind – they are affordable, they are cheap."
Seriously? Then again they left out scalable & reliable. I'm not sure how they can classify either solar panels or wind turbines as 'renewable' tho. Solar panels themselves are not 'renewable' and wind turbines are scarfing up a huge percentage of rare earth metals – that are not renewable
AndyJ says:
They still labour under the fantasy that wind turbines and solar panels are really perpetual motion machines that can be magically made out of thin air. It's one of their core delusions.
When the average person I meet hears the information on the inability of "pinwheels and mirrors" to reproduce themselves from their individual lifetime generation, they quickly change to another media-fed truism. Some, though ask where I found out so much and WUWT has another viewer.
Explanations are so much more effective than scary claims for thinkers of society.
Alan McIntire says:
They're affordable and cheap- like hanging your clothes on the line. They give so little energy and are so work intensive that encouraging green energy is equivalent to encouraging slavery.
Rare earth metals are recyclable and almost certainly will be because of their value.
If I were young, starting a career, I would seriously consider working to develop cost-effective ways to scrap turbines and solar panels for recycling. I think it will be a growing niche for decades before shrinking and leveling out as the scale of practicality for these capture devices eventually becomes established.
ATheoK says:
Call your local recycling shop and how much they pay for solar panels. Then ask if they actually recycle them or just trash them. Computers, same thing.
And they produce energy by what process ??
markstoval says:
Then there is no reason for government involvement. Cheap and reliable power is what everyone wants, so build it and they will come to buy it. No incentives needed.
Yes. And also no reason for homes with solar installations should remain on the grid leaching off of the other rate payers… But never happens… because wind and solar don't "work" reliably and efficiently. QED.
Bob Burban says:
"renewables like solar and wind – they are affordable, they are cheap." Then why this recent development?
http://www.therebel.media/paris_climate_conference_spain_s_abengoa_solar_goes_bankrupt
My favourite line to them is "thorium is every bit as renewable as rare earth metals". As common as lead and we are in no danger of running out. A waste product from mining that we could dispose of safely and run our civilization for millennia with.
Yes, and fortunately China has included thorium reactors in its research effort.
Climate Heretic says:
Yes, wind turbines and solar panels are renewable. However they are recyclable.
Climate Heretic
PS Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Been following the comments on LFTRs?
But, more seriously, could a solar panel or wind turbine be scrapped for anything like a cost effective price? I have never seen any info on the topic, but it appears to me that many of the materials are not very amenable to reprocessing.
Ric Werme says:
> PS Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Nonsense, it happens all the time, even to the Potassium atoms your body needs.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it's pretty easy to convert it to other forms, especially heat.
Lets try for a third time. My Bad, I should have explained it more clearly.
Matter has the property of mass……………….(1)
Mass is equivalent to energy…………………….(2)
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed…….(3)
Let P be Matter
Let Q be Mass
Let E be energy
Let C be Cannot be created nor destroyed
Prove P –> C
ie: matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
P –> Q from (1)
Q ≡ E If and only if Q E and E Q from (2)
P –> E substitute Q for E
E –> C from (3)
from P –> E and E –> C we have by rule of inference:
P –> C
Therefore matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
PS However matter can change
I should have said' "Yes, wind turbines and solar panels are not renewable"
The following line got stuffed up
the correct line should read
Q ≡ E If and only if Q ↔ E and E ↔ Q from (2)
Greenpeace is risky and ignorant, their behavior reminds me of the drug-addled stoner who proclaims that the "man", is evil and then asks for 5 bucks so he can go to Taco Bell.
This post is not an endorsement of Taco Bell or other products of Yum! Brands, Inc.
Would it incriminate me to mention that you just gave me the munchies?
I can an get a very nice breakfast burrito for $1.42 at Taco Bell, plus an absolutely free 'senior coffee.
soarergtl says:
The last thing Greenpeace wants is to 'solve' the 'problem' of 'carbon' (they don't seem to know the difference between carbon and CO2) because if it is solved, or it is recognised as a non-problem, they lose ALL of their influence on governments, and most of their funding.
If renewables really were affordable and cheap, then there would be no need for research or subsidy – we would just use them because they were cheap. But they aren't, so we don't.
What Sebastien Blavier should have said is that the cost and uncertainty of wind & solar mean investing in them at the expense of other available clean energy options like thermonuclear reactors is risky and ignorant.
But I doubt he is capable of understanding why that is the case.
You would think they would be at least a little concerned about all the birds being chopped, diced and fried by " GREEN ENERGY " !!
MangoChutney says:
birds being chopped, diced and fried seems like a good meal to me
Yes, they go great with Mango Chutney, especially the endangered species !!!
Mark Luhman says:
I would suggest chopped, diced, and stewed crow for you Greenpeace friends if you have any greenpeace friends.
servingfreya says:
Not when their religious symbol is a wind turbine.
so the birds are a sacrifice to Aeolus?
Greenpeace makes it easy for us. Interesting that their popularity is highest on college campuses.
Considering what passes for "intellectual" discussion on college campuses these days, everyone apparently needing "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" wherein no uncomfortable ideas can enter, why am I not surprised?
SAMURAI says:
Wind and solar for grid-level power is absolute insanity.
No county in its right mind would even consider such a foolhardy policy, but, unfortunate, there are many clueless Leftist governments that have already done so and destroyed their economies by collectively wasting $trillions on expensive, uncompetitive, unreliable, intermittent, diffuse, inefficient and low-energy density wind and solar boondoggles..
China laughs at the West's folly and is busy developing Thorium Molten Salt Reactors, which will likely enable China to produce grid-level power 50% cheaper than natural gas and 10 TIMES cheaper than wind/solar within the next 10 years…
The Leftist West seems intent on orchestrating its own demise for no reason whatsoever other than some perverted sense of guilt for once being the center of moder civilization and success…
John in Oz says:
You are describing South Australia perfectly.
The Labor government in South Australia has announced it will increase its renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2025 – up from the 33 per cent target that it has already met, six years ahead of scheduled date of 2020.
The announcement was made by Premier Jay Weatherill on Tuesday, saying that it was essential to help reach its target of $10 billion investment in "low carbon" generation by 2025.
RoHa says:
According to this story, Indonesia is going for Thorium and molten salt. Might beat the Chinese.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/First_MSR_Thorium_Reactor_Scheduled_for_2021/47663/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Pat Paulsen says:
If the radicals who want us to return to the Dark Ages realized how many people would die as a result, they might not be so brash with their accusations. The cure is worse than the disease, I think.
Bill P says:
You kidding? Homo sapiens die-off is one of their fundamental goals.
dbstealey says:
Homo sapiens die-off is one of their fundamental goals.
Only in the West. Then the folks behind that narrative can pick up the pieces.
This is the answer to Eric Worrall's question "Why". It's not really the foot soldiers, (who are more than likely ignorant of what is going on), but the people in power, who want to control all of the people. C02 is just a mechanism to achieve that aim.
Why does my security system keep interrupting me, and telling me that WUWT has a bum security certificate.
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
David Ball says:
Once again I posit; It is civilization that is tenuous, not the environment.
Simon Filiatrault says:
Patrick Moore explained why many time … Greenpeace are Anti-Humanist. If you are a humanist and have a bit of common sense, Solar and Wind is clearly design to keep humanity slaves. We all know that the more dense the energy the better for humanity and nature. This is why Greenpeace is against any form of dense energy.
Robert of Ottawa says:
Greenpeace should just shut up with their ideological opinions. Who elected them to be global government and arbiter of all things?
To be honest, their grandstanding near-terrorist "activism" has had them labeled as a radical "fringe" group for many years. Except for that hand-wringing 4% of Earnestly Concerned over-educated, I don't think most folks give them a second thought!
Bill Sticker says:
I'd agree that ITER is a waste. Tokamaks work, but only after a fashion. But 'renewables' like wind and solar are too dilute and intermittent, as well as giving load and phase balancing problems on any grid they're attached to.
I like the Russian donut. I strongly support fusion. I liken it to any technology. Several fields have to come up to certain level sophistication. It's not impossible for the internet to work with just copper, it just works a whole lot better with fiber. It took from 1968 to 1985 to figure out why they couldn't get a signal more than 10 meters. The development has been rapid ever since. I think the same thing will be true with fusion.
After you've had high speed digital internet it's difficult to go back to dial up. The only question will be, why didn't we develop fusion sooner.
p.g.sharrow says:
Plasma Fusion, the path followed for the last 60 years, will NOT,can not, produce usable amounts of excess energy! The very last thing plasma wants to do is fuse. This is a total waste. GOD uses a different path of fusion to power the universe.
The con game of plasma fusion science is the blue print for the AGW "climate Science" drive for grant money and prestige…pg
@ p.g.sharrow
Yes, ITER is the biggest Elephant ever to be built (or one of) on Frances' soil. Japan is very lucky not to have won the contract to build it. ITER will produce some science about plasma, but that is all.
When they figure out that it is not going to be commercially viable, (they probably know this already) they will have to pull it down and of course this will cost even more money. This ITER is only a research vessel and will only begin full operation by 2027 possibly 2031 (due to the delay in building the ITER) and will only supposedly produce 500Mw and only using 50Mw to operate. This is just a research vessel and the demonstration model (2000Mw) will follow, when and how much, is anybody's guess.
China in the meantime will have a small Molten Salt research Reactor, with the help of the US by the end of this year or if not then by 2016. ITER will have a completion date of (not around 2019) but around 2023. By 2024 or 2025 China will have a full blown 100Mw demonstration model. There is a possibility for 2Gw MSR. Another thing to consider is the physical size of the buildings and land area that will house ITER or MSR's. I bet MSR's will win hands down.
ITER is a dead duck, MSR will become main stream and if and only if Emc2 (Polywell) gets off the ground, it will crap all over ITER. MSR's will be the nail that will put CO2, Global Warming and the control UN wants in a permanent COFFIN. (I hope).
Wake me when you have it.
Gloateus Maximus says:
p.g.sharrow
Please state what non-plasma-based fusion process or processes you imagine can produce more energy than they require to work?
During fusion, I think there is more energy there than we can currently account for. I ve looked at black holes, the structure maybe just a singular item, everything else is burned off. A process of seperation.
As far as gravity waves, during an eclipse in the 1950s, a pendulum did something strange, it didn't trace out the pattern that it normally did. It hasn't been repeated since.
Still it's great things to think about, whether I'm right or not. ( although I like being right) . Somebody will figure this out.
I liken it building the 1st computers, may not work very well at first, big, clumsy and full of problems. The benefits … the spaceshuttle would not have come into existence, they couldn't cut the tiles by hand. When they slaved the computer to the cutting machine, it became a reality. That's what the hold up was.
Think about a neutron star. How would you pack all that so tightly? What's holding all that together? Is it a condensation of gravity?
Where is there one this working producing fusion energy . ??
Culham college near Oxford, UK has (Or had one in the early 00's) a working Tokamak, but like all machines of this nature, it needs more energy to create Fusion than it is capable of producing. Tokamaks are more bang-in-a-bottle than a workable process.
We have lots of ways of wasting existing energy.
Somebody said Tokomaks work (presumably to provide fusion energy.)
I asked where there is one working and producing net fusion energy; not wasting legacy energy.
A Wimhurst machine works. But it doesn't produce any fusion energy.
So where's this Tokomak that does (work) ??
Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power
They are also opposed to fire. It appears to me that they only want energy source that don't work.
mwhite says:
"Today the world is facing massive challenges like poverty, like access to electricity for people, poor people, for development."
And who's fault is that???
Peter Miller says:
Has Greenpeace ever got the science right?
Somewhere in its history there has to be an instance of getting it right, surely?
You Utopian, you!
Brgds
"Renewables" either aren't anywhere close to market efficiencies, and that's with taxpayers funding incentives through the back door, or can't be scaled to produce significant amounts of reliable energy.
I'd have to cover my entire roof with solar, at an incredible expense, to offset my monthly usage for just part of the year, and I'm in a pretty decent solar zone. Any amount of maintenance costs during the lifespan of those panels (which would almost certainly be required) makes it a loser, and that's after the taxpayer funded credits I might receive.
Your local tax assessor would see all those panels and happily up the property value of your house. The raise in your property taxes would be more than what you would save on the cost of electricity.
Bartleby says:
To make solar cost effective you need a couple of things to be true; you need to be in a usurious rate tier, which means you live in a large house somewhere in a high population area. Wyoming doesn't qualify (trust me, I know this from experience).
You need to be in an isolated location with poor power service. It's nice to have the grid near enough to sell excess power, but if you already have cheap reliable power solar isn't going to be a good deal.
But if you have both of those things it works just fine, is cost effective, and makes your hippy neighbors happy. 🙂
And for Ryan, many states, including CA, won't allow a local assessor to increase your property taxes for adding solar. At least for now. That may have changed recently with Gov. Moonbeam's new edict.
I am reminded of the anti-fission power activist back in the 1970's who made the comment that having cheap and unlimited power would be like "giving an idiot child a machine gun". Greenpeace is obviously of the same sentiments.
Ed Zuiderwijk says:
Why? Because they basically are ignorant and have a medieval mindset. They are ignorant of the simple equation: adequate energy supply == civilization, poor energy supply == barbary, perhaps civilization for a few but slavery for the rest. And they see modern-minded people in terms of heretics and witches against which the true believers have to fight.
Greenpeace and many others like The Sierra Club started with simple goals like encouraging hiking, reasonable use policies and conservation education. When the leftists saw that these innocent groups got large vocal memberships, headlines, and the attention of trend hopping, vote greedy politicians, they moved in.
Now those once respectable groups have become left activist ideological platforms and little else. When I hear the names of these groups today I know what is coming. My aversion is complete.
It's taken years for my email address to be purged from their lists for non responsiveness and above all, for no donations to their endless emergency appeals.
"That's totally false for US". Groupthink personified. Cheap? Wow. Really in touch there. And ah, yes, the faux concern for the poor. Please. Don't insult individual intelligence.
Prof James Lovelock of Gaia fame thinks nuclear power is the only green solution. http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html
Plus fracking. "Scientist James Lovelock is the man behind Gaia theory, and once predicted doom for our climate. He discusses nuclear (good), wind power (bad) and why fracking is the future". http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory
Coach Springer says:
Anti-science much?
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
It is well worth anyone's time to re-read Dr. Patrick Moore's GWPF Lecture – "Should we Celebrate CO2?", but the following excerpt is relevant here:
In the mid 1980s I found myself the only director of Greenpeace International with a formal education in science. My fellow directors proposed a campaign to "ban chlorine worldwide", naming it "The Devil's Element". I pointed out that chlorine is one of the elements in the Periodic Table, one of the building blocks of the Universe and the 11th most common element in the Earth's crust. I argued the fact that chlorine is the most important element for public health and medicine. Adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health and the majority of our synthetic medicines are based on chlorine chemistry. This fell on deaf ears, and for me this was the final straw. I had to leave.
I happen to think plasma fusion research is a virtually certain waste of money and I would rather see resources directed to better fission designs.
Anyone with an engineering background who looks honestly at the issue of electrical generation has concluded we cannot run a modern industrial grid on 100% renewables. Depending on how much price premium you are willing to pay, you can get fairly close. But a balance of nuclear and renewables gets you the same CO2 reduction at a vastly lower cost. See the following J.P. Morgan Study, which was discussed with comments by Peter Lang at Judith Curry's site.
Nuclear reactions achieve fuel energy densities several million times that of combustion reactions. In the advance of human civilization we've gone from animal dung and twigs and branches to softwood to hardwood to coal and then to oil. At each stage we've seen a thermal density increase by a factor of 2 or less. Never before in history have we had the prospect of this big a jump in energy density — not even a tiny fraction of it. I simply don't see how we can afford to walk away from the potential.
Alan, we all know greenpeace aren't big on engineering, except when they need a new boat or some climbing ropes.
Anyone with an engineering background who looks honestly at the issue of electrical generation has concluded we cannot run a modern industrial grid on 100% renewables.
Renewable energy, in contrast, is technically and economically feasible, and environmentally and socially desirable.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at University of NSW.
http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/06/25/renewable-energy-future-for-south-australia/
These disparate opinions are what is keeping the merry-go-round turning.
PS – I'd rather my base load be supplied with sources more reliable than wind and solar
You know what they say about opinions.
First off, you have to define exactly what you mean by "renewables". Here's one opinion to the effect that we can do it all with wind, solar and hydro (no biomass):
Or can renewables go it alone?
Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, is optimistic that the world can meet the 2 C target and, in fact, stabilize emissions at 350 ppm instead of the 450 ppm that the United Nations aspires to, using solely renewable energy.
The technologies for this transformation — wind, water and solar energy — already exist, he said. They could entirely replace the world's fossil fuel-based energy system by 2050, if governments will it to be so, he said.
"The only obstacles are social and political," he said. "The only reason why it can't get implemented is because there are people against it."
In Jacobson's energy matrix, nuclear energy does not play a role. Nuclear plants need two decades to build, and the mining of uranium fuel is carbon-polluting, he said.
"It is a a whole distraction, and people should know better than to propose nuclear energy, because people who are working in this field know it is not going to go anywhere," he said.
Instead, Jacobson proposes that the world overcome its sociopolitical barriers and install 80 percent renewables by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. During times when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, he proposes using hydropower to make up the gap.
He said the costs of the transformation would be worth the benefits: 22 million net jobs, the costs of global warming, avoiding unstable energy prices and energy security.
"We can have 100 percent reliable grid across the U.S. without nuclear, without natural gas, without biofuels, with only wind, water, solar, with low-cost storage," he said.
The above is an excerpt of this Scientific American article.
Second you have to define what you mean by "we". In the context of this debate, I generally assume "we" means the whole world, although professor Jacobsen shifts his remarks between the whole world and just the US. In that context, nuclear is not a good choice for less developed countries and is just about my last choice for places like Sudan and Somalia.
Speaking of just the US, we don't have enough hydro to smooth the intermittent output from wind and solar, so meeting the stated goal means building a lot more hydro, in addition to wind and solar. I don't know if there are even enough suitable locations in the US to build that much hydro. In 2014 hydro contributed approximately 6.5% of total US generation; it would need to be at least 5 times that if we were depending on wind and solar for all the rest. It needs to be 4 times that just to replace the nuclear portion of US generation for the same year.
And finally, you have to define what you mean by "low cost", or "affordable" or whatever other term is used to describe how simple it is to get off fossil fuels. And here we find the crux of so many disagreements; many advocates think that "low cost" just means someone else is paying for it.
Addendum to above. The other definition of "low cost" often turns out to be "not as bad as a total catastrophe which wipes out the entire planet". Under those terms, anything turns out to be "affordable".
fossilsage says:
Plasma fusion research is clearly an area of science that needs to be supported and the behavior of plasma is one of the pillars on which future breakthroughs in industrial processing and recycling are going to be catapulted into amazing technological advancement (who knows advances in our understanding of plasmas may one day improve our climate modeling) That said, Nuclear is the way forward for the production of electricity and lots of it. Untying the regulatory knots that have artificially inflated the cost is also a good idea. More important we need to address the crazy fear that little old ladies, children, and full grown men have of meaningless nuclear contamination as is being promoted in the press as some barely measurable Cesium follows the currents from Japan to the West Coast of North America.
There is a phrase in the entirely unrelated literature for recovering alcoholics that never the less seems appropriate for Greenpeace here: Contempt prior to investigation. Maybe they're controlled by their obsessions too.
If Greenpeace was honestly applying their standards about waste and uncertainty, they would demand the immediate halt of all solar and wind.
But the phrase "If Greenpeace was honestly applying" is an oxymoron.
Time for a rhyme on the Green Paradigm:
SUSTAINABLE REALITY
If you like your energy sustainable,
You must first make the climate trainable.
With sun day and night,
And the wind always right…
I think it just might be attainable!
Solar and wind are renewable,
But only on small scales prove doable
They kill birds and bats
And displace habitats…
Conservationists find them eschew-able.
We would, likely, employ keener vision
Funding hydro and nuclear fission.
(The molten salt kind,
For our peace of mind)
With storm-proofed grids, for transmission.
Electricity, for the third world poor
Will unlock the virtual door…
To an affluent life,
A job and a wife
With less children than folks raised before.
So, curtailing overpopulation
Is not about "limiting nations
On what they can do
Which emits CO2"…
It relies on industrialization!
(please distribute freely)
John Whitman says:
Greenpeace strategy #1 – oppose the possibility of energy that is plentiful, cheap, easily accessible, reliable & very quickly scalable to rapid increases in demand.
Greenpeace strategy #2 – block major technologies, by isolating and attacking one-by-one, until there are no useful ones that will either increase wealth (per capita) or sustain current levels of wealth.
Greenpeace strategy #3 – aid in perception that wealth of individuals and organizations derived from new and improved technology is evil wealth, therefore claim those individual and organizations are evil.
Greenpeace Goal – to have humans live like wild animals; for instance, like polar bears or ants.
A word encapsulating Greenpeace comes to mind, 'anti-mind'.
From the linked story:
Despite the progress being made, even the most hopeful scientists recognise that capturing and storing fusion energy for common use is likely half a century away.
Well they've gotten more pessimistic. Back when I first started hearing about fusion research 50 years ago, practical fusion power was only 20 years away. So 50 years of work and we are still at least 50 more years away from a practical application. That's an entire century of sea level rise – the West Side Highway near James Hansen's office will be underwater by then.
Is there a common thread here or am I missing something?:
A chain of vastly expensive, largely boondoggle money sinks, a boon to the many eager states and candy to their Senators:
The Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, the Super Conducting Super Collider, ITER, SLS (Space Launch System), and very likely the all eggs in one basket James Webb Space Telescope now at a mere $8.7billion? If this blows on launch or otherwise fails In it's distant orbit, a total loss. How about the slew of Solyndra scale give aways, with more in the pipeline?
No reason to iterate the thousands of essentially wealth distributing, job creating but absolutely unnecessary high tech military weapons systems. Another nuclear aircraft carrier anyone? More $1 billion per copy super stealth bombers anyone? Why does all this seem more like stimulus/welfare than anything else?
Where is the taxpayer's union to weigh in and comment, criticise and at lobby for changes if not outright cancellation of these grandiose, bloated mistakes in advance of their announcement as fait accomplies?
kenin says:
In favour of nuclear= dumb!
In favour of wind= dumb!
Some of the dumbest garbage on this subject occurs right here, on this blog. I've known for way to long how
this game is played. Corporations, Universities, The media, pseudo environmentalists, trolls/sock puppets, but most of all, its the foreign Corporate Democracies/tyrants and their friends at The Bar who really make it happen.
Its one big web of deception- that's all! Let me tell you how I believe this works in the end:
You all keep running around debating with each other about subjects first suggested by them- not you! not in anyway original thought. Then you're divided. You'll go completely dependent on them for all your ENERGY needs (which by the way are over-rated) . Extreme fatigue will ensue from the endless work week just to ensure your pathetic energy needs and pathetic way of life. All the while the most important thing on the face of the earth- LAND is gobbled up via a vigorous propaganda campaign of LEGALESE. Its over you are a slave!
Or you can fix it and or prevent this from happening by: Cancel your cable, plant a garden, rid your home of shit like microwaves, if you smoke- stop it!, if you drink-stop it!. If you are living in something larger than 1400sq ft- sell it and down size. Save as much cash as possible to either build or by something smaller and ensure its properly insulated and burn wood damn it! If not, install solar panels and abandon the grid. Plant mulberry trees, serviceberry trees, plum, apple etc.
That was a quick and dumb down version of I wanted to convey, but I believe you should have got the message. I'm telling you guys, you really don't know where this going. If you have kids……. oh man you had better wake up. It happens in stages folks, I've been there. When you what's really going on and where they want it to go, you to will come to the realization that water and heat can all be produced on site without them.
All you need is family, friends, good food and most of all freedom! For me, its all about four walls, hardwood flooring and a fireplace. All the rest should and will go towards life and not t.v or shoving nuclear waste down a 5000ft hole deep under the Canadian shield, or pouring hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete for a stupid industrial windmill in my backyard just to push me off the land under the guise of climate change- no f'n way man! not me.
And while i'm at it: Screw hydro dams as well, but that's for another day. Screw both sides of the argument, because in my opinion you're both brainwashed. Screw Agenda 21 and screw anyone who ever worked for a government agency who tried to arrest people for harvesting rain water for their own private use on their property which they have a claim too.
Here's a list of top down garbage that controls you, but not necessarily in this order:
1.Democracies/Lawyers and their word magic i.e. citizenship, resident, persons, nation, legal (not lawful), bylaws/codes, licencing
2. Their friends at the media
3. Agenda 21
4. The police/other policy enforcers (relentless harassment/and or intimidation)
5. Property tax (Ad valorem)
6 Economics as you know it (keeping you tired and distracted)
7. Schools brainwashing your children
8. Scarcity of resources= dependency=control
9. Remove all notion of Godhead
10. Endless surveillance of the general public through Facebook, twitter, phone conversations, emails, blogs, cameras etc etc.
11. Fear campaigns: people are violent and stupid and controlling.
It's wonderful when you have all the answers, isn't it?
Manfred says:
Indeed. But it seems to involve an awful lot of tiresome 'screwing'.
Don Perry says:
Poor, deranged individual. Please, by all that is holy, take your own adivce and don't reproduce. You advocate not living, but simply existing. What a waste of your likely shortened life. I'd strongly suggest therapy. You have the thought characteristics of the Unibomber. By the way, if you are advocating the abandonment of technology, why and how the heck are you on this blog in the first place?
Really? Where do I abandon the use of "technology" in my post. Put the technology that matters most to good use i.e. An axe, solar panel, melting metals for making tools etc and technology for shit like nuclear energy so can watch t.v all day. Do you get my point? You forget my brother, that for the most part you are water, not screws, mercury and batteries that allow you to speak.
Machines and people got us into this mess and now you're on your hands and knees begging for more technology to solve the problem. The technology you speak of must be for sinister reasons.
I love how you completely ignored about 99% of my post and focused on trying to make me look like a nut. What about where I said: "All you need is family, friends, good food and most of all freedom" No you won't focus on that will you Don? I guess there nothing in my post you liked huh? Maybe you like agenda 21 or lawyers or how the media plays you like fiddle with brainwashing techniques from the 40's.
[trimmed] dude
maybe you'll get it one day.
[No, you need no help doing that. .mod]
Well that may be fine for you in your 1,400 sq. ft. home. But do think the rest of the world would like to have some steel, aluminum and concrete? Before you reply you should consider the world already answered that question in a big way: 1,660 million tonnes of steel, 53 million tonnes of aluminum and 4,000 million tonnes of cement in 2013.
This is not going to get done with wood-burning stoves and solar panels.
Alan, I appreciate your response, maybe I should have been more specific in my post, but how well can I express our need to more independent, that's why I focused on the wood burning and solar panels. I think we're delaying the inevitable and there comes a time when going back to basics and living a simple life will suffice. In fact, it looks like everybody missed the point of my post and strictly focused on one statement or sentence. About the 1400sq ft, I was being generous, I really don't need that much and yes its obvious that others would like those same opportunities for steel, aluminum and cement at what cost…..ours?
kenin:
I appreciate you are trying to live a simple live, but I don't think you appreciate the degree to which the larger industrial civilization you despise enables you to make that choice. Your house and the property it occupies are artifacts of legal conventions which require certain tangible foundations to exist. If those foundations go away, your property exists only as long as the strength of your arms can maintain it.
We believe it true of gods,
As we know it true of men,
The strong take what they will,
the rest hold what they can.
(I have totally lost the source of this quote, but I believe I saw it in an edition of History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides)
Industrial civilization makes it possible for more ordinary people to "hold what they can" than in any previous era of human history. It isn't perfect, but nothing involving people ever is. If it falls, we have no reason to believe it will be replaced by anything better and every reason to fear it will be replaced by something much worse.
So I believe it is irresponsible to run away from the daily grind of maintaining a civil and industrial civilization.
But Alan,
Can we really consider the mining of Uranium for nuclear energy and its waste civilized?
As for other industry: well, there are those that I and the environment can support, but for others… I would rather do away with. I guess we can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but it goes way to deep for me to explain my position and what I know; so for me I will leave it at that. Alan, I love your blog, I think you understand a lot more than most and I get your point- I really do, but I respectfully disagree. I believe we have just become to accustomed to the way things are.
I would really appreciate your opinion on the question above. Thanks Alan
I'm sorry Kenin, but you only have at least half of what you said is right.
Nuclear = Smart not dumb.
yeah sure, because we all know you can't survive without splitting atoms.
Wayne Delbeke says:
Yes Kenin, you are sort of correct. We can't survive without "fusing atoms". We live because of that big reactor that rises in the east everyday, bringing energy to all of us. Well, most of us, there may be a few odd life forms deep in the crust that use thermal energy from the core of the earth – but same general idea. 😉
Given enough time and money, the Plasma Fusion people will drive their proposed success horizon out to 100 years!…pg
Allencic says:
One of the greatest tragedies of modern times is that nuclear energy was used for a bomb before it could be used for cheap and nearly unlimited electric power to bring the masses of people out of poverty and into a better life.
Greenpeace may very well be right about ITER. Likely it's a White Elephant. The ITER torus dimensions are far too large, creating a weak diffuse plasma, missing the sweet spot for plasma reactions.
The best hope for fusion lies with smaller scale projects that don't rely on brute force magnetic confinement. Several of these novel approaches are reviewed in IEEE Spectrum
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/inside-the-dynomak-a-fusion-technology-cheaper-than-coal
My favorite is the underdog LPPFusion (aka Lawreceville Plasma Physics). Here's a brief video of their configuration and physics of dense focused plasma. The process is aneutronic (no radioactive waste) and provides for direct electric current without steam turbines. Thus the LPPFusion recator can be extremely cheap.
http://lppfusion.com/next-generation-fusion-power/
LPPFusion is the best of class having achieved two of the three Lawson Criteria (temperature, confinement time and density). The density relies of achieving a clean burn plasma, so the engineering now is devoted to finding he right coatings of the reaction chamber that can withstand thermal shock and extreme temperature gradients.
LPPFusion is well within the ballpark of achieving a sustained, net energy fusion reaction. It's probably the best bet, but other rivals have a lot going for them too. ITER is not really a contender.
sarastro92:
I did a quick check of the lppfusion site and did not see any news about a working prototype they have demonstrated. If you can find one, please post it. But I did find a link off their "News and Archives" page that in turn links to a DeSmogBlog post "Is Organized Climate Change Denial Criminally Negligent?". Bit of a disconnect, no?
http://lppfusion.com/fusion-power/dpf-device/
(located under "FUSION" drop down- "DPF Device")
The early results of the DFP device were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy
This paper instigated a series of related queries:
"The first, and perhaps most significant reaction came in May, 2012, with the publication in the Journal of Fusion Energy of a paper by S. Abolhasani, M. Habibi, and R. Amrollahi, "Analytical Study of Quantum Magnetic and Ion Viscous Effects on p11B Fusion in Plasma Focus Devices". The paper studied in greater detail the "quantum magnetic field effect" we discussed in our Journal of Fusion Energy paper in 2011, citing our work and for the first time independently confirming our calculations showing that ignition and net energy gain can be achieved with pB11 (hydrogen-boron) fuel, the key to obtaining aneutronic fusion energy. "According to the results of this paper", they concluded,"…it could be said that p11B fueled plasma focus device is a clean and efficient source of energy."
http://lppfusion.com/peer-reviews/
Yeah… I was disturbed by the DeSmogBlog post as well… Eric Lerner is by no means a greenie, but seems to appropriate the lingo to deflect adverse commentary.. Check out the video presentations (especially the Oxford U lecture) … it's very clear Lerner advocates for a cheap abundant energy policy to support global economic development (real, tangible development not the fake "sustainable, mud-hut with a solar collector" type "development)
I checked sarastro92's links. No mention of a working prototype anywhere. The plasma fusion will be practical in 15 years as always.
The link provided describes the device in great detail…
"The dense plasma focus device consists of two cylindrical metal electrodes nested inside each other. The outer electrode is generally no more than 6-7 inches in diameter and a foot long. The electrodes are enclosed in a vacuum chamber with a low pressure gas filling the space between them."
I never used the phrase "working device" (you guys did) nor did I imply a finished product. I made it very clear that the third Lawson criterion must be met to achieve sustained fusion and that the LLP device is under development to achieve that goal.
But it is an operational research machine that has hit key performance criteria for fusion and well within striking distance of achieving sustained fusion reactions.
You want pictures?
Try viewing the video link provided above… the opening half minute contains several images of the FF-1 that is being upgraded to achieve a clean plasma that reaches fusion.
It's here: http://lppfusion.com/next-generation-fusion-power/
I know fusion is possible. It's been funded irregularly at times. Btw, thanks for the updated info. I haven't followed it in awhile. I was pretty sure that if they could squeeze the gas down to a plasma without the enormous amount of energy necessary that it might go. The magnetic quantum effect is interesting. As I said earlier that if several fields come up with new insights, that the time to completion would shorten dramatically. One was hope that CERN might provide insight into gravity waves. LIGO was another. An applied gravity wave could really do some squeezing. The things we could do with a gravity wave. Just the thought of magnetic entanglement makes me think we could go beyond teleportation. Make an exact copy/s there. How many times can you divide a magnetic bubble? Let's reconfigure that mathematical coefficient that is malfunctioning chromosome.
I realize this isn't the technical stuff that most people on here like to see, but it is the ideas that shapes the tech.
For those who are interested, believe it or nor, cold fusion research is still in existence. I thought it was totally dead.
I like fusion just because. Sorry greenscape.
So when do we get Mr. Fusion to power our toasters?
We should know pretty soon whether the LPPFusion device can reach sustained fusion. They're fiddling with coatings on the reactor chamber that will be tough enough to prevent atoms from being knocked off the walls and spoil the plasma. That coatings process should be finished this month, and then they can fire up the FF-1 and see if they can get it to fusion or near fusion. After that the final step is to load the Boron fuel. Either it will work or it won't. That should be evident by Summer 2016. If it won't work, the team can decide to abandon the project, or figure out what's wrong and take corrective action.
Visit the website or get on their mailing list. Every 8 weeks or so LPPFusion published a newsletter that relays the latest status on the dense, plasma focus device.
astonerii says:
Green people are really just human haters. It really is that simple.
Any form of energy which allows humans to thrive is evil in their eyes, because humans thriving is evil in their eyes.
Greenpeace is dependent upon the ignorance of people, which will assist in the acceptance of Greenpeace's arguments about what to do about global warming, climate disruption, climate change or carbon pollution, or whatever you want to term this non-problem.
Nuclear fusion may or may not have a future in the world's quest for a new power source. It is not something that should be dismissed out-of-hand by people like Greenpeace or the Obama Administration.
Wasting more money on current technologies related to solar and wind power will not provide a permanent or affordable solution to the world's long-term energy needs. The current technology related to solar and wind power would result in a solution that is "unimaginatively" expensive. If we are to spend money on solar and wind power, it should be spent on research to provide such power that would actually be effective and affordable.
The best defense against the politically motivated course of action as pronounced by Greenpeace or the current political administration would be to actually study the problem so the problem (or non-problem) related to global warming (etc.) is understood.
Leo Smith says:
Greenpeace vigorously opposes all low carbon energy solutions which might actually work. The question is, why?
Look at where Greenpeace and the Eco left came from, (CND, largely) who funded them, (Sovbloc) and what their political and commercial aims were/are.(destroying Western culture and making money out of gas).
Leo knows the answer.
That's wht Greenpeace and every other eco-group has been infiltrated and co-opted by the erstwhile Soviet KGB (now the FSB). They understood the influence of those groups, and made the decision to take over those organizations (among many others). That's why Dr. Patrick Moore is out, and the current gang of fellow travelers is in.
They were amazingly successful, no doubt because they are past masters at undesratnding human nature, and how to control it to get what they want.
The sad thing is that so many people blow that off as a "conspiracy theory". It's not. It's simply reality.
Andrew Revkin has published a remarkable expose in his NYTImes DotEarth blog. Revkin dwells on the fact that under pressure from Green Malthusian forces Germany and now France have RECARBONIZED there energy system.
"[W]hile the world is huddled in Paris to map out the treacherous route to decarbonization, one major industrial country has already largely decarbonized that most central of emissions sectors, [electrical] energy – namely, the host of those other 200 countries, France. But there's little celebration or even mention of its accomplishment: that is because it was achieved through the "dirty and dangerous" nuclear power, and France itself is now acting under a new post-Fukushima plan that would vitiate this achievement, cutting nuclear by a third unless it is reversed."
So at the end of the day the priority is not in eliminating "carbon pollution", but destroying advanced energy production systems starting with nuclear fission.
Revkin goes on the connect the dots in an extraordinary way, extraordinary at least for MSM:
"A group of radicals gathered on the periphery of the Paris climate talks Wednesday to issue a manifesto. "A transformation of the world's entire economic system is essential," their missive began in typically grandiose fashion. "Our economies are hard-wired to fossil fuels. To overcome this carbon entanglement, countries need to implement strong climate policies, including strengthening carbon pricing and … ."
Wait a second, I mixed up my notes. That was today's joint press release from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency, and the International Transport Forum, four of the stodgiest policy groups around. It was issued from the heart of the United Nations Climate Change Conference and Twenty-First Conference of the Parties, known semi-affectionately on the inside as "COP21."
The radicals were at another event, far outside the well-guarded hangar walls of the Le Bourget airport complex. With them were moderates, labor leaders, community advocates, progressive politicians, and a guy in a flannel shirt who described himself during the question-and-answer session as a "possibilitator." Like the OECD and its partners, the group at the Salle Olympe de Gouges, a multipurpose theater less than a mile from the site of two of the November 13 suicide bombings, called for total transformation to stop climate change from wiping out much of the habitable world.
Unlike those groups, however, the event's organizers have no faith that any sort of significant transformation will be possible in the accord being hammered out now. So they offered a plan of their own."
So there you have it. It was never about Global Warming, CO2 emissions, Extreme Weather etc. It was always about "A transformation of the world's entire economic system", which fundamentally entails global depopulation and massive deindustrialization.
Fortunately the developing nations want no part of this kind of global genocide, but won't object if the West wants to commit economic suicide.
rogerknights says:
"So at the end of the day the priority [of Germany and France] is not in eliminating "carbon pollution", but destroying advanced energy production systems starting with nuclear fission."
No, it's placating a pressure group. That's what politics is mostly about. (But it should be about resisting them.)
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"
It's all chitchat. Just because they are against fusion doesn't mean they are for something else viable. They want you dead. They will say anything to get you to accept your demise.
ladylifegrows says:
Hey, you said it, too. I posted a longer one on this below.
Julian Hancock says:
Apparently we spend more money on ring tones than fusion research in the UK.
"The question is, why?"
Which leads immediately to why Greeneace is so out of touch with the modern world? Fusion and ITER are not part of any tangible solution apart maybe from maintaining the status quo. They are R & D in progress. The real question is whether Greenpeace et al are being used as usefull idiots. Again.
First up, reality. Where we're actually at with Fusion …
Next, the immediate problem … Borg neutron moderation in DC and elsewhere, business as usual.
The complete disconnect here is alarming. If this is an example of governance in the modern world the energy question is the least of our worries. Imagine how much worse it would get with UN involvement.
Baubles, beads and Kumbaya …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdQMQqx4cxM
denniswingo says:
Why… One reason….
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/message.htm
The message of the Georgia Guidestones…
1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE
2. GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY – IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY
3. UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING NEW LANGUAGE
4. RULE PASSION – FAITH – TRADITION – AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON
5. PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS
6. LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT
7. AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS
8. BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES
9. PRIZE TRUTH – BEAUTY – LOVE- SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE
10. BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH – LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE – LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE
Finally, we get a number. So the ideal human population is under 500 million. It would be interesting to know how they settle on that particular figure, but let it pass for now. The world had a population of 500 million around 1500 or 1600. No antibiotics, no fever reducers, no concrete, no aluminum, iron in limited quantities, steel in minute quantities. No steam engines, no electricity. No universal literacy; colleges and universities such as existed were primarily for theological studies. This is Europe; China at the time was more advanced.
Using charcoal it takes about 1.25 acres (0.5 hectares) of mature (25 year) hardwood to make the charcoal to smelt one short ton of iron. Simple arithmetic shows you must dedicate roughly 31 acres (12.5 hectares) of land to grow the trees so you can harvest the wood to make the charcoal to smelt one ton of iron every year, and do it "sustainably". This is how iron was made in England from Roman times up to around 1700, when coal-fired blast furnaces appeared. By this time world population was roughly 600 to 679 million, so we've already overshot the ideal by more than 20%.
Coal-fired smelting caused iron production to skyrocket, making iron available and affordable for new uses.
The Bessemer process to make steel on an industrial scale was patented in 1856 (world population 1,200-1,400 million).
Aluminum was known about, but much too expensive to obtain until the Hall–Héroult process was patented in 1886 (1,400 – 1,550 million). Oh, and the process requires electricity — gobs of it, which didn't show up until the first commercial power plant was built in 1882. First steam turbine power plant was built in 1903.
Concrete was used by the Romans although it was lost when Rome fell until the process was re-established in the mid 18th century.
I know the people who put out numbers on the ideal sustainable human population believe we are going to have all the advantages of modern industrial civilization, just without the traffic jams and crowds at Disney World, but it's not going to happen. There is a reason we didn't have steel, aluminum, electricity and other modern conveniences when there were just 500 million people in the world, and if we got down to that population again we would lose most of them in a generation. There simply would not be enough people and time left over from basic food growing and preparation necessities to support the specialized knowledge required.
Once we lose steel we lose the single most useful industrial material in history, the basis for tools which allow us to build, mine, travel efficiently, etc., etc.
Technology enables population and population enables technology. They rise or fall together.
No surprise that the Green Shirts have embraced eugenics, which false doctrine was to the early 20th century what the pseudoscience of CAGW was to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and of course fully embraced by the N@zis.
Steve. says:
The simple answer to greenpeace objecting nuclear of any kind is because of their hidden agenda, they are Marxist and will do and are doing untold harm with this renewables angle, they are relying on people's fear and making mischief with it, the Indian Goverment had to make them a subversive organisation because of the damage they were doing, this connivance and miss truths by greenpeace and fellow travelers about anything other than renewables is a scandal, this is why India banned them, froze the bank accounts of Greenpeace, we should do the same if the Marxists inside of this organisation persist.
harkin1 says:
Progressives who demand diversity in everything except science and thought.
Color me unsurprised.
These are not progressives, but regressives.
People greatly overestimate the amount of power we would obtain by a fusion reactor. The amount of energy harvested minus the amount of energy required to keep the reaction contained and sustained is likely to be no very efficient. A reactor with the efficiency of the Sun would produce about as much energy per pound of matter as a compost heap. In other words, harvesting heat from composting manure would likely be more cost efficient.
knr says:
Although the greens no longer say it public they still regard power as 'to cheap' and 'to easy to access ' at the bottom of this is the greens hatred of modernity, much preferring some mythic golden rural past , and desire to see 'wicked man ' punished for their crimes against the planet, This combined with the certain knowledge that normally no one is singing up to their madder ideas , such as the totally end to personal motorised transport, means they 'want and indeed ' need an energy crisis has they see this has both an opportunity and has 'just punishment ' with the misery it would cause be an 'acceptable cost'
So pushing ideas they know cannot work , and acting those that can , doe with mind set, make sense.
The greenies are getting worried that one of the low cost shoestring fusion projects are going to pan out. Never mind the ITER boondoggle, General Fusion, Helion, EMC2, Lockheed Martin, Tri Alpha, all knocking on the door, practically have to beg for funding. Once one of them succeeds, they can kiss the whole cap and trade scam goodbye, the greenies will be even bigger bums than they already are.
Yes Chris, exactly this. Especially E=MC2, if boron is used (aneutronic). Then the fuel supply will last for millions of years.
Go to Talk-Polywell for more information on these fusion projects.
"The greenies are getting worried that one of the low cost shoestring fusion projects are going to pan out. Never mind the ITER boondoggle, General Fusion, Helion, EMC2, Lockheed Martin, Tri Alpha, all knocking on the door, practically have to beg for funding."
The stupid party should have been calling for funding of these entities as a positive alternative to Obama's greenie plans. Apart from the statesmanship of doing so, a business-as-usual political stance lacks sales appeal.
all they have to do is demonstrate a working power plant, and they will get all the funding they need.
Nothing succeeds like success.
We now how have the solution with renewables like solar and wind – they are affordable, they are cheap.
They are not. What is more, they are intermittent, so a huge overexpensive backup and/or storage capacity is needed. And not only that, due to inherently low energy flux densities, their land use footprint is orders of magnitude higher than that of proper solutions, so they are destroying the environment by abusing an inherently scarce resource.
We are opposed to this argument of fusion being the future of power for humanity
Thermonuclear reactors has their own problems, indeed. Besides always being ready in the next two decades or so, for half a century, they also emit much more neutrons for the same energy output than fission reactors, a kind of radiation that is extremely difficult to contain.
Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity.
Now, that's silly. There is a huge difference between nuclear and nuclear. Molten salt reactor technology was developed half a century ago, then shelved. It solves all the safety, anti-proliferation &. waste storage issues associated with current fission reactors, while providing energy for the rest of Earth's lifetime, until the Sun becomes a red giant and consumes the entire inner solar system.
A ton of granite, the default stuff continents are made of, contains as much recoverable energy as fifty tons of coal.
Nash says:
Only unicorn fuels are acceptable to Greenpeace …. with the exception of their Rainbow Warrior ship running on fossil fuels.
Adam Gallon says:
Blavier's background?
https://fr.linkedin.com/in/s%C3%A9bastien-blavier-84665751
Master of Science (MSc), Master in Global Management & Organizational strategy
Rock solid nuclear scientist from the 29th best business school in Europe?
siamiam says:
So, it seems Greenpeace is……..
Homophobic.
.. in need of more money. Why don't taxpayers fund it more lavishly than ITER?
Greenpeace thinks that renewables like solar and wind are affordable and cheap. I disagree. Both are phenomenally expensive. Greenpeace say nothing about being reliable and scalable, which are key if the electricity supply on which you depend is to be provided in this way.
Solar and wind are dirty cheap – really free. Only the electricity generated that way is expensive. With solar, you can keep your lights on as long as the sun is shining.
Lonnie E. Schubert says:
Fundamentally, we will get practically all of our energy from controlled fusion sources sooner or later. We might as well do ITAR, and all the other fusion research, but we must be sensible and realistic. It will not be practical until we have some paradigm-shifting breakthroughs, genius breakthroughs, probably in materials, but maybe in the physics of fusion. It is nearly certain that no one who reads this note will live to see commercial fusion. It is likely the grandchildren of my readers will not live that long either. In other words, I think it is more than some decades, probably more than a century. But it will happen.
Wind will never happen. It is just a leach. It is simply political cronyism. Winds blow, and windmills suck. (They kill too.)
Solar, well, probably it will become significant within a decade or two, or three, maybe more, but it will never be reliable for primary energy.
Hype or whine all you like. That is the fact. It won't change. We can cause pain and suffering, slavery, and death, and we can force it, but it will not work if we don't coerce with the power of the state.
KevOB says:
Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through (Oct 15 2015)
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
For some of us following the LENR progress or diversion an interesting explanation is offered how neutrons can be shaken out by resonance and captured with energy release. This whole area is buzzing with an Edisonian atmosphere that something is truly going on. Some serious money is being speculated.
Ponderomotive forces explain it all. No speculation needed.
5 Dec: AberdeenPress&Journal: David Kerr: Conservationists win court battle against giant Highland windfarm
An environmental charity has won its court battle against plans for a 67-turbine windfarm in the Highlands.
The John Muir Trust launched a judicial review after the Scottish Government granted permission to the Stronelairg development last year…
The John Muir Trust objected on grounds of impact on wild land, peat and tourism…
Stuart Brooks, John Muir Trust chief executive said: "This is great news for all those who love Scotland's wild land and wish to see it protected. A financial appeal brought a tremendous level of support from over a thousand well-wishers, allowing the Trust to proceed. Lord Jones has now decided the Trust's court action was well-founded."…
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/770908/conservationists-win-court-battle-against-giant-highland-windfarm/
5 Dec: NYT: Melissa Eddy: Denmark, a Green Energy Leader, Slows Pace of Its Spending
One lesson they may learn from Denmark is how it is possible to substantially replace fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy. But even when progress is made in reducing environmentally harmful carbon emissions, countries may have difficulty sustaining the gains because of politics, economic concerns and, in places like the United States, ideological disputes…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/world/europe/denmark-a-green-energy-leader-slows-pace-of-its-spending.html?_r=0
Michael Karnerfors says:
*groans* And ideology once again rears its ugly face to denounce development, progress and innovation just to pander to pipedreams about The Ideal And Perfect Society™.
You want to know why Greenpeace – and all the other ideological greens – are opposed to nuclear power, GMO and similar? They are not opposed to the technology… they are opposed to big companies, centralized ownership and centralized production. Just like the we-who-do-not-call-ourselves-communists-anymore on the far left they have a dream about the means of production being in the hands of "the people". This – in consequence – means they hate big companies with a passion.
Hence: they do not hate nuclear power because it is a bad technology… they hate it because it is not Politically Correct, in the original and actual meaning of the expression. Nuclear power is wrong because their politics say it is.
Now if anyone here thinks that is a good argument, fine by me, but I am not joining you in it… I am way too pragmatic for that.
greg17prime says:
This is ridiculous. Our sun is a nuclear fusion engine. If fusion replaces fission it could dismantle the nuclear, coal, and petrolium industries overnight.
I agree renewables are of ultra importance, but, fusion could give us the means for real interplanetary travel, without the use of chemical rockets, at speeds and distances beyond our current limits, hydroponics any place on the planet, we could eliminate hunger, deinvest in fossil fuels and reinvest in education across the world.
Actually our sun is a gravity powered energy system.
And gravity sucks, so you just need oodles of raw materials like hydrogen. Given enough hydrogen; about an 860,000 mile diameter ball will do it, you won't be able to stop it from releasing fusion energy.
But since gravity is by far the weakest force in the universe, it's a bit hard to make one work in your garage.
We don't have control of any more powerful force that also sucks, so we have to use forces that blow.
And whereas a suck machine just sucks everything towards the center, with a blow machine, you need to blow everything from the outside, and there's nothing to put your back up against while you blow, and you have to do it symmetrically from all sides at once.
Which is why tokomaks and other gadgets don't work.
son of mulder says:
Latest pronouncement from Greenpeace "Don't even knock the rocks together, it will lead to civilisation eventually"
How could you post this article THIS WEEK without mentioning that the German Wendelstein X-7 stelerator went online, despite Greenpeace's miserable bitching?!
"….so it's not a solution to future power, it's only research."
Nicely epitomizes the Luddite Green view that renders only stasis in a primeval intellectual abyss, lest they be seen for what they are.
Oh, I don't think you are going to face the answer to–WHY? It's just too ugly. Many greens (not all) really want to kill human beings, as many as possible. Environmentalism is the best way to do that and instead of going to jail, you get hailed as a hero.
And NO, this is not sarcasm. It is the literal (and unbearable) truth. You HAVE heard of the college students and profs who cheered the idea of some virus wiping out a substantial fraction of the human race. You HAVE heard of Malthus and of the more recent Ehrlich and his population bomb. You HAVE heard of The Holocaust and of the Irish Potato famine, which were applications of Darwin/Malthus "science" by the Germans against 6 million Jews and 7 million others; and the Irish disaster was a deliberate theft of Irish food by the English for the specific purpose of starving as many Irish Catholics to death as possible. The potatoes were just a cover story really.
My sister is a greenie activist. She sent me a novel she wrote, for my comments. She wanted a positive story. Her idea of positive was after some disaster that killed most of the human race, sterilized the majority of survivors, and eliminated the automobile.
Or consider the howling about glaciers melting. Proof this disaster is real is a photo of a TREE GROWING.
These people are willing to sacrifice everything alive in order to hurt human beings. After all, their shrieking is about carbon dioxide–the molecule that is the basis of everything alive. And they have caused the whole world severe economic trouble with their attacks on fossil fuel. Economic harm means fewer resources for fighting pollution.
Environmentalist leaders are HELL on the environment. That is because their real purpose is not to enhance Life, but to kill.
Aid was offered to Ireland during the potato famine which was caused by a fungus. Many Irish Catholics rejected the aid because it was offered by Protestants. If you took food aid from Protestants is was known as "taking the soup".
The fungus was not deliberate, but what was certainly deliberate was the English putting up rents and forcing people off land. My Nan remembers the Black and Tans.
higley7 says:
What a lie. Wind and solar are the most expensive energies on the planet. They are both 5 to 10 times more expensive than carbon-based energy sources and, as they use rare elements and non recyclable materials,t why are patently unsustainable.. And, what idiot cannot understand that the Sun sets and the wind dies. During winter cold snaps, when heating is most critical for human survival, the wind does not blow and solar input is at a minimum, even if it is not cloudy. Also, solar becomes less and less useful in the higher latitudes. Both systems require constant maintenance—they do not mention that the "green" jobs are mostly low-paying maintenance work.
YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FROM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
Mervyn says:
Greenpeace will never accept nuclear or fossil fuel energy … it is stuck in its mixed up world of make believe … solar energy and wind energy… this, at a time the world has an over abundance of fossil fuel energy that can power the world for many centuries to come. Incredible!
Simple: Greenpeace believes the planet should be human-free. They believe humans are a parasite that needs to be vigorously controlled or, if possible, eliminated.
Too cynical? Try this: if we get rid of all fossil fuel use, in the manner they demand, more than 3/4 of earth's population (much more) will starve to death. I've spoken with greenish people who were not as radical as Greenpeace. When asked about 3/4 of the population dying, their comment is usually, 'good. There are too many people.' Don't doubt for an instant that Greenpeace would cheer rapid depopulation.
Certainly seems that way. This oxygen freeloader wants us all to pay to breath. Breathing is equivalent to fly-tipping apparently …
http://s18.postimg.org/y69t2jzpl/Fly_Tipping.png
No Greenpeace really opposes all low cost energy solutions, carbon or not. Having the poor live a more simple lifestyle is part of the religion.
It's clear that Greenpeace is "risky and ignorant," as well as "an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity." Can we stop funding them now?
Grimwig says:
GreatGreyhounds December 6, 2015 at 5:42 am
I don't disagree with your overall point but, at risk of being pedantic, I would point out that a Bessemer Converter and a Blast Furnace are very different animals. The Bessemer reaction is exothermic producing energy from the oxidisation of Carbon in the molten Iron charge. The Blast Furnace uses a lot of energy from coke to reduce Iron oxide to Iron. The really big energy users in the steel industry are the Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) where scrap metal is melted using the electric arc.
Incidentally and highly regrettably there is not likely to be much of a steel industry left in the UK as a result of the ludicrous energy policies of the government.
"Grimwig
…a Bessemer Converter and a Blast Furnace are very different…"
They are indeed. A Bessemer Converter is typically rated at 90MW. That's a lot! And just where is steel going? TATA Steel…in India. A novelist who was the chair of the IPCC was also on the board of Tata.
I think you will find that, while an EAF may be rated at 90MW, no Bessemer ever consumed energy like that. As I said earlier, the reaction is exothermic. Bessemer furnaces have been obsolete for many a long year but their descendants such a the BOF (Basic Oxygen Furnace) are similarly exothermic. So much heat is produced in the reaction that a portion of cold scrap metal is usually included in the furnace charge.
Yes, you are right. It's been some time since I did any metal foundry work, but I was confused between an EAF and a Bessemer converter.
The answer is, they are anti-human.
They want a world in which only a few hundred thousand humans exist with at best, a hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Doug Sorensen says:
So he wants to drop a possible failure for a known failure. Brilliant.
Rhee says:
greenpeace seems to oppose all forms of energy generation, including rubbing two sticks together
Well at one time they had this high speed round the world race boat, that was supposed to run on liposuction fat.
Seems that it had a run in with Japanese whale research vessels and got swamped; as in off to Davey Jones' locker.
I got photos of it in viaduct harbor in Auckland. Pretty impressive machine.
grlcowan says:
Greenpeace vigorously opposes all low carbon energy solutions which might actually work. The question is why.
Hansen says they do it for money:
After I joined other scientists in requesting the leaders of Big Green to reconsider their adamant opposition to nuclear power, and was rebuffed, I learned from discussions with them the major reason: They feared losing donor support. Money, it seems, is the language they understand.
But *what* money?
Civil servants' disposable income. A gigawatt-year of natural-gas-fired electricity production now-a-days burns $166 million worth of gas, and at an 18.75 percent royalty rate, government gets $30 million.
The nuclear alternative is $14 million worth of mined uranium at a royalty rate I don't know, but for solid minerals 4 percent is typical. So, for government, it's $30 million in annual royalty income versus about half a million.
pyeatte says:
By their very nature, wind and solar will never be a reliable source for base-load power. Continue with nuclear fusion work – eventually it will work and then massive, cost effective energy production will be assured. No predictions as to when.
I agree that there is no reason to fund fusion research – it is too primitive at this point and,mostly, we have molten salt reactors practically at the commercialization stage, compliments of Transatomic Power, Terrestrial Energy, and a massively accelerated Chinese development effort. Anyone who understands even the most basic of facts about energy production realizes that molten salt reactors are the future, whether Greenpeace likes it (or even is aware of it) or not. The economics are stunning – build costs
roughly half that of typical reactors, ability to load follow (beyond baseload capabilities, meaning a larger percentage of grid power can be satisfied by nuclear rather than fossil fuels). Ability to operate without need for refueling shutdown, which increases capacity roughly 10% beyond conventional nuclear, making it cheaper still.Fuel costs that are insignificant – again making it cheaper than typcial nuclear by at least 3/4th of a cent per kWhr.The utter safety of the units – far, far safer than solar panels or wind mills.
A lifepsan for the reactors easily 3 to4 times that of solar or windmills. The ability to operate the power plants close to the ultimate customers, another significant advantage over wind and commercial solar (which needs to be in a desert to be practical). No one looks to Greenpeace for realistic cost analysis
or even basic knowledge about power. These are the fools who claimed nuclear power to be inherently
unsafe. Modern reactors 1000 times safer than the previous generation of plants, which ran contionuously for 55 years with no deaths or serious injuries resulting from their operation, excepting Communist Russia's
poorly designed nuclear unit at Chernobyl. Yeah, right, Greenpeace – our country is litered with the graves of nuclear power plant victims. Greenpeace is on lying, dishonest organization, that deserves to be investigated.
douglasproctor says:
Greenpeace's problem with fusion research is that it might be successful. Were that to happen, energy would be so cheap, they suspect, our population and consumerist ways would explode.
Greenpeace's ultimate problem with the current world is not CO2, not capitalism (though ideologically they don't prefer it), not resource using, not having good stuff (individually they have no concern about personal wealth or flying first class) – none of these PER SE. The organization fears the gross amount of each in the Malthusian way. Simply put, too many people doing a whole lot will cause the eco-system to implode.
It is difficult if not impossible to deny that the Earth's resoures are limited in the manner in which we use them. The poison, bacteria-laden waters of Rio, site of an upcoming Olympic swim meet, testify to what happens with too many people and current (shoddy) infrastructures. What the world can sustain is a big question, though, as large increases in India's and Africa's populations have come with an increase – not a decrease – in lifespan, health and wealth. Greenpeace holds to the unidirectional view of history and the planet: that the emerging world will destroy itself by sheer numbers …. but that will only happen if culturally they do not also rise to meet the limitations their numbers create.
The European, developed world is in numerical decline as its insistence on less environmental damage increases. It is ironic and hypocritical and must be a source of deep discomfort for Greenpeace that what they really want is a small population, and that requires near-immediate reductions in the developing world of the yellow, brown and black. It is the forced reducttion in living requirements of the "otherrs" that Greenpeace subscribers implicitly demand. The world will not go up in flames or into the cesspit if Europe, the United States and (even) Russia stand fast with what they are doing. The world will collapse (in the Malthusian way) if the developing world (and China) persist in wanting a world such as the average Greenpeace supporter lives.
Fusion – like natural gas – is anathema to Greenpeace and the Robert Kennedy Jr. crowd because it will facility economic growth and consumption by the five billion or so people of the world who didn't come from the culture of Hans Christian Anderson and his friends. This is the very, very uncomfortable situation they face at COP21 where the national blocs that threaten their entitlements refuse to accept the pain Greenpeace says is needed: less people and poverty.
JMW says:
How nice that Greenpeace has inverted the logic.
The reality might better be presented as that all the money wasted subsidising renewables could be invaluable in bring fusion research that much closer to success.
Whether we end up with one or two large fusion reactors or a multiplicity or small reactors is for a subsequent debate but it begars belief that this organisation should oppose a form of clean unlimited energy that would end our need for "polluting fossil fuels" forever and without converting rain forest to palm oil for bio-diesel, without smothering the land surface and shallow seas with windfarms.
The reason is a nonsense but the real reason is perhaps hinted at in Dr Moore's blogs and it has nothing to do with the environment..
PS it would be nice to review how organisations like Greenpeace have been taken over, how they now operate under the guise of their former respectability toward more dark side objectives. Was it Maurice Strong who defined how a small group of activists could take over a large organsiation?
Many people still think when they donate to the Sierra Club they are supporting Yosemite or something, they have no idea how insanely evil they have become, or what their vision for humanity is.
leo Morgan says:
Greenpeace's opposition to the introduction of Golden Rice creates a million unnecessarily blind children every year. I don't care how much they hate GE food, they cannot justify blinding children to support that hate. Encourage everyone you know to boycott Greenpeace until the stop blinding children.