Discussion:
Increased US Domestic Oil Drilling will not lower prices: The Market is an Oligopoly!!!!
(too old to reply)
thomas wheat
2011-06-23 12:26:44 UTC
Permalink
see this link:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6

and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
Financial Futures Market Speculators.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361

case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
it as US Domestic oil drilling.
thomaswheat1975



On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
95405, 707-542-2288" <***@dumbass.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> >at this link,
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> >into a third world banana republic
> >thomaswheat1975
>
> Clowned??????????????????????
>
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> On 6/15/2011 7:26 PM, Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom JigmeWheat
> > <***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> [ nothing of value...]
>
> > Tom JigmeWheat<***@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
> >thomaswheat<***@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
>
> >ThomasWheat(35)
> >1131EvansDr.
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95405
> > Email:***@hotmail.com
> > 707-542-2288 (landline)
> > 707-291-4931 (cellphone)
>
> > Street view:
> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1131+Evan...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3sjzv8j
>
> > [ThomasWheat]
> > Stepfather:ThomasS. McIntyre, 64
> > Tommy's Mommy: Margaret A.Wheat, 57
> > Tommy's Little Sister: Tara A.Wheat, 26
> > 209 Simone Pl S
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95409
> > 707-540-0234 (landline)
> > 707-321-1249 (cellphone)
>
> > MySpace:http://www.myspace.com/200119007
>
> > Pic:
> >http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/3f614cfd4a1930803c10a...
>
> > About: I am a single 32 year old college graduate with a degree in
> > history. I am passionate about politics and am proud to be a liberal.
>
> > Twitter Account:http://twitter.com/#!/thomaswheat1975
>
> > Website:http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/
Buster Norris
2011-06-24 02:11:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>we are
>producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
>had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oil dives to 4-mth low on IEA move
23 Jun 2011

"Oil prices crashed six per cent to a four-month low after the world's
consumer nations said they would band together to release emergency
oil reserves for the third time ever.

"The IEA said it would release 60 million barrels of oil from
strategic inventories, shocking traders and sending August Brent crude
futures more than $US8 lower. Brent settled at a four-month low of
$US107.26 a barrel, off $US6.95..

"US August crude dropped $US4.39 to settle at $US91.02 a barrel,
taking prices more than 20 per cent below their post-2008 high above
$US114 reached in early May."
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls-more-than-3-on-growth-worries-d-J4DPV?OpenDocument&src=hp1
thomas wheat
2011-06-24 21:51:13 UTC
Permalink
You didn't refute shit, the price of oil has gone down because Obama
decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regarding US Domestic oil drilling, and the tar sands shale reserves
of our respective countries, I'd like to metion pertinent facts. For
one thing ExxonMobil is heavily invested in the project. However,
there is alot of disinformation regarding the size, and overall crude
oil quality of USA and Canad's tar sands (shale oil) reserves. As I
have stated repeatedly in earlier posts in this thread, the amount of
oil we could supply with these reserves, along with the increased
costs of extraction and increased negative environmental impact,
associated with hydrofracking shale oil.

Furthermore, Shale oil (tar sands) has higher
sulphur content, which makes it have higher emissions, and
unsuitable for strategic refined assets such as deisal and jet fuel
which require light sweet
crude oil, of which the closest supplier is Venezuela, means that any
increased North American domestic oil production will have a marginal,
if in fact non-existent effect on oil prices, since the prices are set
by speculators and OPEC mostly, since the latter, has about 40 percent
of the world's total proven oil reserves. Also Its foolish to place
sanctions on Venezuela since they are one of the largest regional
suppliers of oil to the USA.

While they are a member of OPEC, Hugo Chavez's supposed connections to
terrorism, are clouded under the murky fear doctrine of Class warfare
and Backdoor Corporate Banana Republics,
long preached by the Dulles-Reaganite CIA "School Of America's"
assassination
Cult, in Congress. For one thing while Chavez has ties to FARC and
ETA, these groups are marginal threats compared to Al Qaeda, or the
right wing paramilitary groups associated with transnational
narco-trafficking in Columbia. It is the republican capitalist
ideological opposition to peasant based populism, that causes them to
place Cold war ideological era constructions regarding the threat of
Socialism misidentified with the threat of Communism. While he does
also have ties to Iran, lawmakers are overstating the connection,
since they are both OPEC countries. The difference between the two is,
Chavez has a representative democracy, and he has done more for the
poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideologues in
those states disavowed as reactionary. Trotsky favored permanent
revolution, as did Thomas Jefferson, regarding the tree of liberty,
must be
refreshed by the blood of patriots, periodically, etc.,!!!

Furthermore The USA has only 2 percent of the world's total oil
reserves. Secondly, US oil production is up over a million barrels
since 2005, and is in fact at a 20 year high, so our increased oil
production is not having an effect on oil prices. Furthermore it takes
10 year to get an oil rig at peak production, so increased drilling
will have no effect on prices now, and also our oil companies will
most likely export it China, where they can command higher prices,
since the largest demand for oil is in Asia.

Oil Prices fell to 91 dollars a barrel yesterday, because USA
president Obama, released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic
petroleum reserve, though this is about equivelant to one day of the
world's total demand for oil, so its a short term fix, for spiking oil
prices. If you rember, last year or the year before, oil was 2.72 a
gallon average in the USA, and now its about 3.89 a gallon where I
live, despite the increased oil production. It peaked at about 4.15 a
gallon about a month ago. The reason oil prices have fallen, is
because 1.) Obama released 30 million barrels from the strategic
petroleum reserve. 2.) IEA, non OPEC member nations agreed to release
an additional 30 million barrels into the world market in an attempt
to drive down prices, as response to OPEC member nations, withholding
supply to drive up the cost of oil per barrel.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html

excerpt
"
International Energy Agency releases oil from Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to help lower prices
By STEVE EVERLY
The Kansas City Star
It worked, too, though how long it will last isn’t clear.

The 28-member International Energy Agency surprised the markets with
its announcement that 60 million barrels of oil would be released from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about half coming from the United
States.

The move signaled a more aggressive stance toward using the stockpiles
to lower prices, although the extra oil will be enough to satisfy only
an estimated 18 hours of world demand. On Thursday, the U.S. oil
benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, dropped $4.39 a barrel and
closed at $91.02.

However, this is only temporary. And we will be held hostage by the
speculators, and OPEC Middle Eastern Authoritarian Countries and the
ensuing security liability, increased Terrorism until we transition
to an alternative fuel source, such as hydrogen fuel cell, Biomass,
and hybrid technology, and the TOKAMAK NUCLEAR FUSION TEST REACTOR!!

http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477

It is a proven fact that oil supplies will be exhausted by year 2100,
and then the world's population will be over 10 billion people reduced
to a state of cannibalistic anarchy if we dont transition to an
alternative fuel sources.

thomaswheat1975

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/3f23268ccbfc53fa

On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> You didn't refute shit, the price of oil has gone down because Obama
> decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
> petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
> Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
> president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
> production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
> rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
> at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
> supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
> produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
> through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
> nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
> engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
> content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
> say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
> contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
> day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
> oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 23, 7:11 pm, Buster Norris <***@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
>
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >we are
> > >producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > >had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC
>
> > LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Oil dives to 4-mth low on IEA move
> > 23 Jun 2011
>
> > "Oil prices crashed six per cent to a four-month low after the world's
> > consumer nations said they would band together to release emergency
> > oil reserves for the third time ever.
>
> > "The IEA said it would release 60 million barrels of oil from
> > strategic inventories, shocking traders and sending August Brent crude
> > futures more than $US8 lower. Brent settled at a four-month low of
> > $US107.26 a barrel, off $US6.95..
>
> > "US August crude dropped $US4.39 to settle at $US91.02 a barrel,
> > taking prices more than 20 per cent below their post-2008 high above
> > $US114 reached in early May."http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls...
s***@yahoo.com
2011-07-01 17:28:36 UTC
Permalink
latest discussion archived at alt.politics.democrats.d

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de

I've posted approximatelly 55 posts in this thread,
regarding the fallacious view that increased US domestic oil drilling
will not lower oil prices, since the prioe is set by overall global
demand, OPEC, and futures speculators. I've tried to convince these
neocons, of the viability of renewable fuel sources like hydrogen,
biomass and nuclear fusion. Here's the link to the European union's
website on Nuclear fusion regarding environmental impact of the
Tokamak nuclear fusion power plant.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm


check it out. Sooner or later we must transition from fossil fuels to
hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, biomass, etc., since world oil
reserves will be exhausted by year 2100. With world demand currently
at 60 million barrels a day, and with world population projected to be
at or above 10 billion people by year 2100 this is a plausible
scenario to conjecture.

Also the Energy Information administration in its 2011 energy outlook
study predicts that the price of oil will be 200 dollars a barrel by
2030, translating into 8 dollars a gallon of gasoline. http://www.eia.gov
please see prior posts in this discussion thread, for link to the
study.


This is hardly sustainable economically or environementally. Also our
demand for oil, forces us to committ ourselves to expensive military
interventions in
the middle east, in support of ruthless despots, that reinforces
collective arab opinion that we are the source of their repression.
Our interventions in behalf off these despots, fuels arab animosity,
that translates into greater security liabilities for us, as we are
forced to repel or respond to terrroist attacks. Furthermore, the oil
market is rigged by speculators. The CEO of exxon even admitted in
congressional testimony that 40% of the price of gasoline at the pump
was due to speculation.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html

Hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas and deuterium-tritium, are not
subject to speculators, and the latter, has unlimited inexhaustable
supplies here on earth. We need to build this nuclear fusion power
plant. http://www.pppl.gov/fusionpowerplant.cfm


As a short term solution we need to improve fuel economy. WE already
have the technology. see this study, the oil companies have been
repressing patents and innovation. THey have no desire to see us
increase fuel productivity, because they have grown fat and lazy on
the corporate welfare subsidies we tax payers provide them.
Furthermore this has not encouraged them to transition to alternative
fuel sources, even though we have a finite supply, because they
benefit trmendously when their are price spikes in oil prices.


How to Improve Fuel Economy


Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
(then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell
writing
of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in
1968
and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.


http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3

Article about the 1959 Opel that got over 350 miles to the gallon,
and
that if it were made more drivable, you would still be able to get
over 175 miles to the gallon.


http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

you can buy the book here:


http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/

Furthermore,
if we could get the whole US electricity grid powered by natural gas,
hydrogen fuel cell and by the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor, we
could reduce our yearly consumption of oil by over 30%. If we powered
our cars with hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas and or biomass, we
wouldn't have to intiate the 100's of billions of foreign transfer of
US wealth to Arab despots. We could break the cycle of despotism and
terrorism if we stopped buying oil from the middle east. The future
is
now. Humanity needs only to act upon it!!!

long term we must make the transition, to the TOKAMAK nuclear
fusion reactor. The fuel source that powers the reactor is virtually
inexhaustable, and cheap. Besides Tritium, Deuterium and Lithium are
some of the most abundant elements on earth, and the tokamak,
requires
fewer quantities of these materials say compared to a coal power
plant's demand for coal. The europeans have taken the lead in
construction the fusion reactor. However, we had a Tokamak nuclear
fusion reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Institute, for over 20
years. It met all of its target goals, but was discontinued. This
proves that there is a conspiracy, in the United States of America,
by
the oil and coal companies to defeat the commercial production of
nuclear fusion power plants. The fact is if we don't restore funding
for the Tokamak, by 2015 or 2020 when the European union finishes
construction of the first commercial reactor, we will be left behind
in the dust of fossil fuel reactionary statism. Already our
infrastructure in america is crumbling. If we didn't have to spend so
much on oil/gasoline, we could repair our infrastructure. Fusion
power
is cheap inexhaustable, and doesn't have the terrorist byproduct
associated with purchasing oil from middle eastern authoritarian
countries. main website of the project: http://www.iter.org


President Obama should restore funding for this vital program


Monopoly capitalism: How to standardize consumption but fragment
production

thomaswheat1975











On Jun 24, 2:51 pm, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> You didn't refute shit, the price of oil has gone down because Obama
> decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
> petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
> Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
> president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
> production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
> rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
> at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
> supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
> produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
> through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
> nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
> engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
> content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
> say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
> contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
> day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
> oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Regarding US Domestic oil drilling, and the tar sands shale reserves
> of our respective countries, I'd like to metion pertinent facts. For
> one thing ExxonMobil is heavily invested in the project. However,
> there is alot of disinformation regarding the size, and overall crude
> oil quality of USA and Canad's tar sands (shale oil) reserves. As I
> have stated repeatedly in earlier posts in this thread, the amount of
> oil we could supply with these reserves, along with the increased
> costs of extraction and increased negative environmental impact,
> associated with hydrofracking shale  oil.
>
> Furthermore, Shale oil (tar sands) has higher
>  sulphur  content, which makes it have higher emissions, and
> unsuitable for strategic refined assets such as deisal and jet fuel
> which require light sweet
> crude oil, of which the closest supplier is Venezuela, means that any
> increased North American domestic oil production will have a marginal,
> if in fact non-existent effect on oil prices, since the prices are set
> by speculators and OPEC mostly, since the latter, has about 40 percent
> of the world's total proven oil reserves. Also Its foolish to place
> sanctions on Venezuela since they are one of the  largest regional
> suppliers of oil to the USA.
>
> While they are a member of OPEC, Hugo Chavez's supposed connections to
> terrorism, are clouded under the murky fear doctrine of Class warfare
> and Backdoor Corporate Banana Republics,
> long preached by the Dulles-Reaganite CIA "School Of America's"
> assassination
> Cult, in Congress. For one thing while Chavez has ties to FARC and
> ETA, these groups are marginal threats compared to Al Qaeda, or the
> right wing paramilitary groups associated with transnational
> narco-trafficking in Columbia. It is the republican capitalist
> ideological opposition to peasant based populism, that causes them to
> place Cold war ideological era constructions regarding the threat of
> Socialism misidentified with the threat of Communism. While he does
> also have ties to Iran, lawmakers are overstating the connection,
> since they are both OPEC countries. The difference between the two is,
> Chavez has a representative democracy, and he has done more for the
> poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
> Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
> the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
> Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideologues in
> those states disavowed as reactionary. Trotsky favored permanent
> revolution, as did Thomas Jefferson, regarding the tree of liberty,
> must be
> refreshed by the blood of patriots, periodically, etc.,!!!
>
> Furthermore The USA has only 2 percent of the world's total oil
> reserves. Secondly, US oil production is up over a million barrels
> since 2005, and is in fact at a 20 year high, so our increased oil
> production is not having an effect on oil prices. Furthermore it takes
> 10 year to get an oil rig at peak production, so increased drilling
> will have no effect on prices now, and also our oil companies will
> most likely export it China, where they can command higher prices,
> since the largest demand for oil is in Asia.
>
> Oil Prices fell to 91 dollars a barrel yesterday, because USA
> president Obama, released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic
> petroleum reserve, though this is about equivelant to one day of the
> world's total demand for oil, so its a short term fix, for spiking oil
> prices. If you rember, last year or the year before, oil was 2.72 a
> gallon average in the USA, and now its about 3.89 a gallon where I
> live, despite the increased oil production. It peaked at about 4.15 a
> gallon about a month ago. The reason oil prices have fallen, is
> because  1.) Obama released 30 million barrels from the strategic
> petroleum reserve. 2.) IEA, non OPEC member nations agreed to release
> an additional 30 million barrels into the world market in an attempt
> to drive down prices, as response to OPEC member nations, withholding
> supply to drive up the cost of oil per barrel.
>
> http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-age...
>
> excerpt
> "
> International Energy Agency releases oil from Strategic Petroleum
> Reserve to help lower prices
> By STEVE EVERLY
> The Kansas City Star
> It worked, too, though how long it will last isn’t clear.
>
> The 28-member International Energy Agency surprised the markets with
> its announcement that 60 million barrels of oil would be released from
> the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about half coming from the United
> States.
>
> The move signaled a more aggressive stance toward using the stockpiles
> to lower prices, although the extra oil will be enough to satisfy only
> an estimated 18 hours of world demand. On Thursday, the U.S. oil
> benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, dropped $4.39 a barrel and
> closed at $91.02.
>
> However, this is only temporary. And we will be held hostage by the
> speculators, and OPEC Middle Eastern Authoritarian Countries and the
> ensuing security liability, increased Terrorism until we transition
> to an alternative fuel source, such as hydrogen fuel cell, Biomass,
> and hybrid technology, and the TOKAMAK NUCLEAR FUSION TEST REACTOR!!
>
> http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477
>
>  It is a proven fact that oil supplies will be exhausted by year 2100,
> and then the world's population will be over 10 billion people reduced
> to a state of cannibalistic anarchy if we dont transition to an
> alternative fuel sources.
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> On Jun 23, 10:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You didn't refute shit, the price of oil has gone down because Obama
> > decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic
> > petroleum reserve. IEA also released an additional 30 million as well.
> > Bill Clinton made the recommendation, and I forwarded it to the
> > president two weeks ago. Obviously, this is not domestic oil
> > production, since no drilling was involved, and since at its current
> > rate, private domestic oil production has skyrocketed gasoline prices
> > at the pump. The price is falling because there is a surplus in
> > supply, above and beyond overall USA demand. Now I admit, if we could
> > produce 30 million barrels a week we could effect oil prices more
> > through domestic production, but we dont have those kinds of reserves,
> > nor the quality, light sweet crude, required for diesal and jet
> > engines. The US Tar sands reserves are overstated, high in sulphur
> > content, have higher emissions, and have higher extraction costs than
> > say oil from Russia. However, this is a short term fix, but
> > contingencies are in place for further operations. Have a nice
> > day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > PS you should be happy, for a brief time you wont be butt-raped by the
> > oil companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > The President's policies are working!!!HA HA HA Sucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> > On Jun 23, 7:11 pm, Buster Norris <***@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
>
> > > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >we are
> > > >producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > > >had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC
>
> > > LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > Oil dives to 4-mth low on IEA move
> > > 23 Jun 2011
>
> > > "Oil prices crashed six per cent to a four-month low after the world's
> > > consumer nations said they would band together to release emergency
> > > oil reserves for the third time ever.
>
> > > "The IEA said it would release 60 million barrels of oil from
> > > strategic inventories, shocking traders and sending August Brent crude
> > > futures more than $US8 lower. Brent settled at a four-month low of
> > > $US107.26 a barrel, off $US6.95..
>
> > > "US August crude dropped $US4.39 to settle at $US91.02 a barrel,
> > > taking prices more than 20 per cent below their post-2008 high above
> > > $US114 reached in early May."http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-4-Oil-falls...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RichTravsky
2011-06-24 15:46:49 UTC
Permalink
thomas wheat wrote:
> see this link:
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6
>
> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
>
> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> it as US Domestic oil drilling.

Also of interest:
Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
drilling.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-oil-speculation/
May 26, 2011
...
The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
Sanders said.

The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
a gallon at the pump.
...

Canada was also seeing high gas prices.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas-industry-executives-over-soaring-pump-prices/article2019582/

May. 12, 2011

The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.

With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
in Ottawa.
...

>
> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> 95405, 707-542-2288" <***@dumbass.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
> >
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
> >
> > >at this link,
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
> >
> > >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > >into a third world banana republic
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-24 18:54:47 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 24, 11:46 am, RichTravsky <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> thomas wheat wrote:
> > see this link:
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>
> > and then this link:  where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> > theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> > percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> > producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> > Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>
> > case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> > that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> > grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> > these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> > hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> > environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> > drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> > it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> Also of interest:
> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> drilling.

My friend from Canada,

Regarding US Domestic oil drilling, and the tar sands shale reserves
of our respective countries, I'd like to metion pertinent facts. For
one thing ExxonMobil is heavily invested in the project. However,
there is alot of disinformation regarding the size, and overall crude
oil quality of USA and Canad's tar sands (shale oil) reserves. As I
have stated repeatedly in earlier posts in this thread, the amount of
oil we could supply with these reserves, along with the increased
costs of extraction associated with hydrofracking shale oil,
including along with, the fact that it has high sulphur content,
which makes it have higher emissions, and unsuitable for strategic
refined assets such as diesal and jet fuel which require light sweet
crude oil, of which the closest supplier is Venezuela, means that any
increased North American domestic oil production will have a marginal,
if in fact non-existent effect on oil prices, since the prices are set
by speculators and OPEC mostly, since the latter, has about 40 percent
of the world's total proven oil reserves. Also Its foolish to place
sanctions on Venezuela since they are one of the largest regional
suppliers of oil to the USA.

While they are a member of OPEC, Hugo Chavez's supposed connections to
terrorism, are clouded under the murky fear doctrine of Class warfare
long preached by the Reaganite CIA "School Of America's" assassination
Cult, in Congress. For one thing while Chavez has ties to FARC and
ETA, these groups are marginal threats compared to Al Qaeda, or the
right wing paramilitary groups associated with transnational
narcotrafficking in Columbia. It is the republican capitalist
ideological opposition to peasant based populism, that causes them to
place Cold war ideological era constructions regarding the threat of
Socialism misidentified with the threat of Communism. While he does
also have ties to Iran, lawmakers are overstating the connection,
since they are both OPEC countries. The difference between the two is,
Chavez has a representitive democracy, and he has done more for the
poverty stricken in Venezuela then any president before him.
Furthermore Venezuela is not a socialist economy, since 66 percent of
the economy is in the private sector. He favors Trotsky over Marx,
Stalin, Mao, or Lenin, of which the other communist ideolouges in
those states disavowed as reactionary. Trotsky favored permanent
revolution, as did Jefferson, regarding the tree of liberty, must be
refreshed by the blood of patriots, periodically, etc.,!!!

Furthermore The USA has only 2 percent of the world's total oil
reserves. Secondly, US oil production is up over a million barrels
since 2005, and is in fact at a 20 year high, so our increased oil
production is not having an effect on oil prices. Furthermore it takes
10 year to get an oil rig at peak production, so increased drilling
will have no effect on prices now, and also our oil companies will
most likely export it China, where they can command higher prices,
since the largest demand for oil is in Asia.

Oil Prices fell to 91 dollars a barrel yesterday, because USA
president Obama, released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic
petroleum reserve, though this is about equivelant to one day of the
world's total demand for oil, so its a short term fix, for spiking oil
prices. If you rember, last year or the year before, oil was 2.72 a
gallon average in the USA, and now its about 3.89 a gallon where I
live, despite the increased oil production. It peaked at about 4.15 a
gallon about a month ago. The reason oil prices have fallen, is
because 1.) Obama released 30 million barrels from the strategic
petroleum reserve. 2.) IEA, non OPEC member nations agreed to release
an additional 30 million barrels into the world market in an attempt
to drive down prices, as response to OPEC member nations, withholding
supply to drive up the cost of oil per barrel.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html

excerpt
"
International Energy Agency releases oil from Strategic Petroleum
Reserve to help lower prices
By STEVE EVERLY
The Kansas City Star
It worked, too, though how long it will last isn’t clear.

The 28-member International Energy Agency surprised the markets with
its announcement that 60 million barrels of oil would be released from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about half coming from the United
States.

The move signaled a more aggressive stance toward using the stockpiles
to lower prices, although the extra oil will be enough to satisfy only
an estimated 18 hours of world demand. On Thursday, the U.S. oil
benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, dropped $4.39 a barrel and
closed at $91.02.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/23/2971403/international-energy-agency-releases.html

However, this is only tempoary. And we will be held hostage by the
speculators, and OPEC Middle Eastern Authoraritarian Countries and the
ensuing security liability, increased terrorisim until we transition
to an alternative fuel source, such as hydrogen fuel cell, Biomass,
and hybrid technology, and the TOKAMAK NUCLEAR FUSION TEST REACTOR!!

http://f4e.europa.eu/mediacorner/newsview.aspx?content=477

It is a proven fact that oil supplies will be exhausted by year 2100,
and then the world's population will be over 10 billion people reduced
to a state of cannibalistic anarchy if we dont transition to an
alternative fuel sources.
thomaswheat1975

>  http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
>  May 26, 2011
>  ...
>  The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
>  In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
>  oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
>  lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
>  mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
>  fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
>  speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
>  Sanders said.
>
>  The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
>  that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
>  percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
>  oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
>  a gallon at the pump.
>  ...
>
> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>
>  May. 12, 2011
>
>  The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
>  fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
>  representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>
>  With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
>  country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
>  industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
>  in Ottawa.
>  ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> > 95405, 707-542-2288" <***@dumbass.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> > > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> > > >at this link,
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> > > >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > > >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > > >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > > >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > > >into a third world banana republic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-24 20:31:12 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 24, 8:46 am, RichTravsky <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> thomas wheat wrote:
> > see this link:
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>
> > and then this link:  where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> > theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> > percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> > producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> > Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>
> > case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> > that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> > grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> > these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> > hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> > environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> > drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> > it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> Also of interest:
> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> drilling.
>
>  http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
>  May 26, 2011
>  ...
>  The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
>  In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
>  oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
>  lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
>  mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
>  fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
>  speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
>  Sanders said.
>
>  The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
>  that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
>  percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
>  oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
>  a gallon at the pump.
>  ...
>
> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.

That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
Canada has a plentiful supply.

2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
thomaswheat1975
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>
>  May. 12, 2011
>
>  The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
>  fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
>  representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>
>  With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
>  country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
>  industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
>  in Ottawa.
>  ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> > 95405, 707-542-2288" <***@dumbass.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> > > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> > > >at this link,
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> > > >You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > > >wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > > >vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > > >rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > > >into a third world banana republic
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-24 23:07:42 UTC
Permalink
On 6/24/2011 4:31 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:46 am, RichTravsky<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> thomas wheat wrote:
>>> see this link:
>>
>>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>>
>>> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>>
>>> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
>>> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
>>> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
>>> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
>>> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
>>> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>>
>>> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
>>> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
>>> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
>>> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
>>> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
>>> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
>>> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
>>> it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>>
>> Also of interest:
>> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
>> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
>> drilling.
>>
>> http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
>> May 26, 2011
>> ...
>> The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
>> In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
>> oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
>> lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
>> mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
>> fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
>> speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
>> Sanders said.
>>
>> The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
>> that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
>> percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
>> oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
>> a gallon at the pump.
>> ...
>>
>> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>
> That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
> production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
> American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
> earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
> right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
> spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
> Canada has a plentiful supply.
>
> 2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> "Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
> on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
> domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
> the United
> States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
> condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
> per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
> supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
> natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
> production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
> for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
> thomaswheat1975
>>
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>>
>> May. 12, 2011
>>
>> The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
>> fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
>> representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>>
>> With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
>> country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
>> industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
>> in Ottawa.
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
>>> 95405, 707-542-2288"<***@dumbass.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>>
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>>
>>>>> at this link,
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>>
>>>>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
>>>>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
>>>>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
>>>>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
>>>>> into a third world banana republic
>


We cannot produce enough fossil fuel energy to solve our mid-term
problems, let alone long range problems.

Natural gas is experiencing the same problems that oil ran into ---
production not meeting rosy initial projections, heavier than expected
pollution, higher than expected energy and other costs required for
production and transportation.

NG will also require a massive infrastructure investment for
distribution and consumer sales, and another massive investment to
retool transportation to use it.

Conservation can cut oil usage by more than half in 10 years using off
the shelf technology in existing car and truck bodies. Smart growth,
mass transit, both local and inter-city, electric conservation (19% of
electric generation is used for outside lights, most of which is
unneeded, inefficient, or can be replaced by solar electric generation)
that will cut coal and NG consumption, and other no - to- low cost
options are the long term solution.

Renewables are close to market ready --- the investment of the
equivalent of 1 month of the big 5 oil companies' profits will make
algal diesel and non-food based ethanol market ready. NG can also be
produced in large amounts from agricultural sources --- India uses
digested agricultural waste, for ex., to generate electricity in
hundreds of rural communities, New Hampshire generates 5% - 10% of its
electricity from cow poo.

This approach has many advantages over the "business as usual" plan of
expanding fossil fuel extraction and nuclear electric generation:

1. startup costs are literally $TRILLIONS less than CNG, hydrogen,
nuclear and the like. Instead of building new infrastructure, existing
infrastructure is used or retired. Algal diesel and ethanol, for
example, can be dispensed from the same pumps we get gasoline from today.

2. Pollution is vastly decreased, along with public health problems and
infrastructure degradation from sulfur/chlorine compounds.

3. The business as usual paradigm is unsustainable. We are running out
of land for roads, right of ways for electric lines and transformer
farms, farmland and wetlands, and recreation. The land for the last 12
miles of the I485 loop around Charlotte, NC cost more than twice as much
than the other 35 miles. Congestion in Atlanta is so bad it can take
over an hour to get 20 miles, yet land for another beltway is unavailable.

4. Capital is freed up for other uses. Consumers, businesses, government
--- everybody --- will need to spend less on energy letting them spend
more on ...

Larry
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-25 01:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.

SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
PLANT!!!!


***@pppl.gov

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html

Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
prices. It benefits the consumer to increase production. Secondly you
dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
secretes oil, like what http://www.syntheticgenomics.com is
developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
create hydrogen fuel cells.

https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php

The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
radioactive byproduct is Tritium, which has a radioactive half life of
12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
what I write, before you retort minimally. However, better fuel
economy is a start, but that is a short term solution. Then you will
here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!

http://www.iter.org/mach

ITER: the world's largest Tokamak

ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
fuel—a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen—is
heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million°C, forming a hot
plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
areas of fusion technology development.

In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
fusion.

In 1995, TFTR scientists explored a new fundamental mode of plasma
confinement -- enhanced reversed shear. This new technique involves a
magnetic-field configuration which substantially reduces plasma
turbulence.
U.S. Department of Energy Logo Princeton University Logo Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory Logo
PPPL is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by
Princeton University.

About PPPL || How to Contact PPPL || News at PPPL || Fusion Basics
Research Projects || Technology Transfer || Education Programs
Publications || Meetings and Colloquia || PPPL Home Page

Updated: 7 October 2005
Send questions or comments to:
Anthony R. DeMeo at ***@pppl.gov
WITNESS THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THOMASWHEAT1975

On Jun 24, 4:07 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 4:31 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 8:46 am, RichTravsky<***@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> thomas wheat wrote:
> >>> see this link:
>
> >>>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> >>> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>
> >>> and then this link:  where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> >>> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> >>> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> >>> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> >>> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> >>> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>
> >>> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> >>> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> >>> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> >>> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> >>> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> >>> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> >>> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> >>> it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> >> Also of interest:
> >> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> >> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> >> drilling.
>
> >>  http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
> >>   May 26, 2011
> >>   ...
> >>   The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
> >>   In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
> >>   oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
> >>   lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
> >>   mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
> >>   fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
> >>   speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
> >>   Sanders said.
>
> >>   The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
> >>   that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
> >>   percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
> >>   oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
> >>   a gallon at the pump.
> >>   ...
>
> >> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>
> > That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
> > production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
> > American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
> > earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
> > right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
> > spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
> > Canada has a plentiful supply.
>
> > 2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > "Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
> > on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
> > domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
> > the United
> > States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
> > condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
> > per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
> > supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
> > natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
> > production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
> > for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>
> >>   May. 12, 2011
>
> >>   The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
> >>   fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
> >>   representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>
> >>   With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
> >>   country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
> >>   industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
> >>   in Ottawa.
> >>   ...
>
> >>> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> >>> 95405, 707-542-2288"<***@dumbass.com>  wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> >>>> <***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> >>>>> at this link,
>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> >>>>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> >>>>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> >>>>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> >>>>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> >>>>> into a third world banana republic
>
> We cannot produce enough fossil fuel energy to solve our mid-term
> problems, let alone long range problems.
>
> Natural gas is experiencing the same problems that oil ran into ---
> production not meeting rosy initial projections, heavier than expected
> pollution, higher than expected energy and other costs required for
> production and transportation.
>
> NG will also require a massive infrastructure investment for
> distribution and consumer sales, and another massive investment to
> retool transportation to use it.
>
> Conservation can cut oil usage by more than half in 10 years using off
> the shelf technology in existing car and truck bodies.  Smart growth,
> mass transit, both local and inter-city, electric conservation (19% of
> electric generation is used for outside lights, most of which is
> unneeded, inefficient, or can be replaced by solar electric generation)
>   that will cut coal and NG consumption, and other no - to- low cost
> options are the long term solution.
>
> Renewables are close to market ready --- the investment of the
> equivalent of 1 month of the big 5 oil companies' profits will make
> algal diesel and non-food based ethanol market ready. NG can also be
> produced in large amounts from agricultural sources --- India uses
> digested agricultural waste, for ex., to generate electricity in
> hundreds of rural communities, New Hampshire generates 5% - 10% of its
> electricity from cow poo.
>
> This approach has many advantages over  the "business as usual" plan of
> expanding fossil fuel extraction and nuclear electric generation:
>
> 1. startup costs are literally $TRILLIONS less than CNG, hydrogen,
> nuclear and the like. Instead of building new infrastructure, existing
> infrastructure is used or retired. Algal diesel and ethanol, for
> example, can be dispensed from the same pumps we get gasoline from today.
>
> 2. Pollution is vastly decreased, along with public health problems and
> infrastructure degradation from sulfur/chlorine compounds.
>
> 3. The business as usual paradigm is unsustainable. We are running out
> of land for roads, right of ways for electric lines and transformer
> farms, farmland and wetlands, and recreation.  The land for the last 12
> miles of the I485 loop around Charlotte, NC cost more than twice as much
> than the other 35 miles. Congestion in Atlanta is so bad it can take
> over an hour to get 20 miles, yet land for another beltway is unavailable.
>
> 4. Capital is freed up for other uses. Consumers, businesses, government
> --- everybody --- will need to spend less on energy letting them spend
> more on ...
>
> Larry
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-25 02:34:05 UTC
Permalink
I never said an increase supply of oil would decrease oil prices. What
I said, was increased USA domestic oil drilling will not lower prices,
time to invest in photovoltaeic solar cells, natural gas, synthetic
microbial algae that secretes oil, hydrogen fuel cell, solid hydrogen
fuel, and the Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor!!!!

contact ***@pppl.gov !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eat shit Buster Norris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

On Jun 24, 6:38 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> PLANT!!!!
>
> ***@pppl.gov
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> prices. It benefits the consumer to increase production. Secondly you
> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
> radioactive byproduct is Tritium, which has a radioactive half life of
> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> what I write, before you retort minimally. However, better fuel
> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution. Then you will
> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> fuel—a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen—is
> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million°C, forming a hot
> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> areas of fusion technology development.
>
> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
> to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
> fusion.
>
> In 1995, TFTR scientists explored a new fundamental mode of plasma
> confinement -- enhanced reversed shear. This new technique involves a
> magnetic-field configuration which substantially reduces plasma
> turbulence.
> U.S. Department of Energy Logo Princeton University Logo Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory Logo
> PPPL is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by
> Princeton University.
>
> About PPPL || How to Contact PPPL || News at PPPL || Fusion Basics
> Research Projects || Technology Transfer || Education Programs
> Publications || Meetings and Colloquia || PPPL Home Page
>
> Updated: 7 October 2005
> Send questions or comments to:
> Anthony R. DeMeo at ***@pppl.gov
> WITNESS THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THOMASWHEAT1975
>
> On Jun 24, 4:07 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/24/2011 4:31 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 8:46 am, RichTravsky<***@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> thomas wheat wrote:
> > >>> see this link:
>
> > >>>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > >>> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>
> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>
> > >>> and then this link:  where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> > >>> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> > >>> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> > >>> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> > >>> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> > >>> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>
> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>
> > >>> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >>> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> > >>> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> > >>> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
> > >>> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
> > >>> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> > >>> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> > >>> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> > >>> it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>
> > >> Also of interest:
> > >> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
> > >> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
> > >> drilling.
>
> > >>  http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
> > >>   May 26, 2011
> > >>   ...
> > >>   The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
> > >>   In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
> > >>   oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
> > >>   lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
> > >>   mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
> > >>   fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
> > >>   speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
> > >>   Sanders said.
>
> > >>   The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
> > >>   that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
> > >>   percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
> > >>   oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
> > >>   a gallon at the pump.
> > >>   ...
>
> > >> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>
> > > That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
> > > production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
> > > American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
> > > earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
> > > right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
> > > spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
> > > Canada has a plentiful supply.
>
> > > 2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration
>
> > >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> > > "Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
> > > on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
> > > domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
> > > the United
> > > States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
> > > condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
> > > per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
> > > supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
> > > natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
> > > production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
> > > for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
> > > thomaswheat1975
>
> > >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>
> > >>   May. 12, 2011
>
> > >>   The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
> > >>   fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
> > >>   representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>
> > >>   With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
> > >>   country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
> > >>   industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
> > >>   in Ottawa.
> > >>   ...
>
> > >>> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
> > >>> 95405, 707-542-2288"<***@dumbass.com>  wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>
> > >>>> <***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >>>>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>
> > >>>>> at this link,
>
> > >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>
> > >>>>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
> > >>>>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
> > >>>>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
> > >>>>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
> > >>>>> into a third world banana republic
>
> > We cannot produce enough fossil fuel energy to solve our mid-term
> > problems, let alone long range problems....
>
> read more »
Jerry Okamura
2011-06-25 17:11:45 UTC
Permalink
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:d70923d6-33a7-49c7-8fd2-***@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...

I never said an increase supply of oil would decrease oil prices. What
I said, was increased USA domestic oil drilling will not lower prices,

Will it result in an increase in prices?

time to invest in photovoltaeic solar cells, natural gas, synthetic
microbial algae that secretes oil, hydrogen fuel cell, solid hydrogen
fuel, and the Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor!!!!

If the private sector wants to take the gamble, or if government wants to
take that gamble?
s***@yahoo.com
2011-06-26 13:12:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 25, 10:11 am, "Jerry Okamura" <***@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:d70923d6-33a7-49c7-8fd2-***@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I never said an increase supply of oil would decrease oil prices. What
> I said, was increased USA domestic oil drilling will not lower prices,
>
> Will it result in an increase in prices?

Jerry your a dip shit. The oil market is rigged by OPEC and
speculators. Goldman Sachs, says the price for oil is inflated by 20%
because of futures speculation, and the CEO of Exxon in testimony
before USA congress this May, said the price for Oil should be 60 - 70
dollars a barrel, or about 2.40 cents a gallon. So already prices are
too high. The only reason oil prices have dropped from above 100
dollars a barrel, as because 1.) the Saudi's agreed to supply more
oil, and they have the world's largest oil reserves, that dropped the
price to 99 dollars a barrel, then President Obama decided on
thursday, to release 30 million barrels from the strategic petroleum
reserve, and other non-OPEC oil producing states agreed to release an
additional 30 million barrels. That's why the price dropped to 91
dollars a barrel on friday. It did not drop because of increased US
domerstic oil drilling, dickwad. The market is flooded with Oil, but
this will only have a temporary effect on prices. Total world demand
for oil in one day is about 56 million barrels. The republicans are
angry about this temporary economic relief, and are trying to raise
the price of oil again, by sanctioning venezuela, even though they are
one of our largest regional suppliers, and Hugo Chavez, is no where
near as tyrannical, or connected to Terrorism, like the Saudi Royal
family. Everyone knows what a diabetic oligopoly they are, and the
fact that they are all pedophiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
>
> time to invest in photovoltaeic solar cells, natural gas, synthetic
> microbial algae that secretes oil, hydrogenfuelcell, solid hydrogenfuel, and the Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor!!!!
>
> If the private sector wants to take the gamble, or if government wants to
> take that gamble?
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-25 05:36:26 UTC
Permalink
On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> PLANT!!!!
>

I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.

EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
commercial application.

>
> ***@pppl.gov
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> prices.

So what?

As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
speculation and price fixing.

Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
not current.

It benefits the consumer to increase production.

Why?

So producers can make more money?

What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?

Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
that repugs are ending the federal rebates.

Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.

Secondly you
> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> secretes oil, like what http://www.syntheticgenomics.com is
> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>

I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
New Hampshire.


This was a center stage part of my discussion.

> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>

???

The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.

Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.

Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.

> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
> radioactive byproduct is Tritium,

That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
barriers to commercial use at the present.

Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.

Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.



which has a radioactive half life of
> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> what I write, before you retort minimally.

Yep, I read it.

You want further discussion on tokamaks?

No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.

The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.

The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.

As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
reaction, which is far less efficient.


However, better fuel
> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.

it is *THE* long term solution.

70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
close to 90%

NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
to diesel without the additives).

I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.

These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
into generators (admittedly long term)

Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
more out.


Then you will
> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>

Absolutely.

What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.

This means:

no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.

No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.

No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.

no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
energy.

no waiting for technology

less pollution, both chemical and light.

less disease

less infrastructure damage from emissions

less danger from foreign enemies.

more capital for "fun"

more freedom

more time.

Larry
> http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> fuel—a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen—is
> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million°C, forming a hot
> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> areas of fusion technology development.
>
> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
> to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
> fusion.
>
> In 1995, TFTR scientists explored a new fundamental mode of plasma
> confinement -- enhanced reversed shear. This new technique involves a
> magnetic-field configuration which substantially reduces plasma
> turbulence.
> U.S. Department of Energy Logo Princeton University Logo Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory Logo
> PPPL is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by
> Princeton University.
>
> About PPPL || How to Contact PPPL || News at PPPL || Fusion Basics
> Research Projects || Technology Transfer || Education Programs
> Publications || Meetings and Colloquia || PPPL Home Page
>
> Updated: 7 October 2005
> Send questions or comments to:
> Anthony R. DeMeo at ***@pppl.gov
> WITNESS THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THOMASWHEAT1975
>
> On Jun 24, 4:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2011 4:31 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 8:46 am, RichTravsky<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> thomas wheat wrote:
>>>>> see this link:
>>
>>>>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>>
>>>>> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a364...
>>
>>>>> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
>>>>> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
>>>>> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
>>>>> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
>>>>> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
>>>>> Financial Futures Market Speculators.
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd0...
>>
>>>>> case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
>>>>> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
>>>>> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's light sweet crude, and
>>>>> these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard fuel, and the
>>>>> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
>>>>> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
>>>>> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
>>>>> it as US Domestic oil drilling.
>>
>>>> Also of interest:
>>>> Offshore drilling has nothing to do with it, especially
>>>> considering that the governors of Florida and California were against offshore
>>>> drilling.
>>
>>>> http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/26/sanders-demands-that-commission-curb-o...
>>>> May 26, 2011
>>>> ...
>>>> The national average price for regular gasoline today is $3.82 a gallon.
>>>> In Vermont, the price tops $3.90 a gallon. Meanwhile, the supply of crude
>>>> oil is higher than it was two years ago and the demand for gasoline is
>>>> lower than two years ago, when a gallon of gas cost only $2.30. "There is
>>>> mounting evidence that the sky-high price of gas has nothing to do with the
>>>> fundamentals of supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street
>>>> speculators jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market,"
>>>> Sanders said.
>>
>>>> The CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, recently testified before Congress
>>>> that Wall Street speculators are driving up the price of oil as much as 40
>>>> percent. Goldman Sachs has said that at least 20 percent of the price of
>>>> oil comes from excessive speculation. That translates into about 70 cents
>>>> a gallon at the pump.
>>>> ...
>>
>>>> Canada was also seeing high gas prices.
>>
>>> That's why it makes sense for the USA and Canada to increase
>>> production of Natural Gas to introduce into the USA Canada North
>>> American Market, because according to the EIA.gov study I cited
>>> earlier in this discussion thread, Natrual gas prices are fairly low
>>> right now, and the North American Market is more insulated from price
>>> spikes in this commodity, since both countries are integrated, and US-
>>> Canada has a plentiful supply.
>>
>>> 2011 Energy outlook, Energy Information Administration
>>
>>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>>
>>> "Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
>>> on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
>>> domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
>>> the United
>>> States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
>>> condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
>>> per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
>>> supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
>>> natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
>>> production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
>>> for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
>>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-to-grill-gas...
>>
>>>> May. 12, 2011
>>
>>>> The re-elected Harper government has decided the best way to defuse the
>>>> fury of car owners stuck with skyrocketing gas prices is to haul industry
>>>> representatives before a committee for a tongue-lashing.
>>
>>>> With gasoline selling for more than $1.40 cents a litre in parts of the
>>>> country, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he plans to ask key
>>>> industry executives to explain themselves before parliamentary hearings
>>>> in Ottawa.
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, "Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA
>>>>> 95405, 707-542-2288"<***@dumbass.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT),thomaswheat
>>
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> You were already clowned by me at alt.politics.democrats.d
>>
>>>>>>> at this link,
>>
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/65389faaa...
>>
>>>>>>> You and your toady right wing pedophile trust-funder Buster Norris,
>>>>>>> wont get your SSI check come August 2nd of this year, if USA doesn't
>>>>>>> vote to raise the debt ceiling (limit) ha, ha!! so keep supporting the
>>>>>>> rank file corporatist republicans, they mean to turn this country
>>>>>>> into a third world banana republic
>>
>> We cannot produce enough fossil fuel energy to solve our mid-term
>> problems, let alone long range problems.
>>
>> Natural gas is experiencing the same problems that oil ran into ---
>> production not meeting rosy initial projections, heavier than expected
>> pollution, higher than expected energy and other costs required for
>> production and transportation.
>>
>> NG will also require a massive infrastructure investment for
>> distribution and consumer sales, and another massive investment to
>> retool transportation to use it.
>>
>> Conservation can cut oil usage by more than half in 10 years using off
>> the shelf technology in existing car and truck bodies. Smart growth,
>> mass transit, both local and inter-city, electric conservation (19% of
>> electric generation is used for outside lights, most of which is
>> unneeded, inefficient, or can be replaced by solar electric generation)
>> that will cut coal and NG consumption, and other no - to- low cost
>> options are the long term solution.
>>
>> Renewables are close to market ready --- the investment of the
>> equivalent of 1 month of the big 5 oil companies' profits will make
>> algal diesel and non-food based ethanol market ready. NG can also be
>> produced in large amounts from agricultural sources --- India uses
>> digested agricultural waste, for ex., to generate electricity in
>> hundreds of rural communities, New Hampshire generates 5% - 10% of its
>> electricity from cow poo.
>>
>> This approach has many advantages over the "business as usual" plan of
>> expanding fossil fuel extraction and nuclear electric generation:
>>
>> 1. startup costs are literally $TRILLIONS less than CNG, hydrogen,
>> nuclear and the like. Instead of building new infrastructure, existing
>> infrastructure is used or retired. Algal diesel and ethanol, for
>> example, can be dispensed from the same pumps we get gasoline from today.
>>
>> 2. Pollution is vastly decreased, along with public health problems and
>> infrastructure degradation from sulfur/chlorine compounds.
>>
>> 3. The business as usual paradigm is unsustainable. We are running out
>> of land for roads, right of ways for electric lines and transformer
>> farms, farmland and wetlands, and recreation. The land for the last 12
>> miles of the I485 loop around Charlotte, NC cost more than twice as much
>> than the other 35 miles. Congestion in Atlanta is so bad it can take
>> over an hour to get 20 miles, yet land for another beltway is unavailable.
>>
>> 4. Capital is freed up for other uses. Consumers, businesses, government
>> --- everybody --- will need to spend less on energy letting them spend
>> more on ...
>>
>> Larry
>
thomas wheat
2011-06-25 07:20:02 UTC
Permalink
regarding discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/f8245eefd490c169?lnk=raot#f8245eefd490c169


I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
chlorine boosters!!!

I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
based rocket propellants.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm

f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
force through 2020.

Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Contractor: Boeing Co.
Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
first stage, Thiokol;
second stage, Aerojet-General;
third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout

On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > PLANT!!!!
>
> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
Fusion Power plant.
>
> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> commercial application.
European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> > ***@pppl.gov
>
> >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > prices.
>
The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
1970's!

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#ixzz1JeI5AXln

Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?

That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.

Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.

Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
Florida.

Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
and engineering.



> So what?
>
> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> speculation and price fixing.

Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
gallon.
>
> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> not current.
>
> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
will rise soon.

Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
nuclear weapons technology from Iran, or that he has substantial
terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
theory.

Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
identification, since these smugglers can easily cross through the
border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> Why?
>
> So producers can make more money?
Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>
> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
> amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?

then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
company
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com if they thought that synthetic
microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
genome sequencing project.
>
> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the
mid-west where winters are harsh.
>
> Secondly you
>
> > dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> > secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
> > developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> > non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> > create hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
> New Hampshire.
now your talking out of your clusterfuck ass!!!!!
So your vision of the 21 st century, is cars powered by methane, pig
shit, like in"Mad Max Beyond Thunderfdome" starring Mel Gibson. Eat
shit, Synthetic Genomics is the wave of the future. Might you be
opposed to the companies success because you are creationist who
believes that the world is only 6500 years old, and that there will be
a rapture. How many suckiers fell for that this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>
> >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> > use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> ???
>
> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.

The MinuteMan III uses solid fuel stage propellant.
>
> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
> pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
> years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>
> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
that's where the fuel cell comes in. They have the technology, your
like the guy who still wants to sell carriages, and rig the market so
that there will always be horse drawn carriages, instead of the
automobile.
>
> > Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> > device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> > you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> > power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> > then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
> > radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>
> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
> barriers to commercial use at the present.
you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fact: Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. look it up, you just talk out
of your ass. Secondly there is no implosion or splitting of atoms as
is used in fission power. The proton-Proton cycle, fuses 2 isotopes of
hydrogen, into helium 3 and helium 4, whereby magnetic plasma inertial
confinement powers the core. Regarding neutron radiation, I'll be
honest, it only has a half life of at most a 100 years. Look it up
yourself, here

http://www.fusion-eur.org/

>
> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>
> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>
> which has a radioactive half life of
>
> > 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> > what I write, before you retort minimally.
>
> Yep, I read it.
>
> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>
> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>
> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
> combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>
> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>
> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>
> However, better fuel
>
> > economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>
> it is *THE* long term solution.
>
> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
> close to 90%
>
> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
> to diesel without the additives).
>
> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>
> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
> into generators (admittedly long term)
>
> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
> more out.
>
> Then you will
>
> > here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> > in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> > COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> > MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> > MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>
> This means:
>
> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
you are talking out of your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
you must be stupid and inbred, you already acknowledged it was a coal
miners right to rape his sister, you are fuckin mental
dude!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
>
> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>
> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
> energy.
>
> no waiting for technology
>
> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>
> less disease
>
> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>
> less danger from foreign enemies.
>
> more capital for "fun"
>
> more freedom
>
> more time.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> > ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> > ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> > which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> > fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
> > heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
> > plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> > the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> > vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> > Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> > of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> > degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> > well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> > addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> > hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> > areas of fusion technology development.
>
> > In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> > device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> > deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> > production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> > million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> > more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> > behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> > reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>
> read more »



On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > PLANT!!!!
>
> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> commercial application.
>
>
>
> > ***@pppl.gov
>
> >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > prices.
>
> So what?
>
> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> speculation and price fixing.
>
> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> not current.
>
> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> Why?
>
> So producers can make more money?
>
> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> Secondly you
>
> > dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> > secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
> > developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> > non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> > create hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
> New Hampshire.
>
> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>
> >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> > use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> ???
>
> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>
> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
> pressures, a laboratory only animal.  The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
> years ago let a small ($2 M?)  contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>
> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>
> > Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> > device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> > you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> > power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> > then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion,  and the only
> > radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>
> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
> barriers to commercial use at the present.
>
> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI  in batteries is a potential
> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>
> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>
> which has a radioactive half life of
>
> > 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> > what I write, before you retort minimally.
>
> Yep, I read it.
>
> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>
> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>
> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
> combustion engine:  the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>
> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>
> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>
> However, better fuel
>
> > economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>
> it is *THE* long term solution.
>
> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
> close to 90%
>
> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
> to diesel without the additives).
>
> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>
> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
> into generators (admittedly long term)
>
> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
> more out.
>
> Then you will
>
> > here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> > in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> > COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> > MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> > MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>
> This means:
>
> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>
> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>
> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>
> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
> energy.
>
> no waiting for technology
>
> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>
> less disease
>
> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>
> less danger from foreign enemies.
>
> more capital for "fun"
>
> more freedom
>
> more time.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> > ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> > ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> > which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> > fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
> > heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
> > plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> > the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> > vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> > Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> > of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> > degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> > well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> > addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> > hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> > areas of fusion technology development.
>
> > In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> > device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> > deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> > production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> > million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> > more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> > behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> > reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-25 17:22:27 UTC
Permalink
On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/f8245eefd490c169?lnk=raot#f8245eefd490c169
>
>
> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> chlorine boosters!!!
>

ok

> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> based rocket propellants.

yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
stage of the burn.

The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
the interceptor.

>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> force through 2020.
>
> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
> Contractor: Boeing Co.
> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> first stage, Thiokol;
> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> Fusion Power plant.


I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"

Got a link?

The Joint European Torus (JET) – Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
for upgrades and repairs.

http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/

>>
>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>> commercial application.
> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> 2005!!!!!!!!!!

what is the output?

How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
don't know).

The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.

And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
scenario.

I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.

And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.

>>
>>
>>
>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>> prices.
>>
> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> 1970's!
>

NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
more than the gasoline model.

World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.

This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.

Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
at even 25ATM.

> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#ixzz1JeI5AXln
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>

"To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.

The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."

Read more:
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#ixzz1QJB5WTif

Hardly commercially viable.

> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
>
>
>> So what?
>>
>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>> speculation and price fixing.
>
> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> gallon.

Yep.

>>
>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>> not current.
>>
>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> will rise soon.
>
> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
> nuclear weapons technology from Iran, or that he has substantial
> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
> theory.
>
> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
> identification, since these smugglers can easily cross through the
> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!

sorry, the quotes got confused.

I agree --- there is no, zip, zilch, zero. nada benefit to consumers
from increased oil or NG production.

The price drop from the release of the SOR is psychological, not supply
driven.

Most NG will go to bulk users, factories and plants that use furnaces,
ovens, driers, or their own generators, or to the chemical industry for
feedstock.

As noted, there are more LPG heated homes in my county than NG heated.

>>
>> Why?
>>
>> So producers can make more money?
> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>>
>> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
>> amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?
>
> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
> company
> http://www.syntheticgenomics.com if they thought that synthetic
> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
> genome sequencing project.

To take out the competition? That is just a couple of day's profit for
EXXON.

>>
>> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
>> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
>> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!

We will get more bang for the buck subsidizing the rollout of
infrastructure improvement and replacement of "bad" technology with
existing "good".

For the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (ignoring development costs) it would cost
to build your tokamaks we can cut electric consumption by 20% by
improving the transmission system, rollout algal diesel and increase
CAFE standards to 40 MPH, cutting oil consumption by at least a third,
and build a couple of light rail systems. In half the time.


Hmmmm.

Larry
>>
>> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
>> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
>> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the
> mid-west where winters are harsh.
>>
>> Secondly you
>>
>>> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
>>> secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
>>> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
>>> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
>>> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
>> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
>> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
>> New Hampshire.
> now your talking out of your clusterfuck ass!!!!!
> So your vision of the 21 st century, is cars powered by methane, pig
> shit, like in"Mad Max Beyond Thunderfdome" starring Mel Gibson. Eat
> shit, Synthetic Genomics is the wave of the future. Might you be
> opposed to the companies success because you are creationist who
> believes that the world is only 6500 years old, and that there will be
> a rapture. How many suckiers fell for that this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>>
>>> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>>
>>> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
>>> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>
> The MinuteMan III uses solid fuel stage propellant.
>>
>> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
>> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
>> pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
>> years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
>> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
>> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>>
>> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
>> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
>> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
>> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
>> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
> that's where the fuel cell comes in. They have the technology, your
> like the guy who still wants to sell carriages, and rig the market so
> that there will always be horse drawn carriages, instead of the
> automobile.
>>
>>> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
>>> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
>>> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
>>> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
>>> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
>>> radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>>
>> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
>> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
>> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
>> barriers to commercial use at the present.
> you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> Fact: Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. look it up, you just talk out
> of your ass. Secondly there is no implosion or splitting of atoms as
> is used in fission power. The proton-Proton cycle, fuses 2 isotopes of
> hydrogen, into helium 3 and helium 4, whereby magnetic plasma inertial
> confinement powers the core. Regarding neutron radiation, I'll be
> honest, it only has a half life of at most a 100 years. Look it up
> yourself, here
>
> http://www.fusion-eur.org/
>
>>
>> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
>> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
>> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>>
>> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>>
>> which has a radioactive half life of
>>
>>> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
>>> what I write, before you retort minimally.
>>
>> Yep, I read it.
>>
>> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>>
>> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
>> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
>> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
>> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
>> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>>
>> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
>> combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
>> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
>> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
>> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
>> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
>> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>>
>> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
>> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
>> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
>> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>>
>> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
>> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
>> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
>> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
>> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>>
>> However, better fuel
>>
>>> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>>
>> it is *THE* long term solution.
>>
>> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
>> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
>> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
>> close to 90%
>>
>> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
>> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
>> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
>> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
>> to diesel without the additives).
>>
>> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
>> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
>> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
>> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
>> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
>> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>>
>> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
>> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
>> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
>> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
>> into generators (admittedly long term)
>>
>> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
>> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
>> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
>> more out.
>>
>> Then you will
>>
>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
>> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
>> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>>
>> This means:
>>
>> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
>> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
> you are talking out of your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
> you must be stupid and inbred, you already acknowledged it was a coal
> miners right to rape his sister, you are fuckin mental
> dude!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>>
>> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>>
>> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
>> energy.
>>
>> no waiting for technology
>>
>> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>>
>> less disease
>>
>> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>>
>> less danger from foreign enemies.
>>
>> more capital for "fun"
>>
>> more freedom
>>
>> more time.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.iter.org/mach
>>
>>> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>>
>>> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
>>> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
>>> fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
>>> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
>>> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
>>> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
>>> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>>
>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
>>> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
>>> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
>>> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
>>> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
>>> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
>>> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
>>> areas of fusion technology development.
>>
>>> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
>>> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
>>> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
>>> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
>>> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
>>> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
>>> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
>>> reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>>
>> read more »
>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>
>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>> commercial application.
>>
>>
>>
>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>> prices.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>> not current.
>>
>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> So producers can make more money?
>>
>> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
>> amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?
>>
>> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
>> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
>> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>>
>> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
>> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
>> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>>
>> Secondly you
>>
>>> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
>>> secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
>>> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
>>> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
>>> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
>> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
>> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
>> New Hampshire.
>>
>> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>>
>>> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>>
>>> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
>>> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>>
>> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
>> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
>> pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
>> years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
>> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
>> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>>
>> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
>> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
>> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
>> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
>> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>>
>>> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
>>> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
>>> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
>>> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
>>> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
>>> radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>>
>> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
>> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
>> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
>> barriers to commercial use at the present.
>>
>> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
>> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
>> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>>
>> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>>
>> which has a radioactive half life of
>>
>>> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
>>> what I write, before you retort minimally.
>>
>> Yep, I read it.
>>
>> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>>
>> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
>> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
>> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
>> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
>> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>>
>> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
>> combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
>> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
>> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
>> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
>> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
>> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>>
>> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
>> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
>> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
>> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>>
>> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
>> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
>> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
>> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
>> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>>
>> However, better fuel
>>
>>> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>>
>> it is *THE* long term solution.
>>
>> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
>> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
>> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
>> close to 90%
>>
>> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
>> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
>> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
>> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
>> to diesel without the additives).
>>
>> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
>> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
>> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
>> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
>> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
>> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>>
>> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
>> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
>> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
>> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
>> into generators (admittedly long term)
>>
>> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
>> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
>> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
>> more out.
>>
>> Then you will
>>
>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
>> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
>> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>>
>> This means:
>>
>> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
>> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>>
>> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>>
>> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>>
>> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
>> energy.
>>
>> no waiting for technology
>>
>> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>>
>> less disease
>>
>> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>>
>> less danger from foreign enemies.
>>
>> more capital for "fun"
>>
>> more freedom
>>
>> more time.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.iter.org/mach
>>
>>> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>>
>>> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
>>> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
>>> fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
>>> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
>>> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
>>> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
>>> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>>
>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
>>> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
>>> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
>>> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
>>> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
>>> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
>>> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
>>> areas of fusion technology development.
>>
>>> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
>>> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
>>> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
>>> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
>>> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
>>> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
>>> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
>>> reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>>
>> read more »
>
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-25 19:08:31 UTC
Permalink
On 6/25/2011 1:22 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/f8245eefd490c169?lnk=raot#f8245eefd490c169
>>
>>
>>
>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>
> ok
>
>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>> based rocket propellants.
>
> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> stage of the burn.
>
> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> the interceptor.
>
>>
>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>> force through 2020.
>>
>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>> first stage, Thiokol;
>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>>
>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>>
>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>> Fusion Power plant.
>
>
> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> Got a link?
>
> The Joint European Torus (JET) – Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> for upgrades and repairs.
>
> http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
>>>
>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>> commercial application.
>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> what is the output?
>
> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> don't know).
>
> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> scenario.
>
> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
>
> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>>
>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>>
>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>> prices.
>>>
>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>> 1970's!
>>
>
> NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
> Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
> built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
> more than the gasoline model.
>
> World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
> shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
> operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
> refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
> part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>
> This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
> for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
> won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
> for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>
> Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
> stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
>
> The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
> at even 25ATM.
>
>> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#ixzz1JeI5AXln
>>
>>
>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>>
>>
>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>
> "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
> team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
> chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
> axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>
> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>
> Read more:
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#ixzz1QJB5WTif
>
>
> Hardly commercially viable.
>
>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>> Florida.
>>
>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>> and engineering.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>> gallon.
>
> Yep.
>
>>>
>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>> not current.
>>>
>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
>> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
>> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
>> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
>> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
>> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
>> will rise soon.
>>
>> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
>> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
>> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
>> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
>> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
>> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
>> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
>> nuclear weapons technology from Iran, or that he has substantial
>> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
>> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
>> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
>> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
>> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
>> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
>> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
>> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
>> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
>> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
>> theory.
>>
>> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
>> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
>> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
>> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
>> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
>> identification, since these smugglers can easily cross through the
>> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
>> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
>> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
>> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> sorry, the quotes got confused.
>
> I agree --- there is no, zip, zilch, zero. nada benefit to consumers
> from increased oil or NG production.
>
> The price drop from the release of the SOR is psychological, not supply
> driven.
>
> Most NG will go to bulk users, factories and plants that use furnaces,
> ovens, driers, or their own generators, or to the chemical industry for
> feedstock.
>
> As noted, there are more LPG heated homes in my county than NG heated.
>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> So producers can make more money?
>> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
>> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>>>
>>> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
>>> amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?
>>
>> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
>> company
>> http://www.syntheticgenomics.com if they thought that synthetic
>> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
>> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
>> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
>> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
>> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
>> genome sequencing project.
>
> To take out the competition? That is just a couple of day's profit for
> EXXON.
>
>>>
>>> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
>>> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
>>> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
>> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
>> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
>> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
>> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
>> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
>> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
>> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
>> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
>> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> We will get more bang for the buck subsidizing the rollout of
> infrastructure improvement and replacement of "bad" technology with
> existing "good".
>
> For the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (ignoring development costs) it would cost
> to build your tokamaks we can cut electric consumption by 20% by
> improving the transmission system, rollout algal diesel and increase
> CAFE standards to 40 MPH, cutting oil consumption by at least a third,
> and build a couple of light rail systems. In half the time.
>
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Larry
>>>
>>> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
>>> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
>>> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
>> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
>> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the
>> mid-west where winters are harsh.
>>>
>>> Secondly you
>>>
>>>> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
>>>> secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
>>>> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
>>>> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
>>>> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>>>
>>> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
>>> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
>>> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
>>> New Hampshire.
>> now your talking out of your clusterfuck ass!!!!!
>> So your vision of the 21 st century, is cars powered by methane, pig

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or just plain stupid?

I said nothing of the sort, arguing AGAINST gas powered vehicles.

>> shit, like in"Mad Max Beyond Thunderfdome" starring Mel Gibson.

The cow poo --- not pig, idiot, generates electricity ate the production
si9te. That is why it is cost effective --- no energy is lost
transporting it.

It also solves pollution problems (a sanitary animal bedding is left
after digestion) AND COSTS NOTHING after startup costs.

Ypu are wedded to MASSIVE, FANTASTICALLY EXPENSIVE, POINT SOURCED energy.

Small, local production is cheap. easy to implement, quick to implement,
and effective.

Where are you going to get FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS to implement tokamaks?

Eat
>> shit, Synthetic Genomics is the wave of the future. Might you be
>> opposed to the companies success because you are creationist who
>> believes that the world is only 6500 years old, and that there will be
>> a rapture. How many suckiers fell for that this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take your meds, fool.

>>>
>>> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>>>
>>>> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>>>
>>>> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
>>>> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>>
>> The MinuteMan III uses solid fuel stage propellant.
>>>
>>> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
>>> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
>>> pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
>>> years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
>>> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
>>> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>>>
>>> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
>>> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
>>> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
>>> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
>>> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>> that's where the fuel cell comes in. They have the technology, your
>> like the guy who still wants to sell carriages, and rig the market so
>> that there will always be horse drawn carriages, instead of the
>> automobile.
>>>
>>>> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
>>>> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
>>>> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
>>>> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
>>>> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
>>>> radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>>>
>>> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
>>> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
>>> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
>>> barriers to commercial use at the present.
>> you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
>>
>> Fact: Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. look it up, you just talk out
>> of your ass. Secondly there is no implosion or splitting of atoms as
>> is used in fission power. The proton-Proton cycle, fuses 2 isotopes of
>> hydrogen, into helium 3 and helium 4, whereby magnetic plasma inertial
>> confinement powers the core. Regarding neutron radiation, I'll be
>> honest, it only has a half life of at most a 100 years. Look it up
>> yourself, here
>>
>> http://www.fusion-eur.org/

I know, and I NEVER said anything against it. Unless inhaled or
ingested, its radiation (electrons or beta particles) is harmless.

And your assertion that no fission occurs in a tokamak is DEAD WRONG.
The neutrons produced in D2-T3 reaction split the Li& into T3 and He4.
Remember I said the LI7 is destroyed?

The *real* radiation problem is the 20% of the D2-T3 reaction products
that are the USEFUL charged particles, including alpha particle.
Uncaptured particles, esp alphas, react with the container vessel,
degrading it. No radiation escapes --- a vessel breach ends the vacuum
needed to the reaction.

That is why the JET reactor that I linked to was shut down --- replacing
parts degraded by alpha reactions.

>>
>>>
>>> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
>>> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
>>> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>>>
>>> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory
>>> curiosities.
>>>
>>> which has a radioactive half life of
>>>
>>>> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
>>>> what I write, before you retort minimally.
>>>
>>> Yep, I read it.
>>>
>>> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>>>
>>> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
>>> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
>>> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
>>> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
>>> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>>>
>>> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
>>> combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
>>> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
>>> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
>>> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
>>> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
>>> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>>>
>>> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
>>> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
>>> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
>>> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>>>
>>> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
>>> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
>>> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
>>> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
>>> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>>>
>>> However, better fuel
>>>
>>>> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>>>
>>> it is *THE* long term solution.
>>>
>>> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
>>> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
>>> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
>>> close to 90%
>>>
>>> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
>>> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
>>> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
>>> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
>>> to diesel without the additives).
>>>
>>> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
>>> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
>>> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
>>> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
>>> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
>>> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be
>>> replaced.
>>>
>>> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
>>> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
>>> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
>>> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
>>> into generators (admittedly long term)
>>>
>>> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
>>> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
>>> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
>>> more out.
>>>
>>> Then you will
>>>
>>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
>>> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
>>> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>>>
>>> This means:
>>>
>>> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
>>> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>> you are talking out of your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>> you must be stupid and inbred, you already acknowledged it was a coal
>> miners right to rape his sister, you are fuckin mental
>> dude!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> thomaswheat1975


You really, really need some meds. You are hallucinating.

Cool down, read my posts again for the truth rather than your delusional
voices, and get back to me.

larry
>>>
>>> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>>>
>>> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> no waiting for technology
>>>
>>> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>>>
>>> less disease
>>>
>>> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>>>
>>> less danger from foreign enemies.
>>>
>>> more capital for "fun"
>>>
>>> more freedom
>>>
>>> more time.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.iter.org/mach
>>>
>>>> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>>>
>>>> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
>>>> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
>>>> fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of
>>>> Hydrogen�is
>>>> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
>>>> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
>>>> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
>>>> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>>>
>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>>
>>>> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
>>>> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
>>>> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
>>>> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
>>>> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
>>>> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
>>>> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
>>>> areas of fusion technology development.
>>>
>>>> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
>>>> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
>>>> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
>>>> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
>>>> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
>>>> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
>>>> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
>>>> reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>>>
>>> read more »
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>>
>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>>
>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>>
>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>> commercial application.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>>
>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>>
>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>> prices.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>>
>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>> not current.
>>>
>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> So producers can make more money?
>>>
>>> What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG? A small
>>> amount of peak electric generation? A few feedstocks?
>>>
>>> Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
>>> thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
>>> that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>>>
>>> Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
>>> because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
>>> spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>>>
>>> Secondly you
>>>
>>>> dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
>>>> secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
>>>> developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
>>>> non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
>>>> create hydrogen fuel cells.
>>>
>>> I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
>>> ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
>>> agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
>>> New Hampshire.
>>>
>>> This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>>>
>>>> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>>>
>>>> The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
>>>> use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>>>
>>> Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
>>> I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
>>> pressures, a laboratory only animal. The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
>>> years ago let a small ($2 M?) contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
>>> fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
>>> faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>>>
>>> Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
>>> use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
>>> implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
>>> tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
>>> a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>>>
>>>> Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
>>>> device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
>>>> you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
>>>> power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
>>>> then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion, and the only
>>>> radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>>>
>>> That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
>>> in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
>>> neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
>>> barriers to commercial use at the present.
>>>
>>> Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
>>> rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI in batteries is a potential
>>> barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>>>
>>> Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory
>>> curiosities.
>>>
>>> which has a radioactive half life of
>>>
>>>> 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
>>>> what I write, before you retort minimally.
>>>
>>> Yep, I read it.
>>>
>>> You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>>>
>>> No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
>>> more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
>>> to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
>>> induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
>>> FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>>>
>>> The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
>>> combustion engine: the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
>>> Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
>>> compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
>>> date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
>>> viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
>>> periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>>>
>>> The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
>>> particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
>>> have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
>>> spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>>>
>>> As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
>>> Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
>>> removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
>>> initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
>>> reaction, which is far less efficient.
>>>
>>> However, better fuel
>>>
>>>> economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>>>
>>> it is *THE* long term solution.
>>>
>>> 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
>>> transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
>>> outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
>>> close to 90%
>>>
>>> NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
>>> consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
>>> continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
>>> eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
>>> to diesel without the additives).
>>>
>>> I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
>>> transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
>>> between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
>>> 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
>>> to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
>>> mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be
>>> replaced.
>>>
>>> These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
>>> More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
>>> the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
>>> electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
>>> into generators (admittedly long term)
>>>
>>> Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
>>> fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
>>> that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
>>> more out.
>>>
>>> Then you will
>>>
>>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
>>> use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
>>> cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>>>
>>> This means:
>>>
>>> no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
>>> sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>>>
>>> No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>>>
>>> No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>>>
>>> no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> no waiting for technology
>>>
>>> less pollution, both chemical and light.
>>>
>>> less disease
>>>
>>> less infrastructure damage from emissions
>>>
>>> less danger from foreign enemies.
>>>
>>> more capital for "fun"
>>>
>>> more freedom
>>>
>>> more time.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.iter.org/mach
>>>
>>>> ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>>>
>>>> ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
>>>> which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
>>>> fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of
>>>> Hydrogen�is
>>>> heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
>>>> plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
>>>> the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
>>>> vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>>>
>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>>
>>>> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
>>>> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
>>>> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
>>>> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
>>>> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
>>>> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
>>>> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
>>>> areas of fusion technology development.
>>>
>>>> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
>>>> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
>>>> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
>>>> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
>>>> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
>>>> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
>>>> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
>>>> reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>>>
>>> read more »
>>
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-26 03:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Larry your a dumb shit here are the facts on Nuclear fusion as it
relates to the TOKAMAK ITER, you have been talking to Dr. Bill
Wattenburg, or at least you think you have!!!!

You just are trying to delay the inevitable march of
progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon

Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
very safe and sustainable energy source.

The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
Safety

SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
community.

The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
malfunction occur.

Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
radioactive fuel is needed.

At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
Sustainable

Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
climate.

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
Safety for ITER

Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.

All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.

The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
plants.

For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.

The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
safely without significant environmental impacts.

Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
Cadarache are built and commissioned.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf

thomaswheat1975

On Jun 25, 12:08 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 1:22 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
> >> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> >> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> >> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> > ok
>
> >> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> >> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> >> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> >> based rocket propellants.
>
> > yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> > exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
> > rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> > stage of the burn.
>
> > The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> > about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> > with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> > wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> > the interceptor.
>
> >>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> >> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> >> force through 2020.
>
> >> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
> >> Contractor: Boeing Co.
> >> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> >> first stage, Thiokol;
> >> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> >> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> >> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> >> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> >> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> >> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> >> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> >> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> >> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
> >>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> >>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> >>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> >>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> >>>> PLANT!!!!
>
> >>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> >> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> >> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> >> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> > Got a link?
>
> > The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> > ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> > for upgrades and repairs.
>
> >http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
> >>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> >>> commercial application.
> >> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> >> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> >> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> >> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> >> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > what is the output?
>
> > How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> > there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> > US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> > don't know).
>
> > The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> > right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> > plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> > when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> > cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> > And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> > Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> > off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> > scenario.
>
> > I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> > costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> > costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
>
> > And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
> >>>> ***@pppl.gov
>
> >>>>http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> >>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> >>>> prices.
>
> >> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> >> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
> >> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> >> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> >> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> >> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> >> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> >> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> >> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> >> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> >> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> >> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> >> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> >> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> >> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> >> 1970's!
>
> > NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
> > Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
> > built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
> > more than the gasoline model.
>
> > World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
> > shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
> > operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
> > refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
> > part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>
> > This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
> > for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
> > won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
> > for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>
> > Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
> > stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
>
> > The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
> > at even 25ATM.
>
> >> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> >> Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
> >> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> >> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> >> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> >> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> >> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> >> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >>http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> >> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> >> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> >> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> >> Read more:
> >>http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> >> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> >> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> >> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> >> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> >> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> >> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> >> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> >> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> > "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
> > team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
> > chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
> > axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>
> > The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> > insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> > Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>
> > Read more:
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > Hardly commercially viable.
>
> >> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> >> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> >> Florida.
>
> >> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> >> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> >> and engineering.
>
> >>> So what?
>
> >>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> >>> speculation and price fixing.
>
> >> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> >> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> >> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> >> gallon.
>
> > Yep.
>
> >>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> >>> not current.
>
> >>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
> >> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> >> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> >> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> >> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> >> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> >> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve,...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-26 16:25:32 UTC
Permalink
On 6/25/2011 11:31 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> Larry your a dumb shit here are the facts on Nuclear fusion as it
> relates to the TOKAMAK ITER, you have been talking to Dr. Bill
> Wattenburg, or at least you think you have!!!!
>
> You just are trying to delay the inevitable march of
> progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> Safety
>
> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> community.
>
> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> malfunction occur.
>
> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
> radioactive fuel is needed.
>
> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
> Sustainable
>
> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> climate.
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
> Safety for ITER
>
> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>
> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>
> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
> plants.
>
> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>
> The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
> safely without significant environmental impacts.
>
> Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
> Cadarache are built and commissioned.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 25, 12:08 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2011 1:22 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>>>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>>> ok
>>
>>>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>>>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>>>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>>>> based rocket propellants.
>>
>>> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
>>> exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
>>> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
>>> stage of the burn.
>>
>>> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
>>> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
>>> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
>>> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
>>> the interceptor.
>>
>>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>>>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>>>> force through 2020.
>>
>>>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>>>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>>>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>>>> first stage, Thiokol;
>>>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>>>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>>>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>>>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>>>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>>>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>>>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>>>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>>>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>>>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>>>> Fusion Power plant.
>>
>>> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>>
>>> Got a link?
>>
>>> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
>>> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
>>> for upgrades and repairs.
>>
>>> http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>>
>>>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>>>> commercial application.
>>>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>>>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>>>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>>>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>>>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> what is the output?
>>
>>> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
>>> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
>>> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
>>> don't know).
>>
>>> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
>>> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
>>> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
>>> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
>>> cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>>
>>> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
>>> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
>>> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
>>> scenario.
>>
>>> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
>>> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
>>> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
>>
>>> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>>
>>>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>>>> prices.
>>
>>>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>>>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>>>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>>>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>>>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>>>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>>>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>>>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>>>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>>>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>>>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>>>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>>>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>>>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>>>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>>>> 1970's!
>>
>>> NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
>>> Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
>>> built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
>>> more than the gasoline model.
>>
>>> World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
>>> shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
>>> operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
>>> refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
>>> part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>>
>>> This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
>>> for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
>>> won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
>>> for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>>
>>> Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
>>> stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
>>
>>> The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
>>> at even 25ATM.
>>
>>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>>> Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>>>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>>>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>>>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>>>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>>>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>>>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>>>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>>>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>>>> Read more:
>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>>>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>>>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>>>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>>>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>>>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>>>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>>> "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
>>> team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
>>> chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
>>> axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>>
>>> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
>>> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
>>> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>>
>>> Read more:
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Hardly commercially viable.
>>
>>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>>> Florida.
>>
>>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>>> and engineering.
>>
>>>>> So what?
>>
>>>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>>>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>>>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>>>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>>>> gallon.
>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>>>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>>>> not current.
>>
>>>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>>>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>>>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>>>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>>>> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
>>>> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve,...
>>
>> read more »
>


As I said before, I know a whole lot more about fusion than you do.

You seem hung up on it.

Here's a challenge for you:

The average US electric power plant --- nuke, coal, hydro, NG, whatever,
generates about 750MW, or 750000KVS of power, 24 hrs a day, 330 or more
days a year.

Show me ONE, just ONE tokamak development project that claims it will
have a viable fusion reactor that will produce ONE TENTH of that output
with the same uptime TEN YEARS from now. Just ONE. Uno. Ein. Un. Ichi.
Oh. At a predicted cost of $10 BILLION a unit or less.

They've been working on them for 60 years now and haven't got it yet.

Now for comparison.

Upgrading our transmission grid using off the shelf, in use today,
technology can increase available electricity by the equivalent of 50 of
those 750MW plants in 5 years for the cost of 10 tokamaks.


Hmmm. 5 years vs 20.

$100 Billion vs unknown trillions.

Hmmm.

Larry
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-26 14:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Larry
Your a dumbshit!!! You never even clicked on the link i sent you sent
you from the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://lccn.loc.gov/77003916

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

"The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg."

here are the relevant excerpts as it regards to fuel economy, and
viability.

Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

-excerpts-

"Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-
neutral macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?

That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.

Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.

The buzz of the automotive engineering circles in the early 1970s and
winner of the Wood River Competition for the planet's top mileage car,
the little Opel had been bought by the France family, owners of
NASCAR, and gifted to the museum at Talladega raceway.

Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
and engineering.

The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg. "

This proves the oil companies are an Oligopoly, stifiling and shelving
innovation, and patents relative to fuel economy and alternative fuels
development. I think 176 miles per gallon, is definetly reasonable. If
we reversed engineered this technology, to our American and Japanese
cars, we could reduce our yearly conception of oil by billions of
barrels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

latest discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf



On Jun 25, 12:08 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 1:22 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
> >> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> >> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> >> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> > ok
>
> >> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> >> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> >> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> >> based rocket propellants.
>
> > yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> > exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
> > rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> > stage of the burn.
>
> > The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> > about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> > with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> > wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> > the interceptor.
>
> >>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> >> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> >> force through 2020.
>
> >> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
> >> Contractor: Boeing Co.
> >> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> >> first stage, Thiokol;
> >> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> >> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> >> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> >> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> >> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> >> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> >> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> >> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> >> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
> >>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> >>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> >>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> >>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> >>>> PLANT!!!!
>
> >>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> >> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> >> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> >> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> > Got a link?
>
> > The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> > ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> > for upgrades and repairs.
>
> >http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
> >>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> >>> commercial application.
> >> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> >> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> >> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> >> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> >> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > what is the output?
>
> > How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> > there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> > US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> > don't know).
>
> > The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> > right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> > plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> > when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> > cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> > And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> > Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> > off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> > scenario.
>
> > I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> > costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> > costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
>
> > And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
> >>>> ***@pppl.gov
>
> >>>>http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> >>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> >>>> prices.
>
> >> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> >> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
> >> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> >> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> >> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> >> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> >> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> >> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> >> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> >> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> >> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> >> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> >> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> >> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> >> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> >> 1970's!
>
> > NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
> > Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
> > built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
> > more than the gasoline model.
>
> > World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
> > shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
> > operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
> > refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
> > part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>
> > This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
> > for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
> > won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
> > for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>
> > Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
> > stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
>
> > The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
> > at even 25ATM.
>
> >> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> >> Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
> >> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> >> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> >> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> >> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> >> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> >> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >>http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> >> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> >> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> >> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> >> Read more:
> >>http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> >> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> >> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> >> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> >> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> >> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> >> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> >> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> >> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> > "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
> > team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
> > chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
> > axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>
> > The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> > insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> > Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>
> > Read more:
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > Hardly commercially viable.
>
> >> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> >> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> >> Florida.
>
> >> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> >> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> >> and engineering.
>
> >>> So what?
>
> >>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> >>> speculation and price fixing.
>
> >> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> >> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> >> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> >> gallon.
>
> > Yep.
>
> >>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> >>> not current.
>
> >>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
> >> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> >> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> >> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> >> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> >> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> >> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve,...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-26 16:42:56 UTC
Permalink
On 6/26/2011 10:07 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> Larry
> Your a dumbshit!!! You never even clicked on the link i sent you sent
> you from the Seattle Post Intelligencer:
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://lccn.loc.gov/77003916
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> "The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>
> So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
> the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
> 176 mpg."
>
> here are the relevant excerpts as it regards to fuel economy, and
> viability.
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> -excerpts-
>
> "Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-
> neutral macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> The buzz of the automotive engineering circles in the early 1970s and
> winner of the Wood River Competition for the planet's top mileage car,
> the little Opel had been bought by the France family, owners of
> NASCAR, and gifted to the museum at Talladega raceway.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>
> So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
> the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
> 176 mpg. "
>
> This proves the oil companies are an Oligopoly, stifiling and shelving
> innovation, and patents relative to fuel economy and alternative fuels
> development. I think 176 miles per gallon, is definetly reasonable. If
> we reversed engineered this technology, to our American and Japanese
> cars, we could reduce our yearly conception of oil by billions of
> barrels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> latest discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf
>
>

For the last time:

The fantastic 176 mpg is the fantasy of an unscientific writer engaging
in fantasy.

Cars absolutely MUST appeal to consumers. We can make a car today that
gets 90MPG - 1 passenger cramped 3 wheel cockleshells with 4 stroke
engines and a top speed of 50 mph --- but nobody will buy it.

People won't even buy the "commercial" version of that Opel today, but
demand more.

Yes, hopefully we can get to 1000mpg one day.

But 50 is here, NOW. And getting people out of their 1 ton dually 5
passenger Ram into a Passat is going to be hard enough

But why are you wedded to gasoline?

What is wrong with 50 MPG on 100% renewable biofuel? It is
technologically possible TODAY to eliminate 100% of petroleum usage for
transportation.


Seems to me zero is a whole lot better than less.

Larry
>
> On Jun 25, 12:08 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2011 1:22 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>>>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>>> ok
>>
>>>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>>>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>>>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>>>> based rocket propellants.
>>
>>> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
>>> exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
>>> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
>>> stage of the burn.
>>
>>> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
>>> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
>>> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
>>> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
>>> the interceptor.
>>
>>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>>>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>>>> force through 2020.
>>
>>>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>>>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>>>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>>>> first stage, Thiokol;
>>>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>>>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>>>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>>>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>>>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>>>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>>>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>>>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>>>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>>>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>>>> Fusion Power plant.
>>
>>> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>>
>>> Got a link?
>>
>>> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
>>> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
>>> for upgrades and repairs.
>>
>>> http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>>
>>>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>>>> commercial application.
>>>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>>>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>>>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>>>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>>>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> what is the output?
>>
>>> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
>>> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
>>> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
>>> don't know).
>>
>>> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw. At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
>>> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
>>> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
>>> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
>>> cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>>
>>> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
>>> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
>>> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
>>> scenario.
>>
>>> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
>>> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
>>> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
>>
>>> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>>
>>>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>>>> prices.
>>
>>>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>>>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>>>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>>>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>>>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>>>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>>>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>>>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>>>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>>>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>>>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>>>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>>>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>>>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>>>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>>>> 1970's!
>>
>>> NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
>>> Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
>>> built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
>>> more than the gasoline model.
>>
>>> World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
>>> shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
>>> operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
>>> refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
>>> part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>>
>>> This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
>>> for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
>>> won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
>>> for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>>
>>> Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
>>> stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
>>
>>> The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
>>> at even 25ATM.
>>
>>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>>> Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>>>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>>>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>>>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>>>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>>>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>>>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>>>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>>>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>>>> Read more:
>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>>>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>>>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>>>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>>>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>>>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>>>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>>> "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
>>> team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
>>> chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
>>> axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>>
>>> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
>>> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
>>> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>>
>>> Read more:
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Hardly commercially viable.
>>
>>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>>> Florida.
>>
>>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>>> and engineering.
>>
>>>>> So what?
>>
>>>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>>>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>>>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>>>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>>>> gallon.
>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>>>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>>>> not current.
>>
>>>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>>>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>>>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>>>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>>>> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
>>>> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve,...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-05 23:48:08 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 25, 10:22 am, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > regarding discussion archived here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> > I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> > chlorine boosters!!!
>
> ok
>
> > I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> > miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> > emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> > based rocket propellants.
>
> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> exhaust is highly toxic.  The high velocity is also helped by the
> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> stage of the burn.
>
> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> the interceptor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> > f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> > force through 2020.
>
> > Primary function:  Intercontinental ballistic missile
> > Contractor:        Boeing Co.
> > Power plant:       "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> > first stage, Thiokol;
> > second stage, Aerojet-General;
> > third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> > Thrust:    First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> > Length:    59.9 feet (18 meters)
> > Weight:    79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> > Diameter:  5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> > Range:     6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> > Speed:     Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> >>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> >>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> >>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> >>> PLANT!!!!
>
> >> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> > you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> > By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> > Fusion Power plant.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> Got a link?
>
> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> for upgrades and repairs.
>
> http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
>
>
> >> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> >> commercial application.
> > European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> > reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> > Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> > fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> > 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> what is the output?
>
> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> don't know).
>
> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw.
Larry lying his ass off again about the Tokamak Fusion Test reactor
that operated at the Princeton Plasma physics Institute.

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr_achievements.html

"December 1993, for the first time in history, a reactor fuel mix of
50% deuterium and 50% tritium was used in a tokamak. Initial TFTR
experiments yielded 6.0 million watts. By November, 1994, TFTR
achieved 10.7 million watts of power, about 100 million times the
power produced by tokamaks twenty years ago.

Of greater importance is the fact that D-T plasmas were more well-
behaved than deuterium plasmas. For D-T plasmas, higher temperatures
were possible, and the energy confinement time was about 20 percent
higher."


>At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> cheaper.  For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> scenario.
>
> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
virtually inexhaustable supply of deuterium and lithium

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm

Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/

Fusion, and solar energy (including biofuels) are the only energy
sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next
century and beyond without the negative environmental impacts of
fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of
hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the metal
lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
– and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
power plant.


>
> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.

not likely Tokamak ITER will be operating by 2019. General Fusion
plans to have a net gain fusion power plant prototype capable of
powering 100000 homes in 2012.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail/2?_s=PM:TECH

excerpt

"The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.

Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
about $5 billion."

"General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in
2012. By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.

"We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
Delage, General Fusion VP of business development."
thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> ***@pppl.gov
>
> >>>http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> >>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> >>> prices.
>
> > The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> > is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> > and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> > constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> > But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> > fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> > supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> > the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> > companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> > supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> > intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> > reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> > Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> > Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> > gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> > 1970's!
>
> NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
> Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
> built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
> more than the gasoline model.
>
> World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
> shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
> operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
> refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
> part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>
> This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
> for the engine,  all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
> won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
> for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>
> Estimates of the cost of putting  just 2 consumer usable refueling
> stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
you are talking out of your ass. The public county transit bus fleet,
in my home county in California, is entirely powered by natural gas.
Southern California has 11 hydrogen refueling stations. Still stuck on
your methane huffing, raping coal miners daughter's
fantasies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
> at even 25ATM.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> > Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley&  Sons, New York,
> > 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> > Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> > Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> > achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> > mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> > biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> > Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> > By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> > Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> > Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> > macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> > Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> > That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> > vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> > 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> > was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> > Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
> team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
> chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
> axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>
> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>
> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> Hardly commercially viable.
>
In your opinion which is based on the profit margin of the oil
companies who benefit financially from shitty fuel economy as do Arab
terrorists, albeit indirectly, since I have already proven "Increased
US Domestic Oil drilling, will not lower gas prices, since the price
is set by OPEC and speculators.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

Iam sure the 1970's Shell oil study, "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine," would be of interest, even to the simple mechanic or
engineer, tired of being ripped off by the oil companies. The study
proves even with more ergonomic configurations, its possible to get
over 170 miles to the gallon with this technology.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

thomaswheat1975
> > Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> > rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> > Florida.
>
> > Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> > from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> > and engineering.
>
> >> So what?
>
> >> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> >> speculation and price fixing.
>
> > Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> > without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> > dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> > gallon.
>
> Yep.
and your solution is the rigged fossil fuel status quo, or pay
people,along with cows and pigs to shit their way to energy
independence. This is just not practical.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> >> not current.
>
> >> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
> > Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> > our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> > affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> > demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> > dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> > million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> > nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> > releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> > approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> > fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> > will rise...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-06 00:24:54 UTC
Permalink
On 7/5/2011 7:48 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:22 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>> ok
>>
>>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>>> based rocket propellants.
>>
>> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
>> exhaust is highly toxic. The high velocity is also helped by the
>> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
>> stage of the burn.
>>
>> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
>> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
>> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
>> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
>> the interceptor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>>> force through 2020.
>>
>>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>>> first stage, Thiokol;
>>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>>> Fusion Power plant.
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>>
>> Got a link?
>>
>> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
>> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
>> for upgrades and repairs.
>>
>> http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>>
>>
>>
>>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>>> commercial application.
>>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> what is the output?
>>
>> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
>> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
>> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
>> don't know).
>>
>> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw.
> Larry lying his ass off again about the Tokamak Fusion Test reactor
> that operated at the Princeton Plasma physics Institute.
>

Your link quoted 3000kw.

> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr_achievements.html
>
> "December 1993, for the first time in history, a reactor fuel mix of
> 50% deuterium and 50% tritium was used in a tokamak. Initial TFTR
> experiments yielded 6.0 million watts. By November, 1994, TFTR
> achieved 10.7 million watts of power, about 100 million times the
> power produced by tokamaks twenty years ago.
>

Ooooh, wow, 10.7 MW!!! Instead of 3 MW

Boy, oh boy.
> Total U.S. net summer generating capacity grew by 1.5 percent
> between 2008 and 2009 to 1,025 gigawatts (GW; Figure ES2).
> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

Only 1024990 MW to go!!!

Begone,. fool.

You don't know what you are saying.

Larry


> Of greater importance is the fact that D-T plasmas were more well-
> behaved than deuterium plasmas. For D-T plasmas, higher temperatures
> were possible, and the energy confinement time was about 20 percent
> higher."
>
>
>> At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
>> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
>> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
>> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
>> cheaper. For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>>
>> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
>> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
>> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
>> scenario.
>>
>> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
>> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
>> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
> virtually inexhaustable supply of deuterium and lithium
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm
>
> Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>
> Fusion, and solar energy (including biofuels) are the only energy
> sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next
> century and beyond without the negative environmental impacts of
> fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of
> hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the metal
> lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
> inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
> – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
> provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
> cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
> fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
> considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
> radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
> would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
> power plant.
>
>
>>
>> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
> not likely Tokamak ITER will be operating by 2019. General Fusion
> plans to have a net gain fusion power plant prototype capable of
> powering 100000 homes in 2012.
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail/2?_s=PM:TECH
>
> excerpt
>
> "The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
> first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.
>
> Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
> California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
> largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
> about $5 billion."
>
> "General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in
> 2012. By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
> generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.
>
> "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
> orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
> Delage, General Fusion VP of business development."
> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>>> prices.
>>
>>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>>> 1970's!
>>
>> NG powered cars are not ready for the US market. I've searched, and
>> Honda is the only manufacturer tghat advertises them. They are 1 offs
>> built in Japan with a 6 month to 1 year delivery, and cost about $5k
>> more than the gasoline model.
>>
>> World-wide NG powers putt putts, like the Indian 3 wheelers. There are
>> shade tree conversions in South America and parts of SE Asia. They
>> operate like our gas outdoor BBQ's, you take your tank to a supplier for
>> refill or trade. They have lousy range --- under 100 miles for the most
>> part. In SA they carry extra tanks for long trips.
>>
>> This obviously won't work here. While only minor changes are required
>> for the engine, all of Honda's cost is for the fuel tank. They really
>> won't sell one here because they don't know if it will pass safety regs
>> for fueling, collision, and fire. The tests just have not been done.
>>
>> Estimates of the cost of putting just 2 consumer usable refueling
>> stations in each town of 25000 people or more is TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
> you are talking out of your ass. The public county transit bus fleet,
> in my home county in California, is entirely powered by natural gas.
> Southern California has 11 hydrogen refueling stations. Still stuck on
> your methane huffing, raping coal miners daughter's
> fantasies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> The major problem is high pressures ---it is expensive to safely refuel
>> at even 25ATM.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>> Engine� (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>>> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>> "To be sure, the Opel isn't much on looks, luxury or performance. The
>> team that built it stripped the interior of everything but a seat,
>> chopped the top to lower its wind resistance. They narrowed the rear
>> axle, used super-hard low-friction tires and a chain drive to save weight.
>>
>> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
>> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
>> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph."
>>
>> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>> Hardly commercially viable.
>>
> In your opinion which is based on the profit margin of the oil
> companies who benefit financially from shitty fuel economy as do Arab
> terrorists, albeit indirectly, since I have already proven "Increased
> US Domestic Oil drilling, will not lower gas prices, since the price
> is set by OPEC and speculators.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
>
> Iam sure the 1970's Shell oil study, "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine," would be of interest, even to the simple mechanic or
> engineer, tired of being ripped off by the oil companies. The study
> proves even with more ergonomic configurations, its possible to get
> over 170 miles to the gallon with this technology.
>
> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> thomaswheat1975
>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>> Florida.
>>
>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>> and engineering.
>>
>>>> So what?
>>
>>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>>> gallon.
>>
>> Yep.
> and your solution is the rigged fossil fuel status quo, or pay
> people,along with cows and pigs to shit their way to energy
> independence. This is just not practical.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>>> not current.
>>
>>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>>> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
>>> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
>>> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
>>> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
>>> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
>>> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
>>> will rise...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-07 01:05:56 UTC
Permalink
The Tokamak fusion test reactor was purposefully cancelled because of
the nuclear fission, coal and fossil fuel lobbyists in congress. The
Tokamak test reactor achieved all of its target goals. That's why I
think we should divert some of the 5 billion dollars in funding going
to the laser ignition facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, to
the restarting of US commercial Tokamak prototype plant construction.
The current government funding for conventional fusion research in the
USA is about 400 million dollars annually. The Laser Ignition facility
isn't even experimenting with prototypes for fusion reactors, rather
some have suggested that they are experimenting with increasing the
Tritium breeding fusion process to increase the destructive power of
the US nuclear missile arsenals, and that the overall project, emits
more neutron radiation than conventional Tokamaks. Do we need anything
more destructive than a 100 megaton MinuteMan
III!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail?_s=PM:TECH

excerpt
"Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
think tank.

The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.

But anti-nuclear groups have expressed concern about whether fusion
research opens a door to nuclear weapons proliferation. Tritium can be
used to boost the power of nuclear weapons. Fusion research, they say,
could contribute to development of a so-called pure fusion weapon."

On Jul 5, 5:24 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/5/2011 7:48 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 10:22 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> >>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> >>> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> >> ok
>
> >>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> >>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> >>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> >>> based rocket propellants.
>
> >> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> >> exhaust is highly toxic.  The high velocity is also helped by the
> >> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> >> stage of the burn.
>
> >> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> >> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> >> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> >> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> >> the interceptor.
>
> >>>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> >>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> >>> force through 2020.
>
> >>> Primary function:  Intercontinental ballistic missile
> >>> Contractor:        Boeing Co.
> >>> Power plant:       "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> >>> first stage, Thiokol;
> >>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> >>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> >>> Thrust:    First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> >>> Length:    59.9 feet (18 meters)
> >>> Weight:    79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> >>> Diameter:  5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> >>> Range:     6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> >>> Speed:     Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> >>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> >>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> >>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> >>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> >>>>> PLANT!!!!
>
> >>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> >>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> >>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> >>> Fusion Power plant.
>
> >> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> >> Got a link?
>
> >> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> >> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> >> for upgrades and repairs.
>
> >>http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
> >>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> >>>> commercial application.
> >>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> >>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> >>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> >>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> >>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> what is the output?
>
> >> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> >> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> >> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> >> don't know).
>
> >> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw.
> > Larry lying his ass off again about the Tokamak Fusion Test reactor
> > that operated at the Princeton Plasma physics Institute.
>
> Your link quoted 3000kw.
>
> >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr_achievements.html
>
> > "December 1993, for the first time in history, a reactor fuel mix of
> > 50% deuterium and 50% tritium was used in a tokamak. Initial TFTR
> > experiments yielded 6.0 million watts. By November, 1994, TFTR
> > achieved 10.7 million watts of power, about 100 million times the
> > power produced by tokamaks twenty years ago.
>
> Ooooh, wow, 10.7 MW!!! Instead of 3 MW
>
> Boy, oh boy.
>
> > Total U.S. net summer generating capacity grew by 1.5 percent
> > between  2008 and 2009 to 1,025 gigawatts (GW; Figure ES2).
> >http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
>
> Only 1024990 MW to go!!!
>
> Begone,. fool.
>
> You don't know what you are saying.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Of greater importance is the fact that D-T plasmas were more well-
> > behaved than deuterium plasmas. For D-T plasmas, higher temperatures
> > were possible, and the energy confinement time was about 20 percent
> > higher."
>
> >> At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> >> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> >> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> >> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> >> cheaper.  For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> >> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> >> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> >> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> >> scenario.
>
> >> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> >> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> >> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
> > virtually inexhaustable supply of deuterium and lithium
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> > The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> > generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> > fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> > tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> > coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> > Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> > all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>
> > Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> > is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> > not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> > metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> > can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> > by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> > 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> >https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>
> > Fusion, and solar energy (including biofuels) are the only energy
> > sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next
> > century and beyond without the negative environmental impacts of
> > fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of
> > hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the metal
> > lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
> > inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
> > – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
> > provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
> > cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
> > fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
> > considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
> > radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
> > would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
> > power plant.
>
> >> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
> > not likely Tokamak ITER will be operating by 2019. General Fusion
> > plans to have a net gain fusion power plant prototype capable of
> > powering 100000 homes in 2012.
>
> >http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grai...
>
> > excerpt
>
> > "The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
> > first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.
>
> > Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
> > California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
> > largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
> > about $5 billion."
>
> > "General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in
> > 2012. By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
> > generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.
>
> > "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
> > orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
> > Delage, General Fusion VP of business development."
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> >>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>
> >>>>>http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> >>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> >>>>> prices.
>
> >>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> >>> is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> >>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> >>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> >>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> >>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> >>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> >>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> >>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> >>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> >>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> >>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> >>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> >>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel,...
>
> read more »
thomas wheat
2011-07-09 17:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Facts About Hydrogen Fuel

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/cafcp_h2_safety_fact_sheet.pdf

-excerpt-

"HYDROGEN USE AND SAFETY
The lightest and most common element in the universe, hydrogen has
been safely used for decades in industrial applications. Currently,
over 9 million tons of hydrogen are produced in the U.S. each year and
3.2 trillion cubic feet are used to make many common products. They
include glass, margarine, soap, vitamins, peanut butter, toothpaste
and almost all metal products. Hydrogen has been used as a fuel since
the 1950s by the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) in
the U.S. space program.

Hydrogen – A Safe, Clean Fuel for Vehicles
Hydrogen has another use – one that can help our nation reduce its
consumption of fossil fuels. Hydrogen can be used to power fuel cell
vehicles. When combined with oxygen in a fuel cell, hydrogen generates
electricity used by the vehicle’s clean electric motor to create a
smooth, quiet ride – and the only emission from the tailpipe is water
vapor.

Hydrogen is an excellent vehicle fuel for many reasons. The U.S.
Department of Energy compares hydrogen very favorably to other fuels.
Hydrogen is not toxic, poisonous or corrosive. As a result of
hydrogen’s benign nature, it doesn’t harm the environment or public
health. If hydrogen were to leak it would disperse into the air almost
immediately because it is so light. Contrast that with the effects of
oil and gasoline spills, and it’s easy to see why hydrogen offers such
an exciting future!
Misconceptions About the Past

The fire that destroyed the Hindenburg back in 1937 gave hydrogen a
misleading reputation. Hydrogen was used to keep the airship buoyant,
but hydrogen did not cause the fire. NASA scientists have found that
the Hindenburg’s outer shell was coated with a compound similar to
what is now used in solid rocket fuel. When the ship docked, an
electrical charge ignited the coating. Hydrogen, as a fuel, was not
the cause of the tragedy."

Daimler coming out with Hydrogen Fuel powered Mercedes in 2014.

http://wot.motortrend.com/daimler-ceo-hydrogen-powered-mercedes-coming-sooner-than-later-89825.html

thomaswheat1975

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/178a7d2cde4f2c43

On Jul 6, 6:05 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Tokamak fusion test reactor was purposefully cancelled because of
> the nuclear fission, coal and fossil fuel lobbyists in congress. The
> Tokamak test reactor achieved all of its target goals. That's why I
> think we should divert some of the 5 billion dollars in funding going
> to the laser ignition facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, to
> the restarting of US commercial Tokamak prototype plant construction.
> The current government funding for conventional fusion research in the
> USA is about 400 million dollars annually. The Laser Ignition facility
> isn't even experimenting with prototypes for fusion reactors, rather
> some have suggested that they are experimenting with increasing the
> Tritium breeding fusion process to increase the destructive power of
> the US nuclear missile arsenals, and that the overall project, emits
> more neutron radiation than conventional Tokamaks. Do we need anything
> more destructive than a 100 megaton MinuteMan
> III!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grai...
>
> excerpt
> "Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
> attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
> at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
> according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
> think tank.
>
> The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
> Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
> deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
> could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.
>
> But anti-nuclear groups have expressed concern about whether fusion
> research opens a door to nuclear weapons proliferation. Tritium can be
> used to boost the power of nuclear weapons. Fusion research, they say,
> could contribute to development of a so-called pure fusion weapon."
>
> On Jul 5, 5:24 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/5/2011 7:48 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> > > On Jun 25, 10:22 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> > >> On 6/25/2011 3:20 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > >>> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> > >>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> > >>> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> > >> ok
>
> > >>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> > >>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> > >>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> > >>> based rocket propellants.
>
> > >> yes. it requires liquid oxygen or peroxide to "stoke the fire". and the
> > >> exhaust is highly toxic.  The high velocity is also helped by the
> > >> rarified atmosphere (less resistance) and reduced gravity in the last
> > >> stage of the burn.
>
> > >> The interceptors planned for star wars get to 4kkps (ICBMs get to 7) in
> > >> about the same length of burn --- thicker atmosphere, smaller rocket
> > >> with less fuel. This is one of the major technical problems with star
> > >> wars --- for a large part of the ICBM's path it is traveling faster than
> > >> the interceptor.
>
> > >>>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> > >>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> > >>> force through 2020.
>
> > >>> Primary function:  Intercontinental ballistic missile
> > >>> Contractor:        Boeing Co.
> > >>> Power plant:       "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> > >>> first stage, Thiokol;
> > >>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> > >>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> > >>> Thrust:    First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> > >>> Length:    59.9 feet (18 meters)
> > >>> Weight:    79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> > >>> Diameter:  5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> > >>> Range:     6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> > >>> Speed:     Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> > >>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > >>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > >>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > >>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > >>>>> PLANT!!!!
>
> > >>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
> > >>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> > >>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> > >>> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > >> I'll believe it when I see it, and define "demo"
>
> > >> Got a link?
>
> > >> The Joint European Torus (JET) � Europe's largest Fusion Device is not
> > >> ready for prime time. It is going to restart soon after a major shutdown
> > >> for upgrades and repairs.
>
> > >>http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/06/starting-the-restart/
>
> > >>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > >>>> commercial application.
> > >>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> > >>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> > >>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> > >>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> > >>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >> what is the output?
>
> > >> How many do wee need to build to meet current demand. The EIA estimates
> > >> there are about 600 coal fired electric generators in utilities in the
> > >> US. A typical coal plant produces 800MW (a MW is 1000KVS for those who
> > >> don't know).
>
> > >> The tokamak you cited produce THREE mw.
> > > Larry lying his ass off again about the Tokamak Fusion Test reactor
> > > that operated at the Princeton Plasma physics Institute.
>
> > Your link quoted 3000kw.
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr_achievements.html
>
> > > "December 1993, for the first time in history, a reactor fuel mix of
> > > 50% deuterium and 50% tritium was used in a tokamak. Initial TFTR
> > > experiments yielded 6.0 million watts. By November, 1994, TFTR
> > > achieved 10.7 million watts of power, about 100 million times the
> > > power produced by tokamaks twenty years ago.
>
> > Ooooh, wow, 10.7 MW!!! Instead of 3 MW
>
> > Boy, oh boy.
>
> > > Total U.S. net summer generating capacity grew by 1.5 percent
> > > between  2008 and 2009 to 1,025 gigawatts (GW; Figure ES2).
> > >http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
>
> > Only 1024990 MW to go!!!
>
> > Begone,. fool.
>
> > You don't know what you are saying.
>
> > Larry
>
> > > Of greater importance is the fact that D-T plasmas were more well-
> > > behaved than deuterium plasmas. For D-T plasmas, higher temperatures
> > > were possible, and the energy confinement time was about 20 percent
> > > higher."
>
> > >> At a 1 to one replacement (yeah,
> > >> right) it would cost A TRILLION DOLLARS to replace 15% of the coal
> > >> plants. This does not touch the gas fired plants or account for growth
> > >> when (if?) the economy improves. Fission plants would be a little
> > >> cheaper.  For the same price we can get 1000MW of production from them.
>
> > >> And it does not touch the major oil consumption, transportation.
> > >> Estimates I've seen say that even if we can force most recharging to be
> > >> off peak we would need to increase capacity by 10%, $750 billion in this
> > >> scenario.
>
> > >> I can find no estimates of large scale operating costs --- how much it
> > >> costs to extract large amounts of D2 from seawater, the amounts and
> > >> costs of the LI7 (Li6 is a poison), maintenance, etc.
> > > virtually inexhaustable supply of deuterium and lithium
>
> > >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> > > The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> > > generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> > > fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> > > tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> > > coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> > > Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> > > all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
>
> > >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>
> > > Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> > > is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> > > not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> > > metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> > > can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> > > by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> > > 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> > >https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>
> > > Fusion, and solar energy (including biofuels) are the only energy
> > > sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power for the next
> > > century and beyond without the negative environmental impacts of
> > > fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of
> > > hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the metal
> > > lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
> > > inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
> > > – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
> > > provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
> > > cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
> > > fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
> > > considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
> > > radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
> > > would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
> > > power plant.
>
> > >> And this is at least 10 years out --- your *demo* is 5 out.
>
> > > not likely Tokamak ITER will be...
>
> read more »
s***@yahoo.com
2011-06-26 02:10:27 UTC
Permalink
The Oil company Oligopoly has been repressing innovation and this
proof:

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

"The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg."

here are the relevant excerpts as it regards to fuel economy, and
viability.

Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

-excerpts-

"Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-
neutral macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?

That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.

Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.

The buzz of the automotive engineering circles in the early 1970s and
winner of the Wood River Competition for the planet's top mileage car,
the little Opel had been bought by the France family, owners of
NASCAR, and gifted to the museum at Talladega raceway.

Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
and engineering.

The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg. "

This proves the oil companies are an Oligopoly, stifiling and shelving
innovation, and patents relative to fuel economy and alternative fuels
development. I think 176 miles per gallon, is definetly reasonable. If
we reversed engineered this technology, to our American and Japanese
cars, we could reduce our yearly conception of oil by billions of
barrels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

latest discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/f8245eefd490c169?lnk=raot#f8245eefd490c169


On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> based rocket propellants.
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> force through 2020.
>
> Primary function:       Intercontinental ballistic missile
> Contractor:     Boeing Co.
> Power plant:    "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> first stage, Thiokol;
> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> Weight:         79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> Diameter:       5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> Range:  6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> Speed:  Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > commercial application.
>
> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > prices.
>
> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> 1970's!
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
> > So what?
>
> > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > speculation and price fixing.
>
> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> gallon.
>
> > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > not current.
>
> > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> will rise soon.
>
> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
> nuclear weapons technology from Iran,  or that he has substantial
> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
> theory.
>
> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
> identification, since  these smugglers can easily cross through the
> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Why?
>
> > So producers can make more money?
>
> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>
>
>
> > What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> > amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
> companyhttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comif they thought that synthetic
> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
> genome sequencing project.
>
> > Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> > thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> > that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> > because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> > spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the...
>
> read more »
s***@yahoo.com
2011-06-26 12:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Larry your a dumb shit here are the facts on Nuclear fusion as it
relates to the TOKAMAK ITER, you have been talking to Dr. Bill
Wattenburg, or at least you think you have!!!!

You just are trying to delay the inevitable march of
progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon

Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
very safe and sustainable energy source.

The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
Safety

SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
community.

The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
malfunction occur.

Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
radioactive fuel is needed.

At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
Sustainable

Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
climate.

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
Safety for ITER

Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.

All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.

The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
plants.

For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.

The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
safely without significant environmental impacts.

Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
Cadarache are built and commissioned.

thomaswheat1975

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf

On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> based rocket propellants.
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> force through 2020.
>
> Primary function:       Intercontinental ballistic missile
> Contractor:     Boeing Co.
> Power plant:    "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> first stage, Thiokol;
> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> Weight:         79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> Diameter:       5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> Range:  6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> Speed:  Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > commercial application.
>
> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > prices.
>
> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> 1970's!
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
> > So what?
>
> > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > speculation and price fixing.
>
> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> gallon.
>
> > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > not current.
>
> > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> will rise soon.
>
> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
> nuclear weapons technology from Iran,  or that he has substantial
> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
> theory.
>
> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
> identification, since  these smugglers can easily cross through the
> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Why?
>
> > So producers can make more money?
>
> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>
>
>
> > What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> > amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
> companyhttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comif they thought that synthetic
> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
> genome sequencing project.
>
> > Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> > thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> > that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> > because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> > spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-26 15:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Larry
Your a dumbshit!!! You never even clicked on the link i sent you sent
you from the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
mpg achieved in 1949; 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://lccn.loc.gov/77003916

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

"The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg."

here are the relevant excerpts as it regards to fuel economy, and
viability.

Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

-excerpts-

"Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-
neutral macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?

That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.

Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.

The buzz of the automotive engineering circles in the early 1970s and
winner of the Wood River Competition for the planet's top mileage car,
the little Opel had been bought by the France family, owners of
NASCAR, and gifted to the museum at Talladega raceway.

Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
and engineering.

The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg. "

This proves the oil companies are an Oligopoly, stifling and shelving
innovation, and patents relative to fuel economy and alternative fuels
development. I think 176 miles per gallon, is defintley reasonable. If
we reversed engineered this technology, to our American and Japanese
cars, we could reduce our yearly conception of oil by billions of
barrels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

latest discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf

On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> based rocket propellants.
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> force through 2020.
>
> Primary function:       Intercontinental ballistic missile
> Contractor:     Boeing Co.
> Power plant:    "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> first stage, Thiokol;
> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> Weight:         79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> Diameter:       5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> Range:  6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> Speed:  Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > commercial application.
>
> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > prices.
>
> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> 1970's!
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
> > So what?
>
> > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > speculation and price fixing.
>
> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> gallon.
>
> > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > not current.
>
> > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> will rise soon.
>
> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
> nuclear weapons technology from Iran,  or that he has substantial
> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
> theory.
>
> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
> identification, since  these smugglers can easily cross through the
> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Why?
>
> > So producers can make more money?
>
> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>
>
>
> > What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> > amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
> companyhttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comif they thought that synthetic
> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
> genome sequencing project.
>
> > Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> > thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> > that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> > because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> > spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-26 15:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-

environment/index_en.htm

Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon

Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
very safe and sustainable energy source.

The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
Safety

SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
community.

The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
malfunction occur.

Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
radioactive fuel is needed.

At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
Sustainable

Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
climate.

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
Safety for ITER

Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.

All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.

The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
plants.

For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.

The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
safely without significant environmental impacts.

Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
Cadarache are built and commissioned.

thomaswheat1975

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/b2a3e493bbaf40cf

On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> chlorine boosters!!!
>
> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> based rocket propellants.
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> force through 2020.
>
> Primary function:       Intercontinental ballistic missile
> Contractor:     Boeing Co.
> Power plant:    "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> first stage, Thiokol;
> second stage, Aerojet-General;
> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> Weight:         79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> Diameter:       5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> Range:  6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> Speed:  Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> Fusion Power plant.
>
> > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > commercial application.
>
> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > prices.
>
> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> 1970's!
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering.
>
> > So what?
>
> > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > speculation and price fixing.
>
> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> gallon.
>
> > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > not current.
>
> > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> dollars a barrel, as of yesterday because because Obama released 30
> million dollars from the strategic petroleum reserve, and other
> nonmember OPEC oil producing coountries also followed suit, by
> releasing an additional 30 billion barrels. However, at most this is
> approximately one days worth of the total global consumption of Fossil
> fuel. So absent throwing all the speculators to the dogs the price
> will rise soon.
>
> Also Republicans in the House are trying there hardest to sabotage the
> temporary economic relief of gasoline prices, having dropped
> approximately by 35 cents a gallon, by trying to impose economic
> sanctions on Venezuela despite the fact that they are one of our
> largest regional suppliers, and Venezuela's light sweet crude is
> critical for diesal and jet fuel. So they are just trying to disrupt
> supply, by making phony assertions that Hugo Chavez, is trying to get
> nuclear weapons technology from Iran,  or that he has substantial
> terrorist ties because of his indirect association with FARC and the
> Basque ETA sepratist movement. Its a crock of shit, what they are
> trying to pull. FARC is primarily composed of peasant guerrillas, and
> no mention is made by these republicans of the right wing paramilitary
> narco-traffiking groups associated with the Cali cartel, who have
> close ties to the right wing government of Columbia. AS far as ETA
> Basque seperatism goes, the facts are they were living in Spain, 10000
> years before the Spainards arrived, and they speak a language, totally
> unrelated to the Indo_European family of languages, so its a
> linguistic mystery, regarding cross continental ethnic migration
> theory.
>
> Fact is these guys want a quasi police/criminal shakedown of the
> american public so that there is no opposition to the Columbian Free
> trade agreement, so that like under year 1980's Reagan-Bush, these
> guys can flood the market with Cocaine and Crack, since if the
> agreement is passed, and the columbian truckers have biometric
> identification, since  these smugglers can easily cross through the
> border, on up through Mexico, vertically integrating that drug
> smuggling outfit there, and then traffic freely through the USA
> border, without even a search of their long haul trucks, if they have
> biometric identification!!!!!!!!!Do you want that!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Why?
>
> > So producers can make more money?
>
> Obviously this an unproductive form of capitalism, the market should
> reflect demand, not who can manipulate supply.
>
>
>
> > What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> > amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> then why did ExxonMobil invest 300 million dollars in this Biomass
> companyhttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comif they thought that synthetic
> microbial algae that feeds off of carbon dioxide, and secretes oil
> that can be refined i nto gasoline, wouldn't be profitable. The CBS
> show, 60 minutes recently ran a special on the company and its
> founder, J. Craig Ventner. Check CBS website and you can find the
> transcripts of the interview. He was one of the pioneers of the Human
> genome sequencing project.
>
> > Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> > thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> > that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> No its precisely the fact that republicans voted to continue corporate
> welfare multibillion dollar subsidies for big USA Oil, which precisely
> enables them to continue, to invest the nations energy portfolio
> irresponsibly. WE only have 2 percent of the world's total proven
> reserves. By year 2100 world oil supplies will be exhausted, and these
> oil companies are getting high off the fumes, they've become retarded
> and unproductive, living high on corporate welfare entitlements.
> Subsidies should only go towards new emerging technologies to
> stimulate Research and development, not act as an entitlement complex
> for early 20th century refining technology!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> > because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> > spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> Yah but the price for Natural gas is cheap, if they built an Canadian
> US transcontinental natural gas pipeline the project would pay for its
> self, in less than 5-10 years, especially on the east coast and in the
> mid-west where winters are harsh.
>
> > Secondly you
>
> > > dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> > > secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
> > > developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> > > non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> > > create hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> > I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
> > ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
> > agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
> > New Hampshire.
>
> now your talking out of your clusterfuck ass!!!!!
> So your vision of the 21 st century, is cars powered by methane, pig
> shit, like in"Mad Max Beyond Thunderfdome" starring Mel Gibson. Eat
> shit, Synthetic Genomics is the wave of the future. Might you be
> opposed to the companies success because you are creationist who
> believes that the world is only 6500 years old, and that there will be
> a rapture. How many suckiers fell for that this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> > This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>
> > >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > > The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> > > use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> > ???
>
> > The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>
> The MinuteMan III uses solid fuel stage propellant.
>
> > Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
> > I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
> > pressures, a laboratory only animal.  The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
> > years ago let a small ($2 M?)  contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
> > fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
> > faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>
> > Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
> > use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
> > implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
> > tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
> > a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>
> that's where the fuel cell comes in. They have the technology, your
> like the guy who still wants to sell carriages, and rig the market so
> that there will always be horse drawn carriages, instead of the
> automobile.
>
> > > Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> > > device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> > > you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> > > power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> > > then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion,  and the only
> > > radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>
> > That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
> > in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
> > neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
> > barriers to commercial use at the present.
>
> you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
>
> Fact: Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. look it up, you just talk out
> of your ass. Secondly there is no implosion or splitting of atoms as
> is used in fission power. The proton-Proton cycle, fuses 2 isotopes of
> hydrogen, into helium 3 and helium 4, whereby magnetic plasma inertial
> confinement powers the core. Regarding neutron radiation, I'll be
> honest, it only has a half life of at most a 100 years. Look it up
> yourself, here
>
> http://www.fusion-eur.org/
>
>
>
> > Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
> > rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI  in batteries is a potential
> > barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>
> > Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>
> > which has a radioactive half life of
>
> > > 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> > > what I write, before you retort minimally.
>
> > Yep, I read it.
>
> > You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>
> > No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
> > more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
> > to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
> > induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
> > FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>
> > The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
> > combustion engine:  the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
> > Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
> > compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
> > date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
> > viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
> > periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>
> > The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
> > particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
> > have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
> > spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>
> > As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
> > Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
> > removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
> > initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
> > reaction, which is far less efficient.
>
> > However, better fuel
>
> > > economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>
> > it is *THE* long term solution.
>
> > 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
> > transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
> > outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
> > close to 90%
>
> > NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
> > consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
> > continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
> > eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
> > to diesel without the additives).
>
> > I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
> > transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
> > between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
> > 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
> > to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
> > mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>
> > These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
> > More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
> > the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
> > electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
> > into generators (admittedly long term)
>
> > Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
> > fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
> > that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
> > more out.
>
> > Then you will
>
> > > here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> > > in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> > > COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> > > MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> > > MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> > Absolutely.
>
> > What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
> > use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
> > cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>
> > This means:
>
> > no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
> > sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>
> you are talking out of your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>
> you must be stupid and inbred, you already acknowledged it was a coal
> miners right to rape his sister, you are fuckin mental
> dude!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
> > No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>
> > no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
> > energy.
>
> > no waiting for technology
>
> > less pollution, both chemical and light.
>
> > less disease
>
> > less infrastructure damage from emissions
>
> > less danger from foreign enemies.
>
> > more capital for "fun"
>
> > more freedom
>
> > more time.
>
> > Larry
>
> > >http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> > > ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> > > ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> > > which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> > > fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
> > > heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
> > > plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> > > the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> > > vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> > > Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> > > of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> > > degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> > > well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> > > addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> > > hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> > > areas of fusion technology development.
>
> > > In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> > > device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> > > deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> > > production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> > > million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> > > more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> > > behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> > > reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>
> > read more »
>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > commercial application.
>
> > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > prices.
>
> > So what?
>
> > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > speculation and price fixing.
>
> > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > not current.
>
> > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> > Why?
>
> > So producers can make more money?
>
> > What petroleum uses will be replaced in the short term by NG?  A small
> > amount of peak electric generation?  A few feedstocks?
>
> > Certainly little on the consumer side. Few consumers are going to spend
> > thousands to convert from oil or electric heating to ng, especially now
> > that repugs are ending the federal rebates.
>
> > Heck, even new NG hookups for homes are unavailable for 2/3 of my county
> > because of distribution problems. Hundreds of $thousands will need to be
> > spent here just to bring trunk lines into communities.
>
> > Secondly you
>
> > > dont even mention biomass, such as synthetic microbial algae that
> > > secretes oil, like whathttp://www.syntheticgenomics.comis
> > > developing. llnl.gov is also developing advanced microbes that secrete
> > > non fossil fuel emitting fuel supply. They also have the technology to
> > > create hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> > I did mention it, specifically algal diesel and non-food produced
> > ethanol. I also mentioned electricity generated from methane from
> > agricultural waste digesters in use in India and digesters of cow poo in
> > New Hampshire.
>
> > This was a center stage part of my discussion.
>
> > >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > > The technology exists to create solid hydrogen fuel, since we already
> > > use this technology to fuel our Intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> > ???
>
> > The Titan II, for ex., uses pressured gases for fuel.
>
> > Solid hydrogen fuels do not exist. The only form of pure solid hydrogen
> > I am aware of is metallic hydrogen, H2 at very low temps and very high
> > pressures, a laboratory only animal.  The Bush hydrogen initiative a few
> > years ago let a small ($2 M?)  contract to produce a "solid" hydrogen
> > fuel source conceptually similar to a hydride, but afaik that initiative
> > faded away. It is intended for fuel cells, not combustion.
>
> > Compressed or liquid hydrogen, as I noted, is dangerous to transport and
> > use, and will require $TRILLIONS in infrastructure development to
> > implement. Not least on its list of problems is the need to vent the
> > tanks at short intervals --- your link above brags of a tank that can go
> > a whole 6 days without venting that cost many $millions to develop.
>
> > > Furthermore The TOKAMAK Nuclear Fusion Test Reactor, is not Fissionary
> > > device. Its a Fusion device. For the Fuckin retards in this newsgroup,
> > > you should know it is not powered by uranium, like Fission Nuclear
> > > power plants are. It is powered by two isotopes of hydrogen-deuterium
> > > then Tritium, and then Lithium. There is no implosion,  and the only
> > > radioactive byproduct is Tritium,
>
> > That is the only radioactive matter. About 20% of the reaction energy is
> > in the form of charged particles --- radiation, and 80% is neutrons, The
> > neutrons induce radioactivity in the reactor walls, one of the biggest
> > barriers to commercial use at the present.
>
> > Tokamaks use lithium to soak up excess neutrons and produce T3, but the
> > rapid expansion of the use of scarce LI  in batteries is a potential
> > barrier to increased use of Tokamaks, since the neutrons destroy the Li.
>
> > Tokamaks have been around for 60 years and are still laboratory curiosities.
>
> > which has a radioactive half life of
>
> > > 12.5 years. You dont know what you are talking ABOUT. Do you even read
> > > what I write, before you retort minimally.
>
> > Yep, I read it.
>
> > You want further discussion on tokamaks?
>
> > No tokamak to date as actually produced more energy than it consumes for
> > more than seconds intervals. Massive amounts of electricity are needed
> > to form the magnetic toroids, and then to squeeze them down enough to
> > induce fusion. Your ITER link below brags of 3000kv of production
> > FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, and they have not significantly improved that since.
>
> > The fusion cylcle of a tpkamak is conceptually similar to an internal
> > combustion engine:  the toroid expands (piston withdrawn), D2, T3, and
> > Li7 inserted (gasoline and air injected ), toroid magnetically
> > compressed (cylinder compresses fuel), and reaction (combustion). To
> > date we cannot get a rapid enough sustained cycling to be commercially
> > viable, that is, to actually PRODUCE MORE energy than is consumed over
> > periods measured in weeks rather than seconds.
>
> > The most desirable part of the D2 -T3 reactions is the charged
> > particles. They can be used directly to create electricity. The neutrons
> > have no value in generating power. Being neutral, they obviously cannot
> > spin a generator, induce electricity in a coil, etc.
>
> > As noted, lithium moderates the reaction by removing neutrons. The
> > Lithium reaction splitting the Li7 to T3 and H4 is endothermic,
> > removing energy from the tokamak. Li7 provides the T3 for the D2-T3
> > initial reaction. A lack of lithium mandates the use of a D2-D2
> > reaction, which is far less efficient.
>
> > However, better fuel
>
> > > economy is a start, but that is a short term solution.
>
> > it is *THE* long term solution.
>
> > 70% or more of petroleum use in the US is for auto and truck
> > transportation. This can be totally eliminated by the methods I
> > outlined. Add airlines, farm vehicles, boats, ... and we get danged
> > close to 90%
>
> > NG is used for peak electric generation. It can be eliminated and coal
> > consumptiion cut through reduction in outside lighting demand and
> > continued household efficiency increase. The use of algal diesel can
> > eliminate NG and oil in home heating (home heating oil is very similar
> > to diesel without the additives).
>
> > I left this out because it is costly, but our current electric
> > transmission system is inefficient, losing 30% of generated power
> > between the power plant and the outlet. Upgrading it from 300v to the
> > 765 v currently in use in the newest 15% of the grid will cut that loss
> > to below 10%, the equivalent of about 40 800MW generators. The wires can
> > mostly remain, it is the parts between the wires that need to be replaced.
>
> > These 2 efficiencies can cut electricity consumption by as much as 30%.
> > More can be cut from point source generation. Methane disgesters like
> > the ag waste digesters in India and the NH cow poo turn farms into net
> > electricity producers. Thin film silicon solar cells can turn windows
> > into generators (admittedly long term)
>
> > Again, there is no need for expensive, complex technology to create
> > fuel. We spend to much on energy, there are major problems created by
> > that expenditure, and these technologies are realistically a decade or
> > more out.
>
> > Then you will
>
> > > here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> > > in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> > > COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> > > MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> > > MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> > Absolutely.
>
> > What I outlined are the first parts of a proposal to cut US petroleum
> > use by 90% in 30 years. An aggressive schedule, but attainable. We can
> > cut NG use by 50% in the same time period.
>
> > This means:
>
> > no more mideast oil, nigerian oil, Chavez oil, ... we are totally self
> > sufficient for 300 years with known domestic sources.
>
> > No fracking. Known conventional ng reserves would last 400 years.
>
> > No $10 billion nukes, either fission or fusion.
>
> > no new expensive infrastructure for transportation and distribution of
> > energy.
>
> > no waiting for technology
>
> > less pollution, both chemical and light.
>
> > less disease
>
> > less infrastructure damage from emissions
>
> > less danger from foreign enemies.
>
> > more capital for "fun"
>
> > more freedom
>
> > more time.
>
> > Larry
>
> > >http://www.iter.org/mach
>
> > > ITER: the world's largest Tokamak
>
> > > ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in
> > > which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The
> > > fuel�a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen�is
> > > heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million�C, forming a hot
> > > plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from
> > > the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the
> > > vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.
>
> > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> > > Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> > > of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> > > degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> > > well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> > > addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> > > hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> > > areas of fusion technology development.
>
> > > In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> > > device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> > > deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> > > production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> > > million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> > > more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> > > behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> > > reactions. The extent to which the alpha...
>
> > read more »
Uno Hu
2011-06-26 18:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea591b8b-40da-4c59-8964-***@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com

> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>
>
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-an
d-
>
> environment/index_en.htm
>
> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be
a
> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> Safety
>
> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a
hypothesis
> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> community.
>
> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to
the
> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> malfunction occur.

I don't believe anything the Neocons say unless and until the crap
eaters can prove it.
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-30 14:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Are you implying that my posts have an ideological affinity for
neconservatism. I've posted approximatelly 55 posts in this thread,
regarding the fallacious view that increased US domestic oil drilling
will not lower oil prices, since the prioe is set by overall global
demand, OPEC, and futures speculators. I've tried to convince these
neocons, of the viability of renewable fuel sources like hydrogen,
biomass and nuclear fusion. Here's the link to the European union's
website on Nuclear fusion regarding environmental impact of the
Tokamak nuclear fusion power plant.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

check it out. Sooner or later we must transition from fossil fuels to
hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, biomass, etc., since world oil
reserves will be exhausted by year 2100. Also our demand for oil,
forces us to committ ourselves to expensive military interventions in
the middle east, in support of ruthless despots, that reinforces
collective arab opinion that we are the source of their repression.
Our interventions in behalf off these despots, fuels arab animosity,
that translates into greater security liabilities for us, as we are
forced to repel or respond to terrroist attacks. Furthermore, the oil
market is rigged by speculators. The CEO of exxon even admitted in
congressional testimony that 40% of the price of gasoline at the pump
was due to speculation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html

Hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas and deuterium-tritium, are not
subject to speculators, and the latter, has unlimited inexhaustable
supplies here on earth. We need to build this nuclear fusion power
plant. http://www.pppl.gov/fusionpowerplant.cfm

As a short term solution we need to improve fuel economy. WE already
have the technology. see this study, the oil companies have been
repressing patents and innovation. THey have no desire to see us
increase fuel productivity, because they have grown fat and lazy on
the corporate welfare subsidies we tax payers provide them.
Furthermore this has not encouraged them to transition to alternative
fuel sources, even though we have a finite supply, because they
benefit trmendously when their are price spikes in oil prices.

How to Improve Fuel Economy

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
(then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3

Article about the 1959 Opel that got over 350 mils to the gallon, and
that if it were made more drivable, you would still be able to get
over 175 miles to the gallon.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php.

you can buy the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/

Furthermore,
if we could get the whole US electricity grid powered by natural gas,
hydrogen fuel cell and by the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor, we
could reduce our yearly consumption of oil by over 30%. If we powered
our cars with hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas and or biomass, we
wouldn't have to intiate the 100's of billions of foreign transfer of
US wealth to Arab despots. We could break the cycle of despotism and
terrorism if we stopped buying oil from the middle east. The future is
now. Men only have to act upon it!!!

thomaswheat1975

On Jun 26, 11:13 am, "Uno Hu" <***@cs.com> wrote:
> Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ea591b8b-40da-4c59-8964-***@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>
> > Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-an
> d-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > environment/index_en.htm
>
> > Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> > Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> > the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> > large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be
> a
> > very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> > The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> > Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> > and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> > identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> > This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> > Safety
>
> > SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> > among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> > lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> > not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a
> hypothesis
> > is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> > radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> > reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> > community.
>
> > The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to
> the
> > very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> > rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> > malfunction occur.
>
> I don't believe anything the Neocons say unless and until the crap
> eaters can prove it.
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-30 20:17:11 UTC
Permalink
On 6/30/2011 10:01 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> Are you implying that my posts have an ideological affinity for
> neconservatism. I've posted approximatelly 55 posts in this thread,
> regarding the fallacious view that increased US domestic oil drilling
> will not lower oil prices, since the prioe is set by overall global
> demand, OPEC, and futures speculators. I've tried to convince these
> neocons, of the viability of renewable fuel sources like hydrogen,
> biomass and nuclear fusion. Here's the link to the European union's
> website on Nuclear fusion regarding environmental impact of the
> Tokamak nuclear fusion power plant.
>


I'm implying nothing. I am being straight forward, clear, and as
precise as I can be.

You seem to be taking any contrarian post as a personal attack.

It ain't.

I have frequently agreed with you about drilling. You are absolutely
correct.

I absolutely agree that renewables are the only solution to our growing
energy problems (and a whole lot more problems, like national security).

But I absolutely DISAGREE that any new major technological push like
hydrogen or fusion, and including other pie-in-the-sky, expensive, long
term research projects like electric cars, wave/tidal generated
electricity, CNG powered cars, fuel cells, and a whole lot more are even
medium term solutions. At this point they are little more than taxpayer
gifts to big business. Lots of taxpayer money for research that somehow
won't pan out, and NOTHING gets done for another decade.

I saw it in the '70's, We see it with ethanol. Promises of distillation
from scrub grasses. agricultural waste, etc died as soon as the corn
subsidy was passed. We see it with the taxpayer subsidies of nukes. 7
yrs, $100 million, not one more WATT.

OTOH, what I have proposed is no more than regulatory change and
infrastructure repair/upgrade. Doable right bloomin' NOW. That will SAVE
money.

> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> check it out. Sooner or later we must transition from fossil fuels to
> hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, biomass, etc., since world oil


Natural gas is a diversion by the energy companies, more of the same.
Billions in profit from production. Trillions in "conversion" costs and
associated profits. And the same players' stranglehold on our economy.

Conventional production is (has?) peaking (ed). Fracking, or the
destruction of underground rock formations by the injection of high
pressure water, sand and often other (even carcinogenic pollutants)
substances to allow pockets of gas to escape, is being touted as the
wave of the future.

It ain't ready for prime time yet, if ever.

Ignoring the unscrupulous operators who use illegal substances (10 Texas
operators were found disposing of hazardous waste down their wells) or
fraudulent leases, there are many daunting technological problems
inherent in the practice.

Most worrisome is the basic nature of the process, the fracturing. It
cannot be restricted to underground formations, but breaks the surface.
Already we have seen major releases of methane, sulfur dioxide, and
chlorine compounds above gas fields with no hope of plugging them.
Methane and its associated pollutants has been found --- sometimes
after an explosion --- in basements, water wells and sewers. The surface
fractures have allowed the fracking fluid to escape, in one Pa. case
spectacularly polluting nearby farms and streams.

And perhaps worst is production is not living up to rosy projections.
The first fields are showing signs of being tapped out with less than
half the projected gas produced. The technology ---- obviously ---
destroys the formation, and as yet no one has any idea what to do to get
the rest out.

> reserves will be exhausted by year 2100.


Because we are doing business as usual --- more electric generation
instead of transmission efficiency. Increased use of NG in industry for
firing furnaces, driers, ovens, etc because the cost of the NG is
subsidized.

Also our demand for oil,
> forces us to committ ourselves to expensive military interventions in
> the middle east, in support of ruthless despots, that reinforces
> collective arab opinion that we are the source of their repression.
> Our interventions in behalf off these despots, fuels arab animosity,
> that translates into greater security liabilities for us, as we are
> forced to repel or respond to terrroist attacks. Furthermore, the oil
> market is rigged by speculators. The CEO of exxon even admitted in
> congressional testimony that 40% of the price of gasoline at the pump
> was due to speculation.

yep

>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html
>
> Hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas and deuterium-tritium, are not
> subject to speculators, and the latter, has unlimited inexhaustable
> supplies here on earth. We need to build this nuclear fusion power
> plant. http://www.pppl.gov/fusionpowerplant.cfm
>
> As a short term solution we need to improve fuel economy. WE already
> have the technology. see this study, the oil companies have been
> repressing patents and innovation. THey have no desire to see us
> increase fuel productivity, because they have grown fat and lazy on
> the corporate welfare subsidies we tax payers provide them.
> Furthermore this has not encouraged them to transition to alternative
> fuel sources, even though we have a finite supply, because they
> benefit trmendously when their are price spikes in oil prices.
>

We don't need new technology or those pie in the sky projections right
now. Maybe later.

They ALL, EVERY ONE, require designs or behaviors consumers will not
currently accept.

OTOH, EXISTING, off the shelf, consumer friendly, in production NOW
technology can reduce US oil consumption by half in 10 years or less.

No patent fights.

No multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded research grants, no trillion
dollar retooling, new distribution channels, ...,\ No 10 year delays.

Now.

Cheap.

Easy.


Then we can do something else next.

But we need to start NOW. The next 70's style oil shock may permanently
damage our economy.


> How to Improve Fuel Economy
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
> Article about the 1959 Opel that got over 350 mils to the gallon, and
> that if it were made more drivable, you would still be able to get
> over 175 miles to the gallon.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php.
>
> you can buy the book here:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/
>
> Furthermore,
> if we could get the whole US electricity grid powered by natural gas,
> hydrogen fuel cell and by the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor, we
> could reduce our yearly consumption of oil by over 30%.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but the EIA says
electricity generation by oil is less than 2% of total using less than
1% of total petroleum demand.
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm

Natural gas is a minor player, too.

NG is used mostly for peak , on demand daytime generation because gas
fired boilers can be started quickly and easily.

But large scale NG fired plants are extremely expensive to build, and,
to date, not ready for full time generation.

According the EIA site above not one of the new full scale plants built
in the last 5 years has been NG fired despite the increased availability
and low cost of NG. All were coal fired.

If we powered
> our cars with hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas and or biomass, we
> wouldn't have to intiate the 100's of billions of foreign transfer of
> US wealth to Arab despots. We could break the cycle of despotism and
> terrorism if we stopped buying oil from the middle east. The future is
> now. Men only have to act upon it!!!
>

Or cut consumption by 50% or more, then switch to bio-oils and smart
diesel for the rest. No need to spend billions on new research,
trillions on retooling and new distribution. No need to wait 10yaers to
see if society and technology are in step.


Larry
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 26, 11:13 am, "Uno Hu"<***@cs.com> wrote:
>> Tom Jigme Wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ea591b8b-40da-4c59-8964-***@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>>
>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-an
>> d-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> environment/index_en.htm
>>
>>> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>>
>>> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
>>> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
>>> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be
>> a
>>> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>>
>>> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
>>> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
>>> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
>>> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
>>> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
>>> Safety
>>
>>> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
>>> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
>>> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
>>> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a
>> hypothesis
>>> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
>>> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
>>> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
>>> community.
>>
>>> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to
>> the
>>> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
>>> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
>>> malfunction occur.
>>
>> I don't believe anything the Neocons say unless and until the crap
>> eaters can prove it.
>
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-01 00:38:37 UTC
Permalink
On 6/30/2011 4:17 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 10:01 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>> Are you implying that my posts have an ideological affinity for
>> neconservatism. I've posted approximatelly 55 posts in this thread,
>> regarding the fallacious view that increased US domestic oil drilling
>> will not lower oil prices, since the prioe is set by overall global
>> demand, OPEC, and futures speculators. I've tried to convince these
>> neocons, of the viability of renewable fuel sources like hydrogen,
>> biomass and nuclear fusion. Here's the link to the European union's
>> website on Nuclear fusion regarding environmental impact of the
>> Tokamak nuclear fusion power plant.
>>
>
>
> I'm implying nothing. I am being straight forward, clear, and as precise
> as I can be.
>
> You seem to be taking any contrarian post as a personal attack.
>
> It ain't.
>
> I have frequently agreed with you about drilling. You are absolutely
> correct.
>
> I absolutely agree that renewables are the only solution to our growing
> energy problems (and a whole lot more problems, like national security).
>
> But I absolutely DISAGREE that any new major technological push like
> hydrogen or fusion, and including other pie-in-the-sky, expensive, long
> term research projects like electric cars, wave/tidal generated
> electricity, CNG powered cars, fuel cells, and a whole lot more are even
> medium term solutions. At this point they are little more than taxpayer
> gifts to big business. Lots of taxpayer money for research that somehow
> won't pan out, and NOTHING gets done for another decade.
>
> I saw it in the '70's, We see it with ethanol. Promises of distillation
> from scrub grasses. agricultural waste, etc died as soon as the corn
> subsidy was passed. We see it with the taxpayer subsidies of nukes. 7
> yrs, $100 million, not one more WATT.
>
> OTOH, what I have proposed is no more than regulatory change and
> infrastructure repair/upgrade. Doable right bloomin' NOW. That will SAVE
> money.
>

FWIW, this is a major factor in my position.

My regional electric utility is Duke Power.

When Bush announced the "incentive" to build more nukes Duke jumped in,
licensing 2 plants, one south of me near Lancaster, SC, and one north
near Statesville, NC. They got millions in incentive payments and design
and construction assistance.

Now Duke is the largest purveyor of Nukes in the world, so design
assistance is superfluous.

The plants were to be sited on land already owned by Duke, so the land
acquisition/ preparation assistance is moot.

Not one tree has been cut down in 6 years.

OTOH, demand is up and Duke needed more regional capacity. Their nuke
near me, the Lake Wylie plant, is operating at about 50% of capacity.
Only 4 of the 6 generators that the plant is capable of driving are
even installed. One, owned by a local government utility, runs at about
40% of capacity. The other three Duke owned generators run at about 80%
of capacity.

For a relatively small amount of money and a purchase agreement for
excess capacity from the local utility this plant could put out an
additional 500MW.

But the need is in Northern North Carolina, the Raleigh area, 200 miles
away. And the local power grid is incapable of handling the new load,
let alone without huge losses.

So Duke built a 1000 MW coal plant outside of Raleigh that opened last
year. Only half of the generators were installed, and at least through
its break-in period it is running at about half capacity on the
installed generators.

Attempts to upgrade the local grid fell on deaf ears, leaving us with
frequent blackouts (weather has been terrible), 2 businesses moving
because they could not get the power needed to expand, high rates, and
high costs for repairs.

Larry

>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>>
>>
>> check it out. Sooner or later we must transition from fossil fuels to
>> hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, biomass, etc., since world oil
>
>
> Natural gas is a diversion by the energy companies, more of the same.
> Billions in profit from production. Trillions in "conversion" costs and
> associated profits. And the same players' stranglehold on our economy.
>
> Conventional production is (has?) peaking (ed). Fracking, or the
> destruction of underground rock formations by the injection of high
> pressure water, sand and often other (even carcinogenic pollutants)
> substances to allow pockets of gas to escape, is being touted as the
> wave of the future.
>
> It ain't ready for prime time yet, if ever.
>
> Ignoring the unscrupulous operators who use illegal substances (10 Texas
> operators were found disposing of hazardous waste down their wells) or
> fraudulent leases, there are many daunting technological problems
> inherent in the practice.
>
> Most worrisome is the basic nature of the process, the fracturing. It
> cannot be restricted to underground formations, but breaks the surface.
> Already we have seen major releases of methane, sulfur dioxide, and
> chlorine compounds above gas fields with no hope of plugging them.
> Methane and its associated pollutants has been found --- sometimes after
> an explosion --- in basements, water wells and sewers. The surface
> fractures have allowed the fracking fluid to escape, in one Pa. case
> spectacularly polluting nearby farms and streams.
>
> And perhaps worst is production is not living up to rosy projections.
> The first fields are showing signs of being tapped out with less than
> half the projected gas produced. The technology ---- obviously ---
> destroys the formation, and as yet no one has any idea what to do to get
> the rest out.
>
>> reserves will be exhausted by year 2100.
>
>
> Because we are doing business as usual --- more electric generation
> instead of transmission efficiency. Increased use of NG in industry for
> firing furnaces, driers, ovens, etc because the cost of the NG is
> subsidized.
>
> Also our demand for oil,
>> forces us to committ ourselves to expensive military interventions in
>> the middle east, in support of ruthless despots, that reinforces
>> collective arab opinion that we are the source of their repression.
>> Our interventions in behalf off these despots, fuels arab animosity,
>> that translates into greater security liabilities for us, as we are
>> forced to repel or respond to terrroist attacks. Furthermore, the oil
>> market is rigged by speculators. The CEO of exxon even admitted in
>> congressional testimony that 40% of the price of gasoline at the pump
>> was due to speculation.
>
> yep
>
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lenzner/exxonmobil-ceo-says-oil-p_b_862811.html
>>
>>
>> Hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas and deuterium-tritium, are not
>> subject to speculators, and the latter, has unlimited inexhaustable
>> supplies here on earth. We need to build this nuclear fusion power
>> plant. http://www.pppl.gov/fusionpowerplant.cfm
>>
>> As a short term solution we need to improve fuel economy. WE already
>> have the technology. see this study, the oil companies have been
>> repressing patents and innovation. THey have no desire to see us
>> increase fuel productivity, because they have grown fat and lazy on
>> the corporate welfare subsidies we tax payers provide them.
>> Furthermore this has not encouraged them to transition to alternative
>> fuel sources, even though we have a finite supply, because they
>> benefit trmendously when their are price spikes in oil prices.
>>
>
> We don't need new technology or those pie in the sky projections right
> now. Maybe later.
>
> They ALL, EVERY ONE, require designs or behaviors consumers will not
> currently accept.
>
> OTOH, EXISTING, off the shelf, consumer friendly, in production NOW
> technology can reduce US oil consumption by half in 10 years or less.
>
> No patent fights.
>
> No multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded research grants, no trillion
> dollar retooling, new distribution channels, ...,\ No 10 year delays.
>
> Now.
>
> Cheap.
>
> Easy.
>
>
> Then we can do something else next.
>
> But we need to start NOW. The next 70's style oil shock may permanently
> damage our economy.
>
>
>> How to Improve Fuel Economy
>>
>> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>>
>>
>> Article about the 1959 Opel that got over 350 mils to the gallon, and
>> that if it were made more drivable, you would still be able to get
>> over 175 miles to the gallon.
>>
>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php.
>>
>>
>> you can buy the book here:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/
>>
>>
>> Furthermore,
>> if we could get the whole US electricity grid powered by natural gas,
>> hydrogen fuel cell and by the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor, we
>> could reduce our yearly consumption of oil by over 30%.
>
> I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but the EIA says
> electricity generation by oil is less than 2% of total using less than
> 1% of total petroleum demand.
>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm
>
> Natural gas is a minor player, too.
>
> NG is used mostly for peak , on demand daytime generation because gas
> fired boilers can be started quickly and easily.
>
> But large scale NG fired plants are extremely expensive to build, and,
> to date, not ready for full time generation.
>
> According the EIA site above not one of the new full scale plants built
> in the last 5 years has been NG fired despite the increased availability
> and low cost of NG. All were coal fired.
>
> If we powered
>> our cars with hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas and or biomass, we
>> wouldn't have to intiate the 100's of billions of foreign transfer of
>> US wealth to Arab despots. We could break the cycle of despotism and
>> terrorism if we stopped buying oil from the middle east. The future is
>> now. Men only have to act upon it!!!
>>
>
> Or cut consumption by 50% or more, then switch to bio-oils and smart
> diesel for the rest. No need to spend billions on new research,
> trillions on retooling and new distribution. No need to wait 10yaers to
> see if society and technology are in step.
>
>
> Larry
>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>> On Jun 26, 11:13 am, "Uno Hu"<***@cs.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Jigme Wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:ea591b8b-40da-4c59-8964-***@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-an
>>> d-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> environment/index_en.htm
>>>
>>>> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>>>
>>>> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
>>>> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
>>>> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be
>>> a
>>>> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>>>
>>>> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
>>>> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
>>>> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
>>>> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
>>>> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
>>>> Safety
>>>
>>>> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
>>>> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
>>>> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
>>>> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a
>>> hypothesis
>>>> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
>>>> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
>>>> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
>>>> community.
>>>
>>>> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to
>>> the
>>>> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
>>>> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
>>>> malfunction occur.
>>>
>>> I don't believe anything the Neocons say unless and until the crap
>>> eaters can prove it.
>>
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-06-30 04:11:30 UTC
Permalink
OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
http://www.pppl.gov to confirm these statments

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
post info on hydrogen fuel cells.

How to Improve Fuel Economy

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
(then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3

Fuel economy of the gasoline engine fuel, lubricant, and other
effects /
Author Blackmore, David Richard; Thomas, Alun; Affleck, W. S.
Publisher Wiley,
Place Published New York :
Year Published 1977
OCLC Number 02837680
Subjects Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition--Fuel
consumption
Holdings Library Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
EIAM TJ789.Fu Region 2 Library/New York,NY 01/01/1988
ELCM TJ789.F78 1977 NVFEL Library/Ann Arbor, MI 09/10/1988

Collation xi, 268 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-economy-gasoline-engine-lubricant/dp/0470991321/

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

..how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
..
it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly
bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest
sponsored by Shell Oil Co.

Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.

Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
Florida.


Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
and engineering


The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.

So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
176 mpg.


US Dept. Of Energy Fuel Cell program:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) is the trade
association for the fuel cell and hydrogen industry. FCHEA has
brochures and industry information on its website,

http://www.fchea.org

California Fuel Cell Partnership – http://www.cafcp.org
California Hydrogen Business Council - http://www.californiahydrogen.org
California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative - http://www.casfcc.org

Info on Hydrogen fuel cell fueling stations and companies in
california

http://www.fuelcells.org/info/statedatabase.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf

"More hydrogen fueling stations were opened, serving light duty
vehicles, buses and fuel cell forklifts.
• By the end of 2011, California plans to have at least 20 public
stations operating or under construction, with California Energy
Commission support for more stations down the pike.
• New hydrogen stations were opened in Delaware, New York, and South
Carolina to fuel cars and buses.
• New private hydrogen fueling stations were opened at warehouses
around the country to serve fuel cell-powered forklifts.
• Air Products reports 347,000 hydrogen fuelings per year at its
fueling stations and hydrogen dispensers.
More fuel cells are now backing up telecommunication and radio towers
and utility substations.
• Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding supported
hundreds of installations around the country by Sprint Nextel and fuel
cell manufacturer ReliOn (for AT&T and PG&E), respectively.
• Microcell Corporation also installed fuel cell units at CA, MD, NC,
OH and VA telecom and utility sites.

Fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy is greatly expanding its
Sunnyvale, California manufacturing facility and adding more than
1,000 new jobs. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years. The
company is also planning to build a manufacturing facility in Newark,
Delaware, hiring 900 employees over five years and predicting a
minimum of 600 more jobs to follow as its suppliers open Delaware
bases of operations."

Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations

Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)

natural gas powering fuel cells

http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/

http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf

Bloom Energy, Sunnyvale: Bloom Energy Servers, solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) systems are installed at many high profile locations – eBay,
Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx. Bloom also offers Bloom Electrons™, a PPA
that allows customers to lock in their electricity rates for 10 years,
delivering fixed predictable costs and significant savings versus the
grid with no initial investment. Bloom manages and maintains the
systems on the customers’ sites and the customers pay only for the
electricity consumed. Bloom has more than 20 MWs of power (200
systems) already installed, with several repeat customers. The company
is expanding its Sunnyvale manufacturing facility by four times to
over 210,000 square feet, and providing over 1000 new jobs for
Californians. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years.

FuelCell Energy, Danbury: FuelCell Energy manufactures Direct Fuel
Cell© (DFC©) MCFC fuel cell systems that can run on natural gas or
biogas. The company has sold more than 16 MW of power to California
alone in the past year and most recently announced a sale of 70 MW to
POSCO Power in Korea. (31)

SunHydro Hydrogen Station, Charlotte: SunHydro is the world's first
chain of privately funded fueling stations that provide hydrogen to
fuel cell cars. The company's goal is to produce hydrogen on-site
using solar energy and water. Most of the stations will be "self-
service," open 24 hours a day and near major highways and major
cities. A station is planned in Charlotte in Phase 1 of the project’s
development, which will create an East Coast Hydrogen Highway. Station
roll-out will begin in the northeastern U.S.

California
• Worldwide leader in - hydrogen stations, fuel cell vehicles, fuel
cell buses, stationary installations; Progressive emissions and
funding policies

info on Lawerence Livermore National Labs research on hydrogen fuel
powered cars
https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php

excerpt

Hydrogen Fuel

As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
fuel.



Hydrogen Fuel

As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
fuel.
The Challenge

Hydrogen does not commonly occur in its diatomic form on Earth and,
thus, it is not so much an energy resource as it is a synthesized
carrier, made from other resources. Today, hydrogen is commonly
generated from natural gas with about 80 percent efficiency. Hydrogen
is also extracted from water using electricity to power an
electrolysis reaction.

Storing hydrogen fuel onboard a vehicular poses challenges. Although
hydrogen is environmentally friendly, particularly at its point of
use, it is not as dense as conventional fossil fuels and requires
large, reinforced and pressurized storage tanks to achieve practical
driving distances. This presents space constraints for vehicle designs
and potential safety concerns.

The Solution

The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
incorporation by 2020.

To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
hydrogen gas.


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf

California Energy Commission (CEC) 2010-2011 Investment Plan for the
Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program: A
strategic decision by the CEC to match federal ARRA funding has
resulted in significant uncommitted Program funding from the first
investment plan. The CEC is releasing a series of focused
solicitations for approximately $113 million that, among other
efforts, further expands the state’s hydrogen fueling network. $14
million was allotted to this effort in 2010 (See the Hydrogen Stations
entry in the California Planned Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
section below).
Since adoption of the first investment plan in 2009, the CEC has
committed funds to a variety of alternative fuel efforts, including
the certification of hydrogen dispensing equipment for retail hydrogen
fueling stations and establishing specifications for hydrogen and
biodiesel fuels. (15)

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Self-Generation Incentive Program
(SGIP): SGIP provides rebates for qualifying distributed energy
systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter.
Qualifying technologies include wind turbines, fuel cells, and
corresponding energy storage systems. The program was to expire at the
end of 2011, but PUC code was amended to enable continuation of
incentives through the end of 2015. Additional program funding,
however, may not be available after 2011. The program year 2010
budgets by SGIP Program Administrator were:
Program
Administrator Percentage

2010 SGIP Budget (millions)
PG&E
44%
$36
SCE
34%
$28
CCSE
13%
$11
SoCalGas
9%
$8
TOTAL
100%
$83

Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations

Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)

Award Ceremonies, Los Angeles: Altergy Systems’ Freedom Power™
hydrogen fuel cell systems supplied lighting and “zero emission” power
needs for all four major Hollywood Awards Ceremonies – The Golden
Globes, The Screen Actors Guild Awards, The Grammy Awards, and the
Academy Awards.

Adobe Headquarters, San Jose: Twelve Bloom Energy Servers - 1.2 MW
total power - were installed in September 2010 at Adobe’s headquarters
campus.

Whole Foods Market, San Jose: Whole Foods Market will power a new San
Jose retail store with a 400-kW UTC Power fuel cell system. The fuel
cell system will generate 90 percent of the store’s power and its
byproduct thermal energy will be used for store heating, cooling and
refrigeration.

Albertsons, San Diego: A new Albertsons supermarket in San Diego
generates nearly 90 percent of its electricity using a 400-kW UTC
Power fuel cell. Byproduct heat from the fuel cell is captured and
used to warm water used in the store, heat the store when necessary
and to power a chiller to help cool the refrigerated food, resulting
in an overall energy efficiency of approximately 60 percent, nearly
twice the efficiency of the U.S. electrical grid. During power
outages, the store can operate without disruption because electricity
is generated on-site by the fuel cell, allowing Albertsons to avoid
costly food spoilage and ensure a reliable food supply in emergency
situations.

Zero Emission Bay Area (ZEBA) Advanced Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration,
Oakland: Five Bay Area transit agencies have joined to form the ZEBA
demonstration group: Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, Golden Gate
Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Mateo County
Transit District and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency. AC Transit is leading the project by purchasing the buses;
providing facilities to house, maintain, and fuel them; and serving as
the primary operator. AC Transit has begun taking delivery of the
buses; once all 12 buses are deployed, they will comprise the largest
fuel cell bus fleet in the U.S.

Honda Solar Hydrogen Station, Los Angeles: Honda has deployed its
“next generation” solar hydrogen refueling station that uses Honda’s
own solar cells. The unit collects solar energy during the day and the
customer can slow-fill with hydrogen over an eight-hour period at
night.

Shell/Toyota Hydrogen Fueling Station, Torrance: Opened in May 2011,
this is the first hydrogen fueling station in the U.S. fed directly
from an active industrial hydrogen pipeline. The station is a
collaborative effort between Toyota, Air Products, Shell, South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and DOE. The facility will
provide hydrogen for the Toyota fuel cell hybrid demonstration program
vehicles as well as other manufacturers' fuel cell vehicle fleets in
the Los Angeles area.

list of some hydrogen fueling stations

Hydrogen Fueling Stations: The CEC selected 11 hydrogen fueling
station projects for its “Hydrogen Fuel Infrastructure” solicitation
under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
Program. The awards include:
• $3,396,309 to Linde LLC for a Laguna Nigel Station and a West
Sacramento Station (funding has been released for contracting – April
2011).
• $567,003 to the Airport Commission, City and County of San Francisco
for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) West Bay Hydrogen
Fueling Complex (funding has been released for contracting – April
2011).
• $8,484,871 to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for eight stations
located at UC Irvine; Santa Monica; Beverly Hill (Los Angeles); West
Los Angeles; Hermosa Beach; Irvine North Station (Irvine); Diamond
Bar; and Hawthorne.
Three new hydrogen stations are under construction: CSU LA station,
Harbor City station (where a hydrogen dispensing island is going into
an existing gasoline station), and AC Transit’s station in Emeryville
(the station will have a dispenser inside the bus yard for buses, and
a separate dispenser outside for passenger vehicles - car drivers will
fill with renewably-generated hydrogen).
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Ontario: Inland Empire
Utilities Agency signed a landmark 20-year PPA with UTS BioEnergy to
install, operate and maintain a 2.8 MW fuel cell system, fueled
primarily with renewable biogas. IEUA will purchase power generated
from the fuel cell plant at the agreed upon price over the next 20
years, and will use the heat generated from the process to heat the
biogas producing anaerobic digesters at the water recycling facility.
Irvine Unified School District: The District will install fuel cells
at two high schools (University and Woodbridge High Schools) to
generate heat and additional power. Each school will receive six 5-kW
ClearEdge Power fuel cell units. The fuel cells will be partially
funded SGIP.
K2 Pure Solutions Bleach Plant, Pittsburg: Ballard's CLEARgenTM fuel
cell system will convert by-product hydrogen into clean load-following
electricity that will partially offset power demand at the bleach
plant.

National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s (NASA) Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field: Selected under the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) PEM Fuel Cell Backup
Demonstration Program to receive emergency fuel cell backup power
units in June 2011. The fuel cells will operate for five years with an
option for the host sites to fund an extension at that time.

------------------------------------------------------

Info on the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor:

info on the Tokamak fusion test reactor achievements: at PPPL.gov
main website of the Tokamak project
http://www.iter.org

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
areas of fusion technology development.


In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
fusion.

environmental impact of a nuclear fusion power plant:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm


Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon

Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
very safe and sustainable energy source.

The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
Safety

SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
community.

The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
malfunction occur.

Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
radioactive fuel is needed.

At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
Sustainable

Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
climate.

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.

Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
Safety for ITER

Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.

All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.

The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
plants.

For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel.

https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php

Hydrogen Fuel

As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
fuel.

LLNL researchers have designed, built, and demonstrated a hydrogen-
storage tank on a conventional vehicle that can hold 10 kilograms of
liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of driving. ..Livermore
Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic microbes as biological
hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel production, the most
promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P. furiosus can consume
extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the carbohydrate in a way
that not only provides energy but also releases hydrogen gas.

see this link:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6

and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
Financial Futures Market Speculators

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361

PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's or Libya's, light sweet
crude, and these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard
fuel, and the
hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
it as US Domestic oil drilling

Theory of Cold Fusion

http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/coldfusion/


thomaswheat1975

On Jun 26, 8:36 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> environment/index_en.htm
>
> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> Safety
>
> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> community.
>
> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> malfunction occur.
>
> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
> radioactive fuel is needed.
>
> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
> Sustainable
>
> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> climate.
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
> Safety for ITER
>
> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>
> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>
> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
> plants.
>
> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>
> The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
> safely without significant environmental impacts.
>
> Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
> Cadarache are built and commissioned.
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > regarding discussion archived here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> > I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
> > chlorine boosters!!!
>
> > I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
> > miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
> > emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
> > based rocket propellants.
>
> >http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>
> > f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
> > force through 2020.
>
> > Primary function:       Intercontinental ballistic missile
> > Contractor:     Boeing Co.
> > Power plant:    "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
> > first stage, Thiokol;
> > second stage, Aerojet-General;
> > third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
> > Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
> > Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
> > Weight:         79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
> > Diameter:       5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
> > Range:  6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
> > Speed:  Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > > > Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
> > > > the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>
> > > > SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
> > > > IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
> > > > PLANT!!!!
>
> > > I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>
> > you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
> > By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
> > Fusion Power plant.
>
> > > EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
> > > commercial application.
>
> > European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
> > reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
> > Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
> > fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
> > 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > ***@pppl.gov
>
> > > >http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>
> > > > Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
> > > > prices.
>
> > The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
> > is because its harder for them to rig the market,  for natural gas,
> > and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
> > constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
> > But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
> > fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
> > supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
> > the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
> > companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
> > supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
> > intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
> > reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
> > Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
> > Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
> > gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
> > 1970's!
>
> > Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> > Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York,
> > 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
> > Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
> > Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
> > achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
> > mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
> > biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> > Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
> > By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
> > Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>
> > Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
> > macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
> > Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>
> > That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
> > vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
> > 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
> > was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> > Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> > Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> > rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> > Florida.
>
> > Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> > from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> > and engineering.
>
> > > So what?
>
> > > As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
> > > speculation and price fixing.
>
> > Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
> > without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
> > dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
> > gallon.
>
> > > Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
> > > not current.
>
> > > It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>
> > Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
> > our increased  domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
> > affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
> > demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
> > dollars a...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-06-30 07:02:18 UTC
Permalink
On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> http://www.pppl.gov to confirm these statments
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>

I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
hard time defending what is in place now.

And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.

In any event, why bother.

As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
less economic disruption.

> How to Improve Fuel Economy
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
> Fuel economy of the gasoline engine fuel, lubricant, and other
> effects /
> Author Blackmore, David Richard; Thomas, Alun; Affleck, W. S.
> Publisher Wiley,
> Place Published New York :
> Year Published 1977
> OCLC Number 02837680
> Subjects Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition--Fuel
> consumption
> Holdings Library Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
> EIAM TJ789.Fu Region 2 Library/New York,NY 01/01/1988
> ELCM TJ789.F78 1977 NVFEL Library/Ann Arbor, MI 09/10/1988
>
> Collation xi, 268 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-economy-gasoline-engine-lubricant/dp/0470991321/
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> ..how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
> ..
> it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly
> bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest
> sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering
>
>
> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>
> So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
> the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
> 176 mpg.
>
>
> US Dept. Of Energy Fuel Cell program:
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
>
> Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
> The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) is the trade
> association for the fuel cell and hydrogen industry. FCHEA has
> brochures and industry information on its website,
>
> http://www.fchea.org
>
> California Fuel Cell Partnership – http://www.cafcp.org
> California Hydrogen Business Council - http://www.californiahydrogen.org
> California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative - http://www.casfcc.org
>
> Info on Hydrogen fuel cell fueling stations and companies in
> california
>
> http://www.fuelcells.org/info/statedatabase.html
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> "More hydrogen fueling stations were opened, serving light duty
> vehicles, buses and fuel cell forklifts.
> • By the end of 2011, California plans to have at least 20 public
> stations operating or under construction, with California Energy
> Commission support for more stations down the pike.
> • New hydrogen stations were opened in Delaware, New York, and South
> Carolina to fuel cars and buses.
> • New private hydrogen fueling stations were opened at warehouses
> around the country to serve fuel cell-powered forklifts.
> • Air Products reports 347,000 hydrogen fuelings per year at its
> fueling stations and hydrogen dispensers.
> More fuel cells are now backing up telecommunication and radio towers
> and utility substations.
> • Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding supported
> hundreds of installations around the country by Sprint Nextel and fuel
> cell manufacturer ReliOn (for AT&T and PG&E), respectively.
> • Microcell Corporation also installed fuel cell units at CA, MD, NC,
> OH and VA telecom and utility sites.
>
> Fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy is greatly expanding its
> Sunnyvale, California manufacturing facility and adding more than
> 1,000 new jobs. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years. The
> company is also planning to build a manufacturing facility in Newark,
> Delaware, hiring 900 employees over five years and predicting a
> minimum of 600 more jobs to follow as its suppliers open Delaware
> bases of operations."
>
> Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>
> Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
> installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
> buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
> the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
> heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>
> natural gas powering fuel cells
>
> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/
>
> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> Bloom Energy, Sunnyvale: Bloom Energy Servers, solid oxide fuel cell
> (SOFC) systems are installed at many high profile locations – eBay,
> Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx. Bloom also offers Bloom Electrons™, a PPA
> that allows customers to lock in their electricity rates for 10 years,
> delivering fixed predictable costs and significant savings versus the
> grid with no initial investment. Bloom manages and maintains the
> systems on the customers’ sites and the customers pay only for the
> electricity consumed. Bloom has more than 20 MWs of power (200
> systems) already installed, with several repeat customers. The company
> is expanding its Sunnyvale manufacturing facility by four times to
> over 210,000 square feet, and providing over 1000 new jobs for
> Californians. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years.
>
> FuelCell Energy, Danbury: FuelCell Energy manufactures Direct Fuel
> Cell© (DFC©) MCFC fuel cell systems that can run on natural gas or
> biogas. The company has sold more than 16 MW of power to California
> alone in the past year and most recently announced a sale of 70 MW to
> POSCO Power in Korea. (31)
>
> SunHydro Hydrogen Station, Charlotte: SunHydro is the world's first
> chain of privately funded fueling stations that provide hydrogen to
> fuel cell cars. The company's goal is to produce hydrogen on-site
> using solar energy and water. Most of the stations will be "self-
> service," open 24 hours a day and near major highways and major
> cities. A station is planned in Charlotte in Phase 1 of the project’s
> development, which will create an East Coast Hydrogen Highway. Station
> roll-out will begin in the northeastern U.S.
>
> California
> • Worldwide leader in - hydrogen stations, fuel cell vehicles, fuel
> cell buses, stationary installations; Progressive emissions and
> funding policies
>
> info on Lawerence Livermore National Labs research on hydrogen fuel
> powered cars
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> excerpt
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
>
>
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
> The Challenge
>
> Hydrogen does not commonly occur in its diatomic form on Earth and,
> thus, it is not so much an energy resource as it is a synthesized
> carrier, made from other resources. Today, hydrogen is commonly
> generated from natural gas with about 80 percent efficiency. Hydrogen
> is also extracted from water using electricity to power an
> electrolysis reaction.
>
> Storing hydrogen fuel onboard a vehicular poses challenges. Although
> hydrogen is environmentally friendly, particularly at its point of
> use, it is not as dense as conventional fossil fuels and requires
> large, reinforced and pressurized storage tanks to achieve practical
> driving distances. This presents space constraints for vehicle designs
> and potential safety concerns.
>
> The Solution
>
> The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
> for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
> production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
> incorporation by 2020.
>
> To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
> demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
> can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
> driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
> microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
> production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
> furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
> carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
> hydrogen gas.
>
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> California Energy Commission (CEC) 2010-2011 Investment Plan for the
> Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program: A
> strategic decision by the CEC to match federal ARRA funding has
> resulted in significant uncommitted Program funding from the first
> investment plan. The CEC is releasing a series of focused
> solicitations for approximately $113 million that, among other
> efforts, further expands the state’s hydrogen fueling network. $14
> million was allotted to this effort in 2010 (See the Hydrogen Stations
> entry in the California Planned Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
> section below).
> Since adoption of the first investment plan in 2009, the CEC has
> committed funds to a variety of alternative fuel efforts, including
> the certification of hydrogen dispensing equipment for retail hydrogen
> fueling stations and establishing specifications for hydrogen and
> biodiesel fuels. (15)
>
> Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Self-Generation Incentive Program
> (SGIP): SGIP provides rebates for qualifying distributed energy
> systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter.
> Qualifying technologies include wind turbines, fuel cells, and
> corresponding energy storage systems. The program was to expire at the
> end of 2011, but PUC code was amended to enable continuation of
> incentives through the end of 2015. Additional program funding,
> however, may not be available after 2011. The program year 2010
> budgets by SGIP Program Administrator were:
> Program
> Administrator Percentage
>
> 2010 SGIP Budget (millions)
> PG&E
> 44%
> $36
> SCE
> 34%
> $28
> CCSE
> 13%
> $11
> SoCalGas
> 9%
> $8
> TOTAL
> 100%
> $83
>
> Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>
> Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
> installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
> buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
> the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
> heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>
> Award Ceremonies, Los Angeles: Altergy Systems’ Freedom Power™
> hydrogen fuel cell systems supplied lighting and “zero emission” power
> needs for all four major Hollywood Awards Ceremonies – The Golden
> Globes, The Screen Actors Guild Awards, The Grammy Awards, and the
> Academy Awards.
>
> Adobe Headquarters, San Jose: Twelve Bloom Energy Servers - 1.2 MW
> total power - were installed in September 2010 at Adobe’s headquarters
> campus.
>
> Whole Foods Market, San Jose: Whole Foods Market will power a new San
> Jose retail store with a 400-kW UTC Power fuel cell system. The fuel
> cell system will generate 90 percent of the store’s power and its
> byproduct thermal energy will be used for store heating, cooling and
> refrigeration.
>
> Albertsons, San Diego: A new Albertsons supermarket in San Diego
> generates nearly 90 percent of its electricity using a 400-kW UTC
> Power fuel cell. Byproduct heat from the fuel cell is captured and
> used to warm water used in the store, heat the store when necessary
> and to power a chiller to help cool the refrigerated food, resulting
> in an overall energy efficiency of approximately 60 percent, nearly
> twice the efficiency of the U.S. electrical grid. During power
> outages, the store can operate without disruption because electricity
> is generated on-site by the fuel cell, allowing Albertsons to avoid
> costly food spoilage and ensure a reliable food supply in emergency
> situations.
>
> Zero Emission Bay Area (ZEBA) Advanced Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration,
> Oakland: Five Bay Area transit agencies have joined to form the ZEBA
> demonstration group: Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, Golden Gate
> Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Mateo County
> Transit District and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
> Agency. AC Transit is leading the project by purchasing the buses;
> providing facilities to house, maintain, and fuel them; and serving as
> the primary operator. AC Transit has begun taking delivery of the
> buses; once all 12 buses are deployed, they will comprise the largest
> fuel cell bus fleet in the U.S.
>
> Honda Solar Hydrogen Station, Los Angeles: Honda has deployed its
> “next generation” solar hydrogen refueling station that uses Honda’s
> own solar cells. The unit collects solar energy during the day and the
> customer can slow-fill with hydrogen over an eight-hour period at
> night.
>
> Shell/Toyota Hydrogen Fueling Station, Torrance: Opened in May 2011,
> this is the first hydrogen fueling station in the U.S. fed directly
> from an active industrial hydrogen pipeline. The station is a
> collaborative effort between Toyota, Air Products, Shell, South Coast
> Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and DOE. The facility will
> provide hydrogen for the Toyota fuel cell hybrid demonstration program
> vehicles as well as other manufacturers' fuel cell vehicle fleets in
> the Los Angeles area.
>
> list of some hydrogen fueling stations
>
> Hydrogen Fueling Stations: The CEC selected 11 hydrogen fueling
> station projects for its “Hydrogen Fuel Infrastructure” solicitation
> under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
> Program. The awards include:
> • $3,396,309 to Linde LLC for a Laguna Nigel Station and a West
> Sacramento Station (funding has been released for contracting – April
> 2011).
> • $567,003 to the Airport Commission, City and County of San Francisco
> for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) West Bay Hydrogen
> Fueling Complex (funding has been released for contracting – April
> 2011).
> • $8,484,871 to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for eight stations
> located at UC Irvine; Santa Monica; Beverly Hill (Los Angeles); West
> Los Angeles; Hermosa Beach; Irvine North Station (Irvine); Diamond
> Bar; and Hawthorne.
> Three new hydrogen stations are under construction: CSU LA station,
> Harbor City station (where a hydrogen dispensing island is going into
> an existing gasoline station), and AC Transit’s station in Emeryville
> (the station will have a dispenser inside the bus yard for buses, and
> a separate dispenser outside for passenger vehicles - car drivers will
> fill with renewably-generated hydrogen).
> Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Ontario: Inland Empire
> Utilities Agency signed a landmark 20-year PPA with UTS BioEnergy to
> install, operate and maintain a 2.8 MW fuel cell system, fueled
> primarily with renewable biogas. IEUA will purchase power generated
> from the fuel cell plant at the agreed upon price over the next 20
> years, and will use the heat generated from the process to heat the
> biogas producing anaerobic digesters at the water recycling facility.
> Irvine Unified School District: The District will install fuel cells
> at two high schools (University and Woodbridge High Schools) to
> generate heat and additional power. Each school will receive six 5-kW
> ClearEdge Power fuel cell units. The fuel cells will be partially
> funded SGIP.
> K2 Pure Solutions Bleach Plant, Pittsburg: Ballard's CLEARgenTM fuel
> cell system will convert by-product hydrogen into clean load-following
> electricity that will partially offset power demand at the bleach
> plant.
>
> National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s (NASA) Ames Research
> Center, Moffett Field: Selected under the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction
> Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) PEM Fuel Cell Backup
> Demonstration Program to receive emergency fuel cell backup power
> units in June 2011. The fuel cells will operate for five years with an
> option for the host sites to fund an extension at that time.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Info on the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor:
>
> info on the Tokamak fusion test reactor achievements: at PPPL.gov
> main website of the Tokamak project
> http://www.iter.org
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> areas of fusion technology development.
>
>
> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
> to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
> fusion.
>
> environmental impact of a nuclear fusion power plant:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
>
> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> Safety
>
> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> community.
>
> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> malfunction occur.
>
> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
> radioactive fuel is needed.
>
> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
> Sustainable
>
> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> climate.
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
> Safety for ITER
>
> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>
> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>
> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
> plants.
>
> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
> travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel.
>
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
>
> LLNL researchers have designed, built, and demonstrated a hydrogen-
> storage tank on a conventional vehicle that can hold 10 kilograms of
> liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of driving. ..Livermore
> Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic microbes as biological
> hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel production, the most
> promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P. furiosus can consume
> extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the carbohydrate in a way
> that not only provides energy but also releases hydrogen gas.
>
> see this link:
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6
>
> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> Financial Futures Market Speculators
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
>
> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's or Libya's, light sweet
> crude, and these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard
> fuel, and the
> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> it as US Domestic oil drilling
>

Trillions to develop and retool, decades out.

For what advantage over 50 MPG CAFE?

None.

Above you were worried we were moving too slowly.

Now you want us to wait a quarter century before we start??

More has been spent on the development of a hydrogen fuel tank (and we
still do not have a commercially viable one that does not have to be
serviced (vented) on a sub-weekly schedule --- That means if you don't
drive for a week or manually reduce pressure in the tank it will go BOOM.


Fuel cells aren't even at the fantasy stage yet.



> Theory of Cold Fusion
>
> http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/coldfusion/
>

> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 26, 8:36 am, Tom Jigme Wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>>

A tokamak is not cold fusion, it is very hot --- 100Mdeg C --- fusion.

Ok, I warned you. Here's how a tokamak works, and why we do not have a
commercially viable reactor after 60 years of research.

A tokamak is a magnetic device --- multiple electromagnetically
generated fields form the reaction vessel, insert reaction media, direct
the output to generators, control the reaction, etc.

Three fields, for ex, are required to create the torus --- one spiral
field to create the wall, a toroidal one to squeeze and direct the
streams for collision, and one through the "donut hole" to keep
everything aligned --- all using a lot of electricity.

Tokamaks operate at around 100Mdeg C. Squeezing the plasma by
contracting the torus (like the compression stroke of an internal
combustion engine) gets us to +- 30Mdeg. Another expensive magnetic
field can be used to induce an electric current in the plasma, Ohmic
heating it the rest of the way the same as an incandescent bulb's
filament is heated. But it cannot *keep* the plasma hot. If the LI is
not purified to all Li7 (a very expensive process in dollars and
electricity), the LI6 reaction is endothermic and cools the plasma.
Neutron and charged particle losses cool it a whole lot more, to the
point the reaction is no longer self-sustaining. As more and more
neutral particles (neutrons, He4 from the LI reaction) pollute the
plasma Ohmic heating becomes unable to maintain temps, so ANOTHER
expensive magnetic field must provide heating by vibrating the plasma at
high speed.

Finally MORE magnetic fields must collect the charged particles output
from the reaction, separate them by charge, and direct them to the
generator. Because temps are so high the alphas are high speed,
requiring a strong (expensive) field to capture them.

Most research tokamaks do not use the last heating step --- when temps
fall too far they just let the reaction stop.

Improvement in magnets from materials science has lessened the cost of
generating the magnetic fields significantly. Redesign of the geometry
of some of the fields has saved more. Improved vacuum pump design has
saved a little more.

But a tokamak still requires a lot more energy input for each MW of
output than any other method, even when fuel transportation and
processing costs are included, making them far less efficient than every
other mode of generation.

And they become less efficient the longer they are in operation.

The quality of the vacuum is critical to operation. As He4 levels
increase, and random fission products from the reaction of neutrons with
the container and components contribute to the internal atmosphere
reaction efficiency drops. At some point the reaction must be stopped
and the vacuum reestablished.

And NOT one of the 20-25 tokamaks in operation or development today
pretends they have an answer to these problems.

Yes, they are absolutely safe. They are NOT as non-polluting as some
claim. lithium is rare and production requires the smelting and
processing of very large amounts of ore. Depending on the source, which
can range from clays to igneous rocks, the slag can be quite toxic.

Lithium is extremely reactive --- explosive when it comes in contact
with water, self-igniting and flammable in ordinary atmosphere --- and
corrodes quickly so it is usually kept as a chloride salt. The pure
metal is kept in oil and is cleansed of this oil by toxic hydrocarbons.

Deuterium production from water is clean, but requires very large
amounts of electricity.

Larry


>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>> environment/index_en.htm
>>
>> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>>
>> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
>> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
>> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
>> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>>
>> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
>> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
>> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
>> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
>> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
>> Safety
>>
>> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
>> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
>> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
>> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
>> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
>> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
>> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
>> community.
>>
>> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
>> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
>> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
>> malfunction occur.
>>
>> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
>> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
>> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
>> radioactive fuel is needed.
>>
>> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
>> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
>> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
>> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
>> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
>> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
>> Sustainable
>>
>> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
>> climate.
>>
>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>>
>> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
>> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
>> Safety for ITER
>>
>> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
>> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
>> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
>> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>>
>> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
>> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
>> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>>
>> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
>> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
>> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
>> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
>> plants.
>>
>> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
>> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
>> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
>> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>>
>> The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
>> safely without significant environmental impacts.
>>
>> Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
>> Cadarache are built and commissioned.
>>
>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>> On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>>> based rocket propellants.
>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>>> force through 2020.
>>
>>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>>> first stage, Thiokol;
>>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>
>>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>>> Fusion Power plant.
>>
>>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>>> commercial application.
>>
>>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>>> prices.
>>
>>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>>> 1970's!
>>
>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>>> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>> Florida.
>>
>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>> and engineering.
>>
>>>> So what?
>>
>>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>>> gallon.
>>
>>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>>> not current.
>>
>>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>
>>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>>> dollars a...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-01 13:11:36 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> > reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> >http://www.pppl.govto confirm these statments
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> > Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> > had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> > amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> > post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
> hard time defending what is in place now.
>
> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
> features, unproven or disproven  or untested assertions.
>
> In any event, why bother.
>
> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed  and
> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
> less economic disruption.

The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
gallon.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
Engine” 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
(then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3

Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.

Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price. I
think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
technology. Also did you know that Daimler is coming out with a
hydrogen powered Mercedes car in 2014. Other medium term solutions, is
to get businesses to install solar panels to augment their electricity
needs. Since we have Global warming/climate change as a reality, why
not harness the sun to help power our offices and factories. Also I
believe natural gas will play in important role in the alternative
fuel industry. North America has approximately 150 year supply of
natural gas.

However long term we must make the transition, to the TOKAMAK nuclear
fusion reactor. The fuel source that powers the reactor is virtually
inexhaustable, and cheap. Besides Tritium, Deuterium and Lithium are
some of the most abundant elements on earth, and the tokamak, requires
fewer quantities of these materials say compared to a coal power
plant's demand for coal. The europeans have taken the lead in
construction the fusion reactor. However, we had a Tokamak nuclear
fusion reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Institute, for over 20
years. It met all of its target goals, but was discontinued. This
proves that there is a conspiracy, in the United States of America, by
the oil and coal companies to defeat the commercial production of
nuclear fusion power plants. The fact is if we don't restore funding
for the Tokamak, by 2015 or 2020 when the European union finishes
construction of the first commercial reactor, we will be left behind
in the dust of fossil fuel reactionary statism. Already our
infrastructure in america is crumbling. If we didn't have to spend so
much on oil/gasoline, we could repair our infrastructure. Fusion power
is cheap inexhaustable, and doesn't have the terrorist byproduct
associated with purchasing oil from middle eastern authoritarian
countries. main website of the project: http://www.iter.org

President Obama should restore funding for this vital program

Monopoly capitalism: How to standardize consumption but fragment
production

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/a3bb8e4b4b6e653d#a3bb8e4b4b6e653d

thomaswheat1975
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > How to Improve Fuel Economy
>
> > Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> > Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> > (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> > would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> > of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> > achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> > and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>
> > Fuel economy of the gasoline engine fuel, lubricant, and other
> > effects /
> > Author Blackmore, David Richard; Thomas, Alun; Affleck, W. S.
> > Publisher Wiley,
> > Place Published New York :
> > Year Published 1977
> > OCLC Number 02837680
> > Subjects Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition--Fuel
> > consumption
> > Holdings Library   Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
> > EIAM  TJ789.Fu  Region 2 Library/New York,NY 01/01/1988
> > ELCM  TJ789.F78 1977  NVFEL Library/Ann Arbor, MI 09/10/1988
>
> > Collation xi, 268 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/03332...
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-economy-gasoline-engine-lubricant/dp/04709...
>
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > ..how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
> > ..
> > it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly
> > bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest
> > sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> > Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> > Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> > rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> > Florida.
>
> > Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> > from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> > and engineering
>
> > The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> > insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> > Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>
> > So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
> > the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
> > 176 mpg.
>
> > US Dept. Of Energy Fuel Cell program:
> >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
>
> > Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
> > The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) is the trade
> > association for the fuel cell and hydrogen industry. FCHEA has
> > brochures and industry information on its website,
>
> >http://www.fchea.org
>
> > California Fuel Cell Partnership –http://www.cafcp.org
> > California Hydrogen Business Council -http://www.californiahydrogen.org
> > California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative -http://www.casfcc.org
>
> > Info on Hydrogen fuel cell fueling stations and companies in
> > california
>
> >http://www.fuelcells.org/info/statedatabase.html
>
> >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestate...
>
> > "More hydrogen fueling stations were opened, serving light duty
> > vehicles, buses and fuel cell forklifts.
> > • By the end of 2011, California plans to have at least 20 public
> > stations operating or under construction, with California Energy
> > Commission support for more stations down the pike.
> > • New hydrogen stations were opened in Delaware, New York, and South
> > Carolina to fuel cars and buses.
> > • New private hydrogen fueling stations were opened at warehouses
> > around the country to serve fuel cell-powered forklifts.
> > • Air Products reports 347,000 hydrogen fuelings per year at its
> > fueling stations and hydrogen dispensers.
> > More fuel cells are now backing up telecommunication and radio towers
> > and utility substations.
> > • Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding supported
> > hundreds of installations around the country by Sprint Nextel and fuel
> > cell manufacturer ReliOn (for AT&T and PG&E), respectively.
> > • Microcell Corporation also installed fuel cell units at CA, MD, NC,
> > OH and VA telecom and utility sites.
>
> > Fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy is greatly expanding its
> > Sunnyvale, California manufacturing facility and adding more than
> > 1,000 new jobs. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> > in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years. The
> > company is also planning to build a manufacturing facility in Newark,
> > Delaware, hiring 900 employees over five years and predicting a
> > minimum of 600 more jobs to follow as its suppliers open Delaware
> > bases of operations."
>
> > Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>
> > Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
> > installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
> > buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
> > the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
> > heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>
> > natural gas powering fuel cells
>
> >http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/
>
> >http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/
>
> >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestate...
>
> > Bloom Energy, Sunnyvale: Bloom Energy Servers, solid oxide fuel cell
> > (SOFC) systems are installed at many high profile locations – eBay,
> > Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx. Bloom also offers Bloom Electrons™, a PPA
> > that allows customers to lock in their electricity rates for 10 years,
> > delivering fixed predictable costs and significant savings versus the
> > grid with no initial investment. Bloom manages and maintains the
> > systems on the customers’ sites and the customers pay only for the
> > electricity consumed. Bloom has more than 20 MWs of power (200
> > systems) already installed, with several repeat customers. The company
> > is expanding its Sunnyvale manufacturing facility by four times to
> > over 210,000 square feet, and providing over 1000 new jobs for
> > Californians. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> > in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years.
>
> > FuelCell Energy, Danbury: FuelCell Energy manufactures Direct Fuel
> > Cell© (DFC©) MCFC fuel cell systems that can run on natural gas or
> > biogas. The company has sold more than 16 MW of power to California
> > alone in the past year and most recently announced a sale of 70 MW to
> > POSCO Power in Korea. (31)
>
> > SunHydro Hydrogen Station, Charlotte: SunHydro is the world's first
> > chain of privately funded fueling stations that provide hydrogen to
> > fuel cell cars. The company's goal is to produce hydrogen on-site
> > using solar energy and water. Most of the stations will be "self-
> > service," open 24 hours a day and near major highways and major
> > cities. A station is planned in Charlotte in Phase 1 of the project’s
> > development, which will create an East Coast Hydrogen Highway. Station
> > roll-out will begin in the northeastern U.S.
>
> > California
> > • Worldwide leader in - hydrogen stations, fuel cell vehicles, fuel
> > cell buses, stationary installations; Progressive emissions and
> > funding policies
>
> > info on Lawerence Livermore National Labs research on hydrogen fuel
> > powered cars
> >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > excerpt
>
> > Hydrogen Fuel
>
> > As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> > very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> > be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> > or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> > most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> > combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> > fuel.
>
> > Hydrogen Fuel
>
> > As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> > very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> > be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> > or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> > most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> > combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> > fuel.
> > The Challenge
>
> > Hydrogen does not commonly occur in its diatomic form on Earth and,
> > thus, it is not so much an energy resource as it is a synthesized
> > carrier, made from other resources. Today, hydrogen is commonly
> > generated from natural gas with about 80 percent efficiency. Hydrogen
> > is also extracted from water using electricity to...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-01 17:57:50 UTC
Permalink
On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
>>> http://www.pppl.govto confirm these statments
>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>>
>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
>> features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.
>>
>> In any event, why bother.
>>
>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
>> less economic disruption.
>
> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
> gallon.
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>

You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.

So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
come to market.

And jeez, we need to investigate why every engineering test hoping for
a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
sedan on sale at your local dealer.

While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
built!!

Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive model in the '20's.

Where is it.

Who is keeping it off the market?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29


> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
> Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
> cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.
>

Show me an engineering degree and I'll believe you.

As I noted earlier in the thread, I worked with and knew people in the
"conservation" industry after the oil shock of the '70's and they
laughed at this.

> Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
> palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
> like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price.

Tanker loads of non-food grade (inedible, and not for sanitary reasons)
topical oils pull into New Orleans on a regular basis. Then the oil
owner dilutes it with 10% ethanol, getting a Bush ethanol credit. But no
cars in the US can burn it as a fuel, so the tanker goes on to Europe
where cars in esp Germany burn it.

There are many sources of non-food oils )I listed cottonseed, for ex.),
that can be developed, and I have frequently discussed algal oils .

In any event, this is the second half of *eliminating* oil use for
transportation, 50MPG gets rid of the first half.

In your fantasy we still use oil.

I
> think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
> spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
> hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
> technology.

This is not even a medium term solution.

At this point in technology H2 is not a fuel, but an energy carrier.

That is, it takes at least as much energy to produce it as it releases
when burned. The return is even less when used to run a fuel cell.

> http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/

Low energy production, like bio sources, haven't even reached the bench
top test phase. The only reliable "high volume" source is electrolysis
of water or hydrocarbons --- petroleum. Ironically, production from
petroleum may be the most efficient, energy wise, because catalysts are
showing promise.

I was going to ignore the difficulties and costs of distribution, but
what the hey!

H2 cannot be transported by pipeline with current technology. Very high
pressures, very low temps, and LH2's unfortunate tendency to boil off
1% a day at temps above 20 deg K, 20 deg above absolute zero (it is
typically held at about 150 deg k), even at high pressures, and its
explosive nature make pipelining unfeasable. Shipping by cryogenic ship
or truck is expensive, both in dollars and energy.

Looking at LNG proves educational. LNG needs significantly higher temps
and lower pressures, yet no long distance pipelining is used. For
distribution LNG is returned to a gas and compressed on site, if needed.

While LH2 has a higher specific energy than gasoline, its extremely low
volumetric energy density means a 10 fold or more volume requirement for
an equivalent distance traveled. This means a 150 gal fuel tank to equal
a typical gasoline powered sedan.

H2 expands rapidly to a large volume when it gasifies. This means that
care must be taken in delivering it to the engine using large, expensive
components, no tight turns, no constrictions. Cylinders and pistons must
also be large to burn a useful quantity of the gas.

This all means large, expensive, heavy engines, fuel tanks, and
structural components on the cars.

Fueling is also an issue. Keeping the liquid at -260 deg C and 100 ATM
pressure requires expensive containers and lots of electricity. As I
have reported to you many times, a multi-million government graznt has
created a 5 gal tank thsat can go 6 days witthout servicing.

BTW, you mentioned BMW?

Their solution is a dual 74 l gasoline/ 12 l H2 vehicle and allowing the
H2 to boil off. The tank empties itself if not used. Notice all the
extra gadgetry --- and weight --- needed to make the H2 usable.
> http://www.bmwheaven.com/index.php/articles-and-reviews-mainmenu-3/bmw-news/101-202?start=3




Refueling can probably never be made safe for consumers --- just look
at what NASA does to fuel rockets and such. The temp is so low it can
solidify oxygen if leaked, let alone a person's hand or face. A leak can
be fatal from freezing at radii of several meters, if inhaled.

Even professionals have mishandled transfer, with explosive results. An
explosion during transfer at a coal plant a couple of years ago killed
one and put the plant out of action for a week.

The danger of explosion in a collision is real --- H2 flashes with
1/10th the energy input of gasoline. A hot exhaust pipe is enough to
cause ignition.

All for an energy transfer, not source.


Also did you know that Daimler is coming out with a
> hydrogen powered Mercedes car in 2014. Other medium term solutions, is
> to get businesses to install solar panels to augment their electricity
> needs. Since we have Global warming/climate change as a reality, why
> not harness the sun to help power our offices and factories. Also I
> believe natural gas will play in important role in the alternative
> fuel industry. North America has approximately 150 year supply of
> natural gas.

Point source electric generation has a huge role to play. Not just solar
but farm ag waste, industrial waste ( huge amounts of heat and
electricity are generated now from anything from saw dust to nut
shells) and even garbage --- Minneapolis burns its garbage across the
street from its sports dome, providing heat for the dome and downtown
businesses.

NG is not an alternative fuel, by definition. It is not renewable, has a
finite lifetime, and has --- as I have detailed --- significant
challenges in extraction.
>
> However long term we must make the transition, to the TOKAMAK nuclear
> fusion reactor. The fuel source that powers the reactor is virtually
> inexhaustable, and cheap. Besides Tritium, Deuterium and Lithium are
> some of the most abundant elements on earth,

I have told you of the technical problems with tokamaks, and you
apparently didn't read it (and you complain of others not reading your
stuff!!)

Lithium is ABSOLUTELY NOT abundant, and is one of the rarer elements.
25th in abundance at about 20 PPM of the crust. That is 20 out of every
million atoms is Li.

Making it even more of a problem to extract, it is not concentrated in
ores (like the rarer lead), but is pretty evenly dispersed in everything
from igneous rocks to clay.

And available LI has a huge competitor in the battery industry.

Tritium does not naturally exist on earth. The source of the T3 in a
tokamak is the FISSION of LI7 to T3 and He4 inside the reactor using
neutrons released from the D2-D2 (startup) and D2-T3 reactions.

and the tokamak, requires
> fewer quantities of these materials say compared to a coal power
> plant's demand for coal.


Irrelevant and immaterial. The energy requirement to extract a quantity
of D2 from seawater to generate as much electricity as is currently
generated by coal is many times more than the cost to extract and
transport the coal.

The europeans have taken the lead in
> construction the fusion reactor. However, we had a Tokamak nuclear
> fusion reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Institute, for over 20
> years. It met all of its target goals, but was discontinued. This
> proves that there is a conspiracy, in the United States of America, by
> the oil and coal companies to defeat the commercial production of
> nuclear fusion power plants. The fact is if we don't restore funding
> for the Tokamak, by 2015 or 2020 when the European union finishes
> construction of the first commercial reactor, we will be left behind
> in the dust of fossil fuel reactionary statism. Already our
> infrastructure in america is crumbling. If we didn't have to spend so
> much on oil/gasoline, we could repair our infrastructure. Fusion power
> is cheap inexhaustable, and doesn't have the terrorist byproduct
> associated with purchasing oil from middle eastern authoritarian
> countries. main website of the project: http://www.iter.org
>

There are currently 20 -25 tokamaks in operation worldwide, about a
third in the US. None has major funding because the owners do not feel
they deserve it. They are all toys.

THREE MW is a major achievement!! That will keep a light bulb going for
a couple of hours.

Larry

> President Obama should restore funding for this vital program
>
> Monopoly capitalism: How to standardize consumption but fragment
> production
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/a3bb8e4b4b6e653d#a3bb8e4b4b6e653d
>
> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> How to Improve Fuel Economy
>>
>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
>>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
>>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
>>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
>>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
>>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>>
>>> Fuel economy of the gasoline engine fuel, lubricant, and other
>>> effects /
>>> Author Blackmore, David Richard; Thomas, Alun; Affleck, W. S.
>>> Publisher Wiley,
>>> Place Published New York :
>>> Year Published 1977
>>> OCLC Number 02837680
>>> Subjects Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition--Fuel
>>> consumption
>>> Holdings Library Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
>>> EIAM TJ789.Fu Region 2 Library/New York,NY 01/01/1988
>>> ELCM TJ789.F78 1977 NVFEL Library/Ann Arbor, MI 09/10/1988
>>
>>> Collation xi, 268 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/03332...
>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-economy-gasoline-engine-lubricant/dp/04709...
>>
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> ..how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
>>> ..
>>> it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly
>>> bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest
>>> sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>> Florida.
>>
>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>> and engineering
>>
>>> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
>>> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
>>> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>>
>>> So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
>>> the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
>>> 176 mpg.
>>
>>> US Dept. Of Energy Fuel Cell program:
>>> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
>>
>>> Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
>>> The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) is the trade
>>> association for the fuel cell and hydrogen industry. FCHEA has
>>> brochures and industry information on its website,
>>
>>> http://www.fchea.org
>>
>>> California Fuel Cell Partnership –http://www.cafcp.org
>>> California Hydrogen Business Council -http://www.californiahydrogen.org
>>> California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative -http://www.casfcc.org
>>
>>> Info on Hydrogen fuel cell fueling stations and companies in
>>> california
>>
>>> http://www.fuelcells.org/info/statedatabase.html
>>
>>> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestate...
>>
>>> "More hydrogen fueling stations were opened, serving light duty
>>> vehicles, buses and fuel cell forklifts.
>>> • By the end of 2011, California plans to have at least 20 public
>>> stations operating or under construction, with California Energy
>>> Commission support for more stations down the pike.
>>> • New hydrogen stations were opened in Delaware, New York, and South
>>> Carolina to fuel cars and buses.
>>> • New private hydrogen fueling stations were opened at warehouses
>>> around the country to serve fuel cell-powered forklifts.
>>> • Air Products reports 347,000 hydrogen fuelings per year at its
>>> fueling stations and hydrogen dispensers.
>>> More fuel cells are now backing up telecommunication and radio towers
>>> and utility substations.
>>> • Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding supported
>>> hundreds of installations around the country by Sprint Nextel and fuel
>>> cell manufacturer ReliOn (for AT&T and PG&E), respectively.
>>> • Microcell Corporation also installed fuel cell units at CA, MD, NC,
>>> OH and VA telecom and utility sites.
>>
>>> Fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy is greatly expanding its
>>> Sunnyvale, California manufacturing facility and adding more than
>>> 1,000 new jobs. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
>>> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years. The
>>> company is also planning to build a manufacturing facility in Newark,
>>> Delaware, hiring 900 employees over five years and predicting a
>>> minimum of 600 more jobs to follow as its suppliers open Delaware
>>> bases of operations."
>>
>>> Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>>
>>> Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
>>> installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
>>> buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
>>> the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
>>> heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>>
>>> natural gas powering fuel cells
>>
>>> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/
>>
>>> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/
>>
>>> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestate...
>>
>>> Bloom Energy, Sunnyvale: Bloom Energy Servers, solid oxide fuel cell
>>> (SOFC) systems are installed at many high profile locations – eBay,
>>> Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx. Bloom also offers Bloom Electrons™, a PPA
>>> that allows customers to lock in their electricity rates for 10 years,
>>> delivering fixed predictable costs and significant savings versus the
>>> grid with no initial investment. Bloom manages and maintains the
>>> systems on the customers’ sites and the customers pay only for the
>>> electricity consumed. Bloom has more than 20 MWs of power (200
>>> systems) already installed, with several repeat customers. The company
>>> is expanding its Sunnyvale manufacturing facility by four times to
>>> over 210,000 square feet, and providing over 1000 new jobs for
>>> Californians. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
>>> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years.
>>
>>> FuelCell Energy, Danbury: FuelCell Energy manufactures Direct Fuel
>>> Cell© (DFC©) MCFC fuel cell systems that can run on natural gas or
>>> biogas. The company has sold more than 16 MW of power to California
>>> alone in the past year and most recently announced a sale of 70 MW to
>>> POSCO Power in Korea. (31)
>>
>>> SunHydro Hydrogen Station, Charlotte: SunHydro is the world's first
>>> chain of privately funded fueling stations that provide hydrogen to
>>> fuel cell cars. The company's goal is to produce hydrogen on-site
>>> using solar energy and water. Most of the stations will be "self-
>>> service," open 24 hours a day and near major highways and major
>>> cities. A station is planned in Charlotte in Phase 1 of the project’s
>>> development, which will create an East Coast Hydrogen Highway. Station
>>> roll-out will begin in the northeastern U.S.
>>
>>> California
>>> • Worldwide leader in - hydrogen stations, fuel cell vehicles, fuel
>>> cell buses, stationary installations; Progressive emissions and
>>> funding policies
>>
>>> info on Lawerence Livermore National Labs research on hydrogen fuel
>>> powered cars
>>> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>>
>>> excerpt
>>
>>> Hydrogen Fuel
>>
>>> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
>>> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
>>> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
>>> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
>>> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
>>> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
>>> fuel.
>>
>>> Hydrogen Fuel
>>
>>> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
>>> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
>>> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
>>> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
>>> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
>>> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
>>> fuel.
>>> The Challenge
>>
>>> Hydrogen does not commonly occur in its diatomic form on Earth and,
>>> thus, it is not so much an energy resource as it is a synthesized
>>> carrier, made from other resources. Today, hydrogen is commonly
>>> generated from natural gas with about 80 percent efficiency. Hydrogen
>>> is also extracted from water using electricity to...
>>
>> read more »
>
thomas wheat
2011-07-02 01:44:37 UTC
Permalink
regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

"Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
climate.

The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."

On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> >>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> >>>http://www.pppl.govtoconfirm these statments
>
> >>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> >>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> >>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> >>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> >>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> >> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
> >> hard time defending what is in place now.
>
> >> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
> >> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
> >> features, unproven or disproven  or untested assertions.
>
> >> In any event, why bother.
>
> >> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
> >> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed  and
> >> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
> >> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
> >> less economic disruption.
>
> > The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
> > bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
> > world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
> > oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
> > protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
> > Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
> > gallon.
>
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> > Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> > Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> > (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> > would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> > of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> > achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> > and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>
> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
> come to market.
>
> And jeez,  we need to investigate why every  engineering test hoping for
> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>
> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
> built!!
>
> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive model in the '20's.
>
> Where is it.
>
> Who is keeping it off the market?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29
> >http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>
> > Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
> > cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.
>
> Show me an engineering degree and I'll believe you.
>
> As I noted earlier in the thread, I worked with and knew people in the
> "conservation"  industry after the oil shock of the '70's and they
> laughed at this.
>
> > Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
> > palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
> > like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price.
>
> Tanker loads of non-food grade (inedible, and not for sanitary reasons)
> topical oils pull into New Orleans on a regular basis. Then the oil
> owner dilutes it with 10% ethanol, getting a Bush ethanol credit. But no
> cars in the US can burn it as a fuel, so the tanker goes on to Europe
> where cars in esp Germany burn it.
>
> There are many sources of non-food oils )I listed cottonseed, for ex.),
> that can be developed, and I have frequently discussed algal oils .
>
> In any event, this is the second half of *eliminating* oil use for
> transportation, 50MPG gets rid of the first half.
>
> In your fantasy we still use oil.
>
> I
>
> > think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
> > spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
> > hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
> > technology.
>
> This is not even a medium term solution.
>
> At this point in technology H2 is not a fuel, but an energy carrier.
>
> That is, it takes at least as much energy to produce it as it releases
> when burned. The return is even less when used to run a fuel cell.
>
> >http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/
>
> Low energy production, like bio sources, haven't even reached the bench
> top test phase. The only reliable "high volume" source is electrolysis
> of water or hydrocarbons --- petroleum. Ironically, production from
> petroleum may be the most efficient, energy wise, because catalysts are
> showing promise.
>
> I was going to ignore the difficulties and costs of distribution, but
> what the hey!
>
> H2 cannot be transported by pipeline with current technology. Very high
> pressures, very low temps, and LH2's unfortunate tendency to boil off
> 1% a day at temps above 20 deg K, 20 deg above absolute zero (it is
> typically held at about 150 deg k), even at high pressures, and its
> explosive nature make pipelining unfeasable. Shipping by cryogenic ship
> or truck is expensive, both in dollars and energy.
>
> Looking at LNG proves educational. LNG needs significantly higher temps
> and lower pressures, yet no long distance pipelining is used. For
> distribution LNG is returned to a gas and compressed on site, if needed.
>
> While LH2 has a higher specific energy than gasoline, its extremely low
> volumetric energy density means a 10 fold or more volume requirement for
> an equivalent distance traveled. This means a 150 gal fuel tank to equal
> a typical gasoline powered sedan.
>
> H2 expands rapidly to a large volume when it gasifies. This means that
> care must be taken in delivering it to the engine using large, expensive
> components, no tight turns, no constrictions. Cylinders and pistons must
> also be large to burn a useful quantity of the gas.
>
> This all means large, expensive, heavy engines, fuel tanks, and
> structural components on the cars.
>
> Fueling is also an issue. Keeping the liquid at -260 deg C and 100 ATM
> pressure requires expensive containers and lots of electricity. As I
> have reported to you many times, a multi-million government graznt has
> created a 5 gal tank thsat can go 6 days witthout servicing.
>
> BTW, you mentioned BMW?
>
> Their solution is a dual 74 l gasoline/ 12 l H2 vehicle and allowing the
> H2 to boil off. The tank empties itself if not used. Notice all the
> extra gadgetry --- and weight --- needed to make the   H2 usable.
>
> >http://www.bmwheaven.com/index.php/articles-and-reviews-mainmenu-3/bm...
>
>   Refueling can probably never be made safe for consumers --- just look
> at what NASA does to fuel rockets and such. The temp is so low it can
> solidify oxygen if leaked, let alone a person's hand or face. A leak can
> be fatal from freezing at radii of several meters, if inhaled.
>
> Even professionals have mishandled transfer, with explosive results. An
> explosion during transfer at a coal plant a couple of years ago killed
> one and put the plant out of action for a week.
>
> The danger of explosion in a collision is real --- H2 flashes with
> 1/10th the energy input of gasoline. A hot exhaust pipe is enough to
> cause ignition.
>
> All for an energy transfer, not source.
>
> Also did you know that Daimler is coming out with a
>
> > hydrogen powered Mercedes car in 2014. Other medium term solutions, is
> > to get businesses to install solar panels to augment their electricity
> > needs. Since we have Global warming/climate change as a reality, why
> > not harness the sun to help power our offices and factories. Also I
> > believe natural gas will play in important role in the alternative
> > fuel industry. North America has approximately 150 year supply of
> > natural gas.
>
> Point source electric generation has a huge role to play. Not just solar
> but farm ag waste, industrial waste ( huge amounts of heat and
> electricity are generated now from  anything from saw dust to nut
> shells) and even garbage --- Minneapolis burns its garbage across the
> street from its sports dome, providing heat for the dome and downtown
> businesses.
>
> NG is not an alternative fuel, by definition. It is not renewable, has a
> finite lifetime, and has --- as I have detailed --- significant
> challenges in extraction.
>
>
>
> > However long term we must make the transition, to the TOKAMAK nuclear
> > fusion reactor. The fuel source that powers the reactor is virtually
> > inexhaustable, and cheap. Besides Tritium, Deuterium and Lithium are
> > some of the most abundant elements on earth,
>
> I have told you of the technical problems with tokamaks, and you
> apparently didn't read it (and you complain of others not reading your
> stuff!!)
>
> Lithium is ABSOLUTELY NOT abundant, and is one of the rarer elements.
> 25th in abundance at about 20 PPM of the crust. That is 20 out of every
> million atoms is Li.
>
> Making it even more of a  problem to extract, it is not concentrated in
> ores (like the rarer lead), but is pretty evenly dispersed in everything
> from igneous rocks  to clay.
>
> And available LI has a huge competitor in the battery industry.
>
> Tritium  does not...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-02 03:04:03 UTC
Permalink
On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> climate.
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>

And again, so what?

It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.

This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
best.

Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.

At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption that 100% is captured.


So what do we compare?

And why bother>

Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
totally eliminate that.

D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.

No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.

But who cares?

That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
conspiracy.

It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.

It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.

The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
plants will cost TRILLIONS.
\

And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
ground on the very first one it will not be needed.

For the last time.

For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
benefit of cutting outages, business losses, repair costs, and the like
currently running at more than $5B a year.

And considering how fast it is decaying, the grid will need the
investment anyway.

19% of electric lighting runs outdoor lighting. Putting those lights on
timers, using high efficiency bulbs, cutting down on exces can cut that
in half for 1/4 the cost of a tokamak, while making the equivalent
output of 15 of them available for other use.

So far we havew increased consumable electricity by 30% for less than
the cost of 2 tokamaks. While cutting operating costs and reducing some
electric bills.

Want more?

Your suggestions for solar are great. Add other point source production.
Now throw in *real* efficiencies in electronics, appliance, and lighting

We use the output of 4 large generating plants, for ex, keeping instant
on devices hot, modems connected, phones dials lit, etc. Old easily
replaced technology.

My cable TV modem, for ex, stays om because the OS is downloaded on
power up, taking about 3 minutes. My PC boots in less than 30 sec. Not
to mention the 3 leds and the clock.

Get rid of the leds and clock. Upgrade the software to read off of (and
keep current) an EEPROM. And maybe use a faster processor.

Why work hard --- and expensive --- when you can work smart??

Larry

> On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
>>>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
>>>>> http://www.pppl.govtoconfirm these statments
>>
>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
>>>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
>>>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
>>>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>>>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
>>>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>>
>>>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
>>>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
>>>> features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.
>>
>>>> In any event, why bother.
>>
>>>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
>>>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
>>>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
>>>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
>>>> less economic disruption.
>>
>>> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
>>> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
>>> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
>>> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
>>> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
>>> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
>>> gallon.
>>
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>> Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
>>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
>>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
>>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
>>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
>>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>>
>> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
>> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
>> come to market.
>>
>> And jeez, we need to investigate why every engineering test hoping for
>> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
>> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
>> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
>> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>>
>> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
>> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
>> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
>> built!!
>>
>> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive model in the '20's.
>>
>> Where is it.
>>
>> Who is keeping it off the market?
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29
>>> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>>
>>> Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
>>> cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.
>>
>> Show me an engineering degree and I'll believe you.
>>
>> As I noted earlier in the thread, I worked with and knew people in the
>> "conservation" industry after the oil shock of the '70's and they
>> laughed at this.
>>
>>> Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
>>> palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
>>> like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price.
>>
>> Tanker loads of non-food grade (inedible, and not for sanitary reasons)
>> topical oils pull into New Orleans on a regular basis. Then the oil
>> owner dilutes it with 10% ethanol, getting a Bush ethanol credit. But no
>> cars in the US can burn it as a fuel, so the tanker goes on to Europe
>> where cars in esp Germany burn it.
>>
>> There are many sources of non-food oils )I listed cottonseed, for ex.),
>> that can be developed, and I have frequently discussed algal oils .
>>
>> In any event, this is the second half of *eliminating* oil use for
>> transportation, 50MPG gets rid of the first half.
>>
>> In your fantasy we still use oil.
>>
>> I
>>
>>> think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
>>> spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
>>> hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
>>> technology.
>>
>> This is not even a medium term solution.
>>
>> At this point in technology H2 is not a fuel, but an energy carrier.
>>
>> That is, it takes at least as much energy to produce it as it releases
>> when burned. The return is even less when used to run a fuel cell.
>>
>>> http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/
>>
>> Low energy production, like bio sources, haven't even reached the bench
>> top test phase. The only reliable "high volume" source is electrolysis
>> of water or hydrocarbons --- petroleum. Ironically, production from
>> petroleum may be the most efficient, energy wise, because catalysts are
>> showing promise.
>>
>> I was going to ignore the difficulties and costs of distribution, but
>> what the hey!
>>
>> H2 cannot be transported by pipeline with current technology. Very high
>> pressures, very low temps, and LH2's unfortunate tendency to boil off
>> 1% a day at temps above 20 deg K, 20 deg above absolute zero (it is
>> typically held at about 150 deg k), even at high pressures, and its
>> explosive nature make pipelining unfeasable. Shipping by cryogenic ship
>> or truck is expensive, both in dollars and energy.
>>
>> Looking at LNG proves educational. LNG needs significantly higher temps
>> and lower pressures, yet no long distance pipelining is used. For
>> distribution LNG is returned to a gas and compressed on site, if needed.
>>
>> While LH2 has a higher specific energy than gasoline, its extremely low
>> volumetric energy density means a 10 fold or more volume requirement for
>> an equivalent distance traveled. This means a 150 gal fuel tank to equal
>> a typical gasoline powered sedan.
>>
>> H2 expands rapidly to a large volume when it gasifies. This means that
>> care must be taken in delivering it to the engine using large, expensive
>> components, no tight turns, no constrictions. Cylinders and pistons must
>> also be large to burn a useful quantity of the gas.
>>
>> This all means large, expensive, heavy engines, fuel tanks, and
>> structural components on the cars.
>>
>> Fueling is also an issue. Keeping the liquid at -260 deg C and 100 ATM
>> pressure requires expensive containers and lots of electricity. As I
>> have reported to you many times, a multi-million government graznt has
>> created a 5 gal tank thsat can go 6 days witthout servicing.
>>
>> BTW, you mentioned BMW?
>>
>> Their solution is a dual 74 l gasoline/ 12 l H2 vehicle and allowing the
>> H2 to boil off. The tank empties itself if not used. Notice all the
>> extra gadgetry --- and weight --- needed to make the H2 usable.
>>
>>> http://www.bmwheaven.com/index.php/articles-and-reviews-mainmenu-3/bm...
>>
>> Refueling can probably never be made safe for consumers --- just look
>> at what NASA does to fuel rockets and such. The temp is so low it can
>> solidify oxygen if leaked, let alone a person's hand or face. A leak can
>> be fatal from freezing at radii of several meters, if inhaled.
>>
>> Even professionals have mishandled transfer, with explosive results. An
>> explosion during transfer at a coal plant a couple of years ago killed
>> one and put the plant out of action for a week.
>>
>> The danger of explosion in a collision is real --- H2 flashes with
>> 1/10th the energy input of gasoline. A hot exhaust pipe is enough to
>> cause ignition.
>>
>> All for an energy transfer, not source.
>>
>> Also did you know that Daimler is coming out with a
>>
>>> hydrogen powered Mercedes car in 2014. Other medium term solutions, is
>>> to get businesses to install solar panels to augment their electricity
>>> needs. Since we have Global warming/climate change as a reality, why
>>> not harness the sun to help power our offices and factories. Also I
>>> believe natural gas will play in important role in the alternative
>>> fuel industry. North America has approximately 150 year supply of
>>> natural gas.
>>
>> Point source electric generation has a huge role to play. Not just solar
>> but farm ag waste, industrial waste ( huge amounts of heat and
>> electricity are generated now from anything from saw dust to nut
>> shells) and even garbage --- Minneapolis burns its garbage across the
>> street from its sports dome, providing heat for the dome and downtown
>> businesses.
>>
>> NG is not an alternative fuel, by definition. It is not renewable, has a
>> finite lifetime, and has --- as I have detailed --- significant
>> challenges in extraction.
>>
>>
>>
>>> However long term we must make the transition, to the TOKAMAK nuclear
>>> fusion reactor. The fuel source that powers the reactor is virtually
>>> inexhaustable, and cheap. Besides Tritium, Deuterium and Lithium are
>>> some of the most abundant elements on earth,
>>
>> I have told you of the technical problems with tokamaks, and you
>> apparently didn't read it (and you complain of others not reading your
>> stuff!!)
>>
>> Lithium is ABSOLUTELY NOT abundant, and is one of the rarer elements.
>> 25th in abundance at about 20 PPM of the crust. That is 20 out of every
>> million atoms is Li.
>>
>> Making it even more of a problem to extract, it is not concentrated in
>> ores (like the rarer lead), but is pretty evenly dispersed in everything
>> from igneous rocks to clay.
>>
>> And available LI has a huge competitor in the battery industry.
>>
>> Tritium does not...
>>
>> read more »
>
thomas wheat
2011-07-02 15:01:04 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> > "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> > atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> > scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> > climate.
>
> > The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> > generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> > fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> > tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> > coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>
> And again, so what?
>
> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>
> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
> best.
>
> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
Tokamak:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm

Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.

Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
million tonnes of coal.

The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
including Japan, China, India, etc., is funding and building the
Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
thomaswheat1975

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de
>
> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption  that 100% is captured.
>
> So what do we compare?
>
> And why bother>
>
> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
> totally eliminate that.
>
> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>
> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>
> But who cares?
>
> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
> conspiracy.
>
> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>
> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>
> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
> \
>
> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
> ground on the very  first one it will not be needed.
>
> For the last time.
>
> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
> benefit of cutting outages, business losses, repair costs, and the like
> currently running at more than $5B a year.
>
> And considering how fast it is decaying, the grid will need the
> investment anyway.
>
> 19% of electric lighting runs outdoor lighting. Putting those lights on
> timers, using high efficiency bulbs, cutting down on exces can cut that
> in half for 1/4 the cost of a tokamak, while making the equivalent
> output of 15 of them available for other use.
>
> So far we havew increased consumable electricity by 30% for less than
> the cost of 2 tokamaks. While cutting operating costs  and reducing some
> electric bills.
>
> Want more?
>
> Your suggestions for solar are great. Add other point source production.
> Now throw in *real* efficiencies in electronics, appliance, and lighting
>
> We use the output of 4 large generating plants, for ex, keeping instant
> on devices hot, modems connected, phones dials lit, etc. Old easily
> replaced technology.
>
> My cable TV modem, for ex, stays om because the OS is downloaded on
> power up, taking about 3 minutes. My PC boots in less than 30 sec. Not
> to mention the 3 leds and the clock.
>
> Get rid of the leds and clock. Upgrade the software to read off of (and
> keep current) an EEPROM. And maybe use a faster processor.
>
> Why work hard --- and expensive --- when you can work smart??
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> >>>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> >>>>>http://www.pppl.govtoconfirmthese statments
>
> >>>>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> >>>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> >>>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> >>>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> >>>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> >>>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
> >>>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>
> >>>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
> >>>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
> >>>> features, unproven or disproven  or untested assertions.
>
> >>>> In any event, why bother.
>
> >>>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
> >>>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed  and
> >>>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
> >>>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
> >>>> less economic disruption.
>
> >>> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
> >>> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
> >>> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
> >>> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
> >>> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
> >>> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
> >>> gallon.
>
> >>>http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> >>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> >>> Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> >>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> >>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> >>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> >>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> >>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>
> >> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
> >> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
> >> come to market.
>
> >> And jeez,  we need to investigate why every  engineering test hoping for
> >> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
> >> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
> >> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
> >> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>
> >> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
> >> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
> >> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
> >> built!!
>
> >> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive model in the '20's.
>
> >> Where is it.
>
> >> Who is keeping it off the market?
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29
> >>>http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>
> >>> Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
> >>> cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.
>
> >> Show me an engineering degree and I'll believe you.
>
> >> As I noted earlier in the thread, I worked with and knew people in the
> >> "conservation"  industry after the oil shock of the '70's and they
> >> laughed at this.
>
> >>> Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
> >>> palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
> >>> like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price.
>
> >> Tanker loads of non-food grade (inedible, and not for sanitary reasons)
> >> topical oils pull into New Orleans on a regular basis. Then the oil
> >> owner dilutes it with 10% ethanol, getting a Bush ethanol credit. But no
> >> cars in the US can burn it as a fuel, so the tanker goes on to Europe
> >> where cars in esp Germany burn it.
>
> >> There are many sources of non-food oils )I listed cottonseed, for ex.),
> >> that can be developed, and I have frequently discussed algal oils .
>
> >> In any event, this is the second half of *eliminating* oil use for
> >> transportation, 50MPG gets rid of the first half.
>
> >> In your fantasy we still use oil.
>
> >> I
>
> >>> think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
> >>> spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
> >>> hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
> >>> technology.
>
> >> This is not even a medium term solution.
>
> >> At this point in technology H2 is not a fuel, but an energy carrier.
>
> >> That is, it takes at least as much energy to produce it as it releases
> >> when burned. The return is even less when used to run a fuel cell.
>
> >>>http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/
>
> >> Low energy production, like bio sources, haven't even reached the bench
> >> top test phase. The only reliable "high volume" source is electrolysis
> >> of water or hydrocarbons --- petroleum. Ironically, production from
> >> petroleum may be the most efficient, energy wise, because catalysts are
> >> showing promise.
>
> >> I was going to ignore the difficulties and costs of distribution, but
> >> what the hey!
>
> >> H2 cannot be transported by pipeline with current technology. Very high
> >> pressures, very low temps, and LH2's unfortunate tendency to boil off
> >> 1% a day at temps above 20 deg K, 20 deg above absolute zero (it is
> >> typically held at about 150 deg k), even at high pressures, and its
> >> explosive nature make pipelining unfeasable. Shipping by cryogenic ship
> >> or truck is expensive, both in dollars and energy.
>
> >> Looking at LNG proves educational. LNG needs...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-02 19:41:20 UTC
Permalink
On 7/2/2011 11:01 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>

Last response.

This site is a PR site for the European Union government, not a
scientific research site.

Individual European countries, including France, Germany(2), UK(2),
Russia(2), Switzerland, Czech Republic (2) and Portugal all have
operating tokamaks and ongoing research .

None of them are part of this.

22 tokamak research projects in 16 countries are operating, including 3
in the US (Princeton, MIT, and General Atomics --- yeah, they're real
and government contractors for Sandia Labs and others). Some of these
projects have been ongoing since the 60's --- the US has had an
operating tokamak since 1980.

None of them buy this.

I'll take their word for it instead of your site aimed at the
scientifically illiterate gee whizzers --- and that IS a slam.

Larry


>>> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
>>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
>>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
>>> climate.
>>
>>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
>>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
>>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
>>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
>>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>>
>> And again, so what?
>>
>> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>>
>> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
>> best.
>>
>> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
>> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
>> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
> Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
> ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
> Tokamak:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm
>
> Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
> produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
> waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
> electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
> three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
> power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
> million tonnes of coal.
>
> The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
> including Japan, China, India, etc., is funding and building the
> Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
> for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
> plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
> having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
> thomaswheat1975
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de
>>
>> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
>> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption that 100% is captured.
>>
>> So what do we compare?
>>
>> And why bother>
>>
>> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
>> totally eliminate that.
>>
>> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>>
>> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
>> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>>
>> But who cares?
>>
>> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>>
>> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
>> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>>
>> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
>> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
>> \
>>
>> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
>> ground on the very first one it will not be needed.
>>
>> For the last time.
>>
>> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
>> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
>> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
>> benefit of cutting outages, business losses, repair costs, and the like
>> currently running at more than $5B a year.
>>
>> And considering how fast it is decaying, the grid will need the
>> investment anyway.
>>
>> 19% of electric lighting runs outdoor lighting. Putting those lights on
>> timers, using high efficiency bulbs, cutting down on exces can cut that
>> in half for 1/4 the cost of a tokamak, while making the equivalent
>> output of 15 of them available for other use.
>>
>> So far we havew increased consumable electricity by 30% for less than
>> the cost of 2 tokamaks. While cutting operating costs and reducing some
>> electric bills.
>>
>> Want more?
>>
>> Your suggestions for solar are great. Add other point source production.
>> Now throw in *real* efficiencies in electronics, appliance, and lighting
>>
>> We use the output of 4 large generating plants, for ex, keeping instant
>> on devices hot, modems connected, phones dials lit, etc. Old easily
>> replaced technology.
>>
>> My cable TV modem, for ex, stays om because the OS is downloaded on
>> power up, taking about 3 minutes. My PC boots in less than 30 sec. Not
>> to mention the 3 leds and the clock.
>>
>> Get rid of the leds and clock. Upgrade the software to read off of (and
>> keep current) an EEPROM. And maybe use a faster processor.
>>
>> Why work hard --- and expensive --- when you can work smart??
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
>>>>>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
>>>>>>> http://www.pppl.govtoconfirmthese statments
>>
>>>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>>>>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
>>>>>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
>>>>>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
>>>>>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>>>>>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
>>>>>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>>
>>>>>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
>>>>>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
>>>>>> features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.
>>
>>>>>> In any event, why bother.
>>
>>>>>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
>>>>>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
>>>>>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
>>>>>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
>>>>>> less economic disruption.
>>
>>>>> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
>>>>> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
>>>>> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
>>>>> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
>>>>> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
>>>>> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
>>>>> gallon.
>>
>>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>>>> Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
>>>>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
>>>>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
>>>>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
>>>>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
>>>>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>>> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>>
>>>> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
>>>> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
>>>> come to market.
>>
>>>> And jeez, we need to investigate why every engineering test hoping for
>>>> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
>>>> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
>>>> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
>>>> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>>
>>>> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
>>>> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
>>>> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
>>>> built!!
>>
>>>> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive model in the '20's.
>>
>>>> Where is it.
>>
>>>> Who is keeping it off the market?
>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29
>>>>> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>>
>>>>> Iam sure we could reverse engineer this technology, and still make the
>>>>> cars drivable, even if fuel economy dropped to 150 mpg's.
>>
>>>> Show me an engineering degree and I'll believe you.
>>
>>>> As I noted earlier in the thread, I worked with and knew people in the
>>>> "conservation" industry after the oil shock of the '70's and they
>>>> laughed at this.
>>
>>>>> Regarding your bio-oils solution, do you have any idea how expensive
>>>>> palm oil is in the third world. Food commodities such as cooking oil
>>>>> like (palm oil) have nearly tripled in the last 5 years in price.
>>
>>>> Tanker loads of non-food grade (inedible, and not for sanitary reasons)
>>>> topical oils pull into New Orleans on a regular basis. Then the oil
>>>> owner dilutes it with 10% ethanol, getting a Bush ethanol credit. But no
>>>> cars in the US can burn it as a fuel, so the tanker goes on to Europe
>>>> where cars in esp Germany burn it.
>>
>>>> There are many sources of non-food oils )I listed cottonseed, for ex.),
>>>> that can be developed, and I have frequently discussed algal oils .
>>
>>>> In any event, this is the second half of *eliminating* oil use for
>>>> transportation, 50MPG gets rid of the first half.
>>
>>>> In your fantasy we still use oil.
>>
>>>> I
>>
>>>>> think we need to foous on greater fuel economy in the short run, and
>>>>> spur hybrid technology, but in the medium term, we need to develop
>>>>> hydrogen fueling stations, and power cars with hydrogen fuel cell
>>>>> technology.
>>
>>>> This is not even a medium term solution.
>>
>>>> At this point in technology H2 is not a fuel, but an energy carrier.
>>
>>>> That is, it takes at least as much energy to produce it as it releases
>>>> when burned. The return is even less when used to run a fuel cell.
>>
>>>>> http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/
>>
>>>> Low energy production, like bio sources, haven't even reached the bench
>>>> top test phase. The only reliable "high volume" source is electrolysis
>>>> of water or hydrocarbons --- petroleum. Ironically, production from
>>>> petroleum may be the most efficient, energy wise, because catalysts are
>>>> showing promise.
>>
>>>> I was going to ignore the difficulties and costs of distribution, but
>>>> what the hey!
>>
>>>> H2 cannot be transported by pipeline with current technology. Very high
>>>> pressures, very low temps, and LH2's unfortunate tendency to boil off
>>>> 1% a day at temps above 20 deg K, 20 deg above absolute zero (it is
>>>> typically held at about 150 deg k), even at high pressures, and its
>>>> explosive nature make pipelining unfeasable. Shipping by cryogenic ship
>>>> or truck is expensive, both in dollars and energy.
>>
>>>> Looking at LNG proves educational. LNG needs...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-03 04:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
http://www.iter.org Also you said earlier in this thread that natural
gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site

http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/ http://f4e.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm

is the official site of the European union, not some degenerate
reactionary fossil fuel statist fox news outlet, whose solution to
mass energy consumption and shortages and pollution, is to pass out
LED light bulbs, which by the way are far more toxic for waste
disposal than conventional light bulbs, and the fluroescent light is
an annoyance!!!!!

On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/2/2011 11:01 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>
> >>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> Last response.
>
> This site is a PR site for the European Union government, not a
> scientific research site.
>
> Individual European countries, including France, Germany(2), UK(2),
> Russia(2), Switzerland, Czech Republic (2) and Portugal all have
> operating tokamaks and ongoing research .
>
> None of them are part of this.
>
> 22 tokamak research projects in 16 countries are operating, including 3
> in the US (Princeton, MIT, and General Atomics --- yeah, they're real
> and government contractors for Sandia Labs and others). Some of these
> projects have been ongoing since the 60's --- the US has had an
> operating tokamak since 1980.
>
> None of them buy this.
>
> I'll take their word for it instead of your site aimed at the
> scientifically illiterate gee whizzers --- and that IS a slam.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> >>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> >>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> >>> climate.
>
> >>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> >>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> >>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> >>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> >>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>
> >> And again, so what?
>
> >> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>
> >> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
> >> best.
>
> >> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
> >> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
> >> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
> > Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
> > ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
> > Tokamak:
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>
> > Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> > is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> > not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> > metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> > can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> > by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> > 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> > Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
> > produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
> > waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
> > electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
> > three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
> > power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
> > million tonnes of coal.
>
> > The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
> > including Japan, China, India, etc., is  funding and building the
> > Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
> > for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
> > plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
> > having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> > discussion archived here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> >> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
> >> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption  that 100% is captured.
>
> >> So what do we compare?
>
> >> And why bother>
>
> >> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
> >> totally eliminate that.
>
> >> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>
> >> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
> >> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>
> >> But who cares?
>
> >> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
> >> conspiracy.
>
> >> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>
> >> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
> >> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>
> >> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
> >> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
> >> \
>
> >> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
> >> ground on the very  first one it will not be needed.
>
> >> For the last time.
>
> >> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
> >> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
> >> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
> >> benefit of cutting outages, business losses, repair costs, and the like
> >> currently running at more than $5B a year.
>
> >> And considering how fast it is decaying, the grid will need the
> >> investment anyway.
>
> >> 19% of electric lighting runs outdoor lighting. Putting those lights on
> >> timers, using high efficiency bulbs, cutting down on exces can cut that
> >> in half for 1/4 the cost of a tokamak, while making the equivalent
> >> output of 15 of them available for other use.
>
> >> So far we havew increased consumable electricity by 30% for less than
> >> the cost of 2 tokamaks. While cutting operating costs  and reducing some
> >> electric bills.
>
> >> Want more?
>
> >> Your suggestions for solar are great. Add other point source production.
> >> Now throw in *real* efficiencies in electronics, appliance, and lighting
>
> >> We use the output of 4 large generating plants, for ex, keeping instant
> >> on devices hot, modems connected, phones dials lit, etc. Old easily
> >> replaced technology.
>
> >> My cable TV modem, for ex, stays om because the OS is downloaded on
> >> power up, taking about 3 minutes. My PC boots in less than 30 sec. Not
> >> to mention the 3 leds and the clock.
>
> >> Get rid of the leds and clock. Upgrade the software to read off of (and
> >> keep current) an EEPROM. And maybe use a faster processor.
>
> >> Why work hard --- and expensive --- when you can work smart??
>
> >> Larry
>
> >>> On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> >>>>>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> >>>>>>>http://www.pppl.govtoconfirmthesestatments
>
> >>>>>>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> >>>>>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> >>>>>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> >>>>>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> >>>>>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>
> >>>>>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
> >>>>>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>
> >>>>>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
> >>>>>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
> >>>>>> features, unproven or disproven  or untested assertions.
>
> >>>>>> In any event, why bother.
>
> >>>>>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
> >>>>>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed  and
> >>>>>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
> >>>>>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
> >>>>>> less economic disruption.
>
> >>>>> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
> >>>>> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
> >>>>> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
> >>>>> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
> >>>>> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
> >>>>> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
> >>>>> gallon.
>
> >>>>>http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>
> >>>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> >>>>> Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> >>>>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> >>>>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> >>>>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> >>>>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> >>>>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> >>>> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>
> >>>> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
> >>>> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
> >>>> come to market.
>
> >>>> And jeez,  we need to investigate why every  engineering test hoping for
> >>>> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
> >>>> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
> >>>> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
> >>>> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>
> >>>> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
> >>>> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
> >>>> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
> >>>> built!!
>
> >>>> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-03 07:03:32 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2011 12:37 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
> dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
> citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
> http://www.iter.org Also you said earlier in this thread that natural
> gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
> largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
> year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
> American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
> be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site
>

I have posted links, you never read them, instead choosing to repost
again and again and again and again and again the same PR dreck.

You posted NO scientific data, just PR flack.

I posted the "how a tokamak" works.

I posted the data on availability of D2 an LI

I posted EIA - federal government --- data and links.

I posted car manufacturer links on their programs to refute your
baseless assertions about H2 as a fuel.

If you want a physics lesson, let me know. I charge $^0 an hour to tutor
college kids. I amy even give you a break.

I had hoped you would actually do something radical like look on
wikipedia, but apparent EU PR is addicting and you couldn't stay away
from it. FWIW, wikipedia has many good, footnoted articles supporting
what I said. Read them if you dare.

I REFUTED your incorrect assertion that no fission takes place in a tokamak.

And here you go again.

PR cites. AGAIN

No science!!!

Just PR

Here's MIT's link.

"closer than ever". No predictions of capacity, cost, completion dates.
They know better. You can even get their experimental data, if you
want to pay for it. But don;t bother, you don;t stand a snowball's
chance in the firey furnace of even understanding the executive summary.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/

Here's a link for the General Atomics tokamak --- they are still working
on the control systems because they are too inefficient and unstable for
commercial use.
http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=401

I must admit one error. My source for current projects was wrong.
Princeton has shut down their program --- they had no hope for creating
as commercially viable system

But in so doing they refuted another of the claims of your PR source
that I contested --- tokamaks are not entirely clean. Induced
radioactivity in the container vessel and internal parts from neutrons
and alpha problems IS A PROBLEM. Induced radioactivity prevented the use
of saws, torches, and breakers because they would put radioactive debris
in the air.

http://www.pppl.gov/news/pages/tftr_removal.html

So if you claim to know more than the US DoE, Princeton, MIT, and UCSD,
please, please point me to it --- just not these same lying PR sites again!.

> http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/ http://f4e.europa.eu/
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/index_en.htm
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> is the official site of the European union, not some degenerate
> reactionary fossil fuel statist fox news outlet, whose solution to
> mass energy consumption and shortages and pollution, is to pass out
> LED light bulbs, which by the way are far more toxic for waste
> disposal than conventional light bulbs, and the fluroescent light is
> an annoyance!!!!!
>

Paranoid, huh.


Love spending trillions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, huh?

I said it is a government site.

IT IS NOT A RESEARCH LAB SITE, but a PR site. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS
PRESENTED. Even their fuel use estimates are based on assumptions, not
real lab data, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

And again, who cares?

This is economic data, not scientific.,

US production of D2 is about 525 tons per year from 2 plants.

ONE tokamak would use 20% of total US production, assuming it is given
priority.

Total world production of Li is 39000 tons. About 8% of that is unusable
LI6. A worldwide shortage is predicted by 2015.

So, another challenge you will ignore to call me names.

Find me the lab in the EU doing this work.

I couldn't, even though I found the existing labs. None of them admitted
to being a part of this fantasy.

So the EU is going to spend 10 B euro .

Where?

Failing that, show me the actual budget with the money allocated instead
of a PR blitz. Actual euros in some lab's bank account.

Can't do it, huh?

Thought not.

Larry
> On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2011 11:01 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>>
>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>> Last response.
>>
>> This site is a PR site for the European Union government, not a
>> scientific research site.
>>
>> Individual European countries, including France, Germany(2), UK(2),
>> Russia(2), Switzerland, Czech Republic (2) and Portugal all have
>> operating tokamaks and ongoing research .
>>
>> None of them are part of this.
>>
>> 22 tokamak research projects in 16 countries are operating, including 3
>> in the US (Princeton, MIT, and General Atomics --- yeah, they're real
>> and government contractors for Sandia Labs and others). Some of these
>> projects have been ongoing since the 60's --- the US has had an
>> operating tokamak since 1980.
>>
>> None of them buy this.
>>
>> I'll take their word for it instead of your site aimed at the
>> scientifically illiterate gee whizzers --- and that IS a slam.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
>>>>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
>>>>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
>>>>> climate.
>>
>>>>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
>>>>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
>>>>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
>>>>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
>>>>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>>
>>>> And again, so what?
>>
>>>> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>>
>>>> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
>>>> best.
>>
>>>> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
>>>> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
>>>> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
>>> Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
>>> ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
>>> Tokamak:
>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>>
>>> Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
>>> is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
>>> not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
>>> metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
>>> can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
>>> by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
>>> 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>>
>>> Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
>>> produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
>>> waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
>>> electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
>>> three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
>>> power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
>>> million tonnes of coal.
>>
>>> The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
>>> including Japan, China, India, etc., is funding and building the
>>> Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
>>> for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
>>> plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
>>> having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
>>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>> discussion archived here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>>> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
>>>> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption that 100% is captured.
>>
>>>> So what do we compare?
>>
>>>> And why bother>
>>
>>>> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
>>>> totally eliminate that.
>>
>>>> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>>
>>>> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
>>>> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>>
>>>> But who cares?
>>
>>>> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
>>>> conspiracy.
>>
>>>> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>>
>>>> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
>>>> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>>
>>>> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
>>>> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
>>>> \
>>
>>>> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
>>>> ground on the very first one it will not be needed.
>>
>>>> For the last time.
>>
>>>> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
>>>> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
>>>> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
>>>> benefit of cutting outages, business losses, repair costs, and the like
>>>> currently running at more than $5B a year.
>>
>>>> And considering how fast it is decaying, the grid will need the
>>>> investment anyway.
>>
>>>> 19% of electric lighting runs outdoor lighting. Putting those lights on
>>>> timers, using high efficiency bulbs, cutting down on exces can cut that
>>>> in half for 1/4 the cost of a tokamak, while making the equivalent
>>>> output of 15 of them available for other use.
>>
>>>> So far we havew increased consumable electricity by 30% for less than
>>>> the cost of 2 tokamaks. While cutting operating costs and reducing some
>>>> electric bills.
>>
>>>> Want more?
>>
>>>> Your suggestions for solar are great. Add other point source production.
>>>> Now throw in *real* efficiencies in electronics, appliance, and lighting
>>
>>>> We use the output of 4 large generating plants, for ex, keeping instant
>>>> on devices hot, modems connected, phones dials lit, etc. Old easily
>>>> replaced technology.
>>
>>>> My cable TV modem, for ex, stays om because the OS is downloaded on
>>>> power up, taking about 3 minutes. My PC boots in less than 30 sec. Not
>>>> to mention the 3 leds and the clock.
>>
>>>> Get rid of the leds and clock. Upgrade the software to read off of (and
>>>> keep current) an EEPROM. And maybe use a faster processor.
>>
>>>> Why work hard --- and expensive --- when you can work smart??
>>
>>>> Larry
>>
>>>>> On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2011 9:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 12:02 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
>>>>>>>>> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
>>>>>>>>> http://www.pppl.govtoconfirmthesestatments
>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>>>>>>>> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
>>>>>>>>> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
>>>>>>>>> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
>>>>>>>>> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>>
>>>>>>>> I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
>>>>>>>> hard time defending what is in place now.
>>
>>>>>>>> And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
>>>>>>>> has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
>>>>>>>> features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.
>>
>>>>>>>> In any event, why bother.
>>
>>>>>>>> As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
>>>>>>>> renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
>>>>>>>> others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
>>>>>>>> use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
>>>>>>>> less economic disruption.
>>
>>>>>>> The Shell oil study, "Fuel economy of the Gasoline Engine," is not
>>>>>>> bunk. You've been brainwashed by the oil companies, not to imagine a
>>>>>>> world of innovation long repressed by diabolical machinations of the
>>>>>>> oil companies. If the study was bunk, than why would the Environmental
>>>>>>> protection agency have the book listed in their Library. The fact that
>>>>>>> Shell modified a 1959 Opel, and made it get over 300 miles to the
>>>>>>> gallon.
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>>>>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company�s �Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>>>>>> Engine� 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
>>>>>>> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
>>>>>>> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
>>>>>>> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
>>>>>>> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
>>>>>>> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>>>>> You really like those conspiracy theories, don't you.
>>
>>>>>> So, the conspiracy goes all the way back to at least 1939 when the
>>>>>> prediction of a BUSINESSMAN, not an engineer or scientist, failed to
>>>>>> come to market.
>>
>>>>>> And jeez, we need to investigate why every engineering test hoping for
>>>>>> a record using a unique, hand made, unmarketable, under powered STREET
>>>>>> ILLEGAL chassis (no safety equipment) on an oval test track at constant
>>>>>> optimized speed and NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS didn't translate into a family
>>>>>> sedan on sale at your local dealer.
>>
>>>>>> While we're at it maybe we should launch an investigation into why we
>>>>>> still need roads. After all, in the 50's and 60's we were promised
>>>>>> flying cars like on the Jetson's, and functioning test models were even
>>>>>> built!!
>>
>>>>>> Heck, Henry Ford himself promised us an inexpensive...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-03 16:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 3, 12:03 am, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/2011 12:37 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
> > dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
> > citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
> >http://www.iter.org Also you said earlier in this thread that natural
> > gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
> > largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
> > year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
> > American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
> > be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site
>
> I have posted links, you never read them, instead choosing to repost
> again and again and again and again and again the same PR dreck.
>
> You posted NO scientific data, just PR flack.
>
> I posted the "how a tokamak" works.
>
> I posted the data on availability  of D2 an LI
>
> I posted EIA - federal government ---  data and links.
>
> I posted car manufacturer links on their programs to refute your
> baseless assertions about H2 as a fuel.

Wrong again Larry, you are farting out of your neck. Here's info on
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's ongoing research into Nuclear
Fusion. Once again your ratio of deuterium hydrogen in water was wrong
here is the actual ratio:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/

-excerpt-

"Fusion, nuclear fission and solar energy (including biofuels) are the
only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power
for the next century and beyond without the negative environmental
impacts of fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes
of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the
metal lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
– and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
power plant."

regarding the fact that global oil reserves will be exhausted by year
2100:

"Energy experts estimate that over the next 75 years, the demand for
energy could grow to as much as three times what it is today, while
supplies of petroleum and natural gas will decline steadily and may
well be exhausted by the turn of the century"

Cnn.com news article on the current status of the TOKAMAK ITER Nuclear
Fusion Reactor:

Can one idea be energy's holy grail?
ENERGY
June 27, 2011|By Thom Patterson, CNN

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail?_s=PM:TECH

-excerpt-

"That sounds like a lot until you consider that the world's biggest
fusion research facility -- under construction in France -- is
expected to cost $20 billion. That's billion with a "b."

Named ITER -- the Latin word for "journey" -- the project is funded
and staffed by the United States, European Union and five other
nations.

China announced in May it will train 2,000 scientists for fusion
research. Beijing "is going gung ho on this," says Glen Wurden, a top
fusion scientist at the cradle of the atom bomb: New Mexico's Los
Alamos National Laboratory. The facility has joined Laberge's company,
General Fusion, in a cooperative research agreement.

The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.

Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
about $5 billion.

General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in 2012.
By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.

"We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
Delage, General Fusion VP of business development.

Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
think tank.

The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.

In fusion, there is no threat of a meltdown and no waste from the
fuel. Although the reactor and its components will become radioactive
after years of exposure to the process, this radioactivity disappears
after a few decades. Conventional nuclear fuel rods need thousands of
years to lose radioactivity.

The current budget-slashing climate on Capitol Hill doesn't bode well
for fusion research. The 2012 federal budget is expected to provide
about $400 million total.

An intensified scramble for cash could hurt other small players, such
as Seattle-based Helion Energy and a secretive outfit with ties to the
University of California called TriAlpha Energy."

Tokamak at http://www.iter.org will be built!!!!!!!
Keep spouting fossil fuel revisionism, and dont complain when you and
your reactionary corporatist statist fossil fuel revisionism will be
consigned to the dustbin of history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de

thomaswheat1975

>
> If you want a physics lesson, let me know. I charge $^0 an hour to tutor
> college kids. I amy even give you a break.
>
> I had hoped you would actually do something radical like look on
> wikipedia, but apparent EU PR is addicting and you couldn't stay away
> from it. FWIW, wikipedia has many good, footnoted articles supporting
> what I said. Read them if you dare.
>
> I REFUTED your incorrect assertion that no fission takes place in a tokamak.
>
> And here you go again.
>
> PR cites. AGAIN
>
> No science!!!
>
> Just PR
>
> Here's MIT's link.
>
> "closer than ever". No predictions of capacity, cost,  completion dates.
>   They know better. You can even get their experimental data, if you
> want to pay for it. But don;t bother, you don;t stand a snowball's
> chance in the firey furnace of even understanding the executive summary.
>
> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/
>
> Here's a link for the General Atomics tokamak --- they are still working
> on the control systems because they are too inefficient and unstable for
> commercial use.http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=401
>
> I must admit one error. My source for current projects was wrong.
> Princeton has shut down their program --- they had no hope for creating
> as commercially viable system
>
> But in so doing they refuted another of the claims of your PR source
> that I contested --- tokamaks are not entirely clean. Induced
> radioactivity in the container vessel and internal parts from neutrons
> and alpha problems IS A PROBLEM. Induced radioactivity prevented the use
> of saws, torches, and breakers because they would put radioactive debris
> in the air.
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/news/pages/tftr_removal.html
>
> So if you claim to know more than the US DoE, Princeton, MIT, and UCSD,
> please, please point me to it --- just not these same lying PR sites again!.
>
> >http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/ http://f4e.europa.eu/
>
> >  http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/index_en.htm
>
> >http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> >   is the official site of the European union, not some degenerate
> > reactionary fossil fuel statist fox news outlet, whose solution to
> > mass energy consumption and shortages and pollution, is to pass out
> > LED light bulbs, which by the way are far more toxic for waste
> > disposal than conventional light bulbs, and the fluroescent light is
> > an annoyance!!!!!
>
> Paranoid, huh.
>
> Love spending trillions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, huh?
>
> I said it is a government site.
>
> IT IS NOT A RESEARCH LAB SITE, but a PR site. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS
> PRESENTED. Even their fuel use estimates are based on assumptions, not
> real lab data, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.
>
> And again, who cares?
>
> This is economic data, not scientific.,
>
> US production of D2 is about 525 tons per year from 2 plants.
>
> ONE tokamak would use 20% of total US production, assuming it is given
> priority.
>
> Total world production of Li is 39000 tons. About 8% of that is unusable
> LI6. A worldwide shortage is predicted by 2015.
>
> So, another challenge you will ignore to call me names.
>
> Find me the lab in the EU doing this work.
>
> I couldn't, even though I found the existing labs. None of them admitted
> to being a part of this fantasy.
>
> So the EU is going to spend 10 B euro .
>
> Where?
>
> Failing that, show me the actual budget with the money allocated instead
> of a PR blitz. Actual euros in some lab's bank account.
>
> Can't do it, huh?
>
> Thought not.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2011 11:01 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>
> >>>>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>
> >> Last response.
>
> >> This site is a PR site for the European Union government, not a
> >> scientific research site.
>
> >> Individual European countries, including France, Germany(2), UK(2),
> >> Russia(2), Switzerland, Czech Republic (2) and Portugal all have
> >> operating tokamaks and ongoing research .
>
> >> None of them are part of this.
>
> >> 22 tokamak research projects in 16 countries are operating, including 3
> >> in the US (Princeton, MIT, and General Atomics --- yeah, they're real
> >> and government contractors for Sandia Labs and others). Some of these
> >> projects have been ongoing since the 60's --- the US has had an
> >> operating tokamak since 1980.
>
> >> None of them buy this.
>
> >> I'll take their word for it instead of your site aimed at the
> >> scientifically illiterate gee whizzers --- and that IS a slam.
>
> >> Larry
>
> >>>>> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> >>>>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> >>>>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> >>>>> climate.
>
> >>>>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> >>>>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> >>>>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> >>>>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> >>>>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>
> >>>> And again, so what?
>
> >>>> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>
> >>>> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
> >>>> best.
>
> >>>> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
> >>>> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
> >>>> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
> >>> Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
> >>> ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
> >>> Tokamak:
>
> >>>http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>
> >>> Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
> >>> is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
> >>> not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
> >>> metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
> >>> can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
> >>> by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
> >>> 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>
> >>> Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
> >>> produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
> >>> waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
> >>> electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
> >>> three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
> >>> power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
> >>> million tonnes of coal.
>
> >>> The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
> >>> including Japan, China, India, etc., is  funding and building the
> >>> Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
> >>> for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
> >>> plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
> >>> having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
> >>> thomaswheat1975
>
> >>> discussion archived here:
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> >>>> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
> >>>> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption  that 100% is captured.
>
> >>>> So what do we compare?
>
> >>>> And why bother>
>
> >>>> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
> >>>> totally eliminate that.
>
> >>>> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>
> >>>> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
> >>>> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>
> >>>> But who cares?
>
> >>>> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
> >>>> conspiracy.
>
> >>>> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>
> >>>> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
> >>>> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>
> >>>> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
> >>>> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
> >>>> \
>
> >>>> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
> >>>> ground on the very  first one it will not be needed.
>
> >>>> For the last time.
>
> >>>> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
> >>>> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
> >>>> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
> >>>> benefit of cutting outages, business losses,...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-03 18:53:14 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2011 12:35 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jul 3, 12:03 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2011 12:37 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
>>> dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
>>> citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
>>> http://www.iter.org Also you said earlier in this thread that natural
>>> gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
>>> largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
>>> year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
>>> American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
>>> be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site
>>
>> I have posted links, you never read them, instead choosing to repost
>> again and again and again and again and again the same PR dreck.
>>
>> You posted NO scientific data, just PR flack.
>>
>> I posted the "how a tokamak" works.
>>
>> I posted the data on availability of D2 an LI
>>
>> I posted EIA - federal government --- data and links.
>>
>> I posted car manufacturer links on their programs to refute your
>> baseless assertions about H2 as a fuel.
>
> Wrong again Larry, you are farting out of your neck. Here's info on
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's ongoing research into Nuclear
> Fusion. Once again your ratio of deuterium hydrogen in water was wrong
> here is the actual ratio:
>
> https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>

Are you so scientifically illiterate to not understand that there are
ratios by weight, ratios by composition, and ratios by volume?

I guess so.

This coming from someone who claimed that 30% of electricity generation
in the us is from oil.


> -excerpt-
>
> "Fusion, nuclear fission and solar energy (including biofuels) are the
> only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power
> for the next century and beyond without the negative environmental
> impacts of fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes
> of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the
> metal lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
> inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
> – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
> provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
> cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
> fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
> considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
> radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
> would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
> power plant."
>

PR

No mention of IF, let alone When, it can be done.

They talk ALL atoms on earth --- dirt, rocks, air, aardvarks, people.

I doubt they are going to process people for their D2.

D2 is currently extracted from heavy water, D2(2)O, as I told you before
but you apparently could not understand.

Heavy water is extracted from sea water. Its abundance in sea water
varies slightly with location , and it is more abundant in sea water
than fresh water. (heavier than "normal" water, it evaporates at a very
slightly lower rate, thus is a lower ratio in the clouds that
ultimately fill lakes, ...)

D2 exists in many, many compounds not currently used as a D2 source---
semi-heavy water HD2O, methane CH2D2, CHD2(2), and CD2(3), ammonia
NH2D2.., even the proteins and fats in your body ..., so talking total
abundance is horse hockey The only ratios that make sense are for heavy
water --- which I used.

For example, some methane (NG) molecules have THREE D2 atoms, a
seemingly better source since NG is abundant, but processing it and
extracting the D2 is more expensive than it is for water.
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water




> regarding the fact that global oil reserves will be exhausted by year
> 2100:
>
> "Energy experts estimate that over the next 75 years, the demand for
> energy could grow to as much as three times what it is today, while
> supplies of petroleum and natural gas will decline steadily and may
> well be exhausted by the turn of the century"
>

Never disputed this, and this is why I am pushing for action NOW to
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the use of petroleum for transportation --- 90% of
US consumption --- rather than your stupid suggestion of waiting years
for H2 to become available or your MPG conspiracy theory.

> http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

Add up all fuels, not just gasoline.


> Cnn.com news article on the current status of the TOKAMAK ITER Nuclear
> Fusion Reactor:
>
> Can one idea be energy's holy grail?
> ENERGY
> June 27, 2011|By Thom Patterson, CNN
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail?_s=PM:TECH
>
> -excerpt-
>
> "That sounds like a lot until you consider that the world's biggest
> fusion research facility -- under construction in France -- is
> expected to cost $20 billion. That's billion with a "b."
>
> Named ITER -- the Latin word for "journey" -- the project is funded
> and staffed by the United States, European Union and five other
> nations.
>
> China announced in May it will train 2,000 scientists for fusion
> research. Beijing "is going gung ho on this," says Glen Wurden, a top
> fusion scientist at the cradle of the atom bomb: New Mexico's Los
> Alamos National Laboratory. The facility has joined Laberge's company,
> General Fusion, in a cooperative research agreement.
>
> The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
> first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.
>

Okay, thanks,

So it is farther out than I was saying --- research won't start for
another 6 years.


> Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
> California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
> largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
> about $5 billion.
>

"attempt" a breakthrough. Still years to commercialization.

> General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in 2012.

So it still takes more energy to run a tokamak than it produces, as I
said. hmmmm.

> By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
> generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.
>

A small prototype in 7 years. Maybe.

The average utility plant generates 800MW to 1GW --- I posted the EIA
links before, look 'em up.

> "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
> orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
> Delage, General Fusion VP of business development.
>

"Hope" to be able to sell one in 8 years. A year (optimistic) for
licensing and constructiom.

A decade out, at best, as I said.

So why are you arguing with me??

> Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
> attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
> at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
> according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
> think tank.
>

Irrelevant to tokamaks, unless a major electric car roll out is
concurrent. As the EIA links I posted show, less than 1% of US oil
consumption is used to generate electricity.

Look it up.

I dare you.

Find something other than PR --- and a news article is PR.

Larry
> The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
> Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
> deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
> could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.
>
> In fusion, there is no threat of a meltdown and no waste from the
> fuel. Although the reactor and its components will become radioactive
> after years of exposure to the process, this radioactivity disappears
> after a few decades. Conventional nuclear fuel rods need thousands of
> years to lose radioactivity.
>
> The current budget-slashing climate on Capitol Hill doesn't bode well
> for fusion research. The 2012 federal budget is expected to provide
> about $400 million total.
>
> An intensified scramble for cash could hurt other small players, such
> as Seattle-based Helion Energy and a secretive outfit with ties to the
> University of California called TriAlpha Energy."
>
> Tokamak at http://www.iter.org will be built!!!!!!!
> Keep spouting fossil fuel revisionism, and dont complain when you and
> your reactionary corporatist statist fossil fuel revisionism will be
> consigned to the dustbin of history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
>>
>> If you want a physics lesson, let me know. I charge $^0 an hour to tutor
>> college kids. I amy even give you a break.
>>
>> I had hoped you would actually do something radical like look on
>> wikipedia, but apparent EU PR is addicting and you couldn't stay away
>> from it. FWIW, wikipedia has many good, footnoted articles supporting
>> what I said. Read them if you dare.
>>
>> I REFUTED your incorrect assertion that no fission takes place in a tokamak.
>>
>> And here you go again.
>>
>> PR cites. AGAIN
>>
>> No science!!!
>>
>> Just PR
>>
>> Here's MIT's link.
>>
>> "closer than ever". No predictions of capacity, cost, completion dates.
>> They know better. You can even get their experimental data, if you
>> want to pay for it. But don;t bother, you don;t stand a snowball's
>> chance in the firey furnace of even understanding the executive summary.
>>
>> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/
>>
>> Here's a link for the General Atomics tokamak --- they are still working
>> on the control systems because they are too inefficient and unstable for
>> commercial use.http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=401
>>
>> I must admit one error. My source for current projects was wrong.
>> Princeton has shut down their program --- they had no hope for creating
>> as commercially viable system
>>
>> But in so doing they refuted another of the claims of your PR source
>> that I contested --- tokamaks are not entirely clean. Induced
>> radioactivity in the container vessel and internal parts from neutrons
>> and alpha problems IS A PROBLEM. Induced radioactivity prevented the use
>> of saws, torches, and breakers because they would put radioactive debris
>> in the air.
>>
>> http://www.pppl.gov/news/pages/tftr_removal.html
>>
>> So if you claim to know more than the US DoE, Princeton, MIT, and UCSD,
>> please, please point me to it --- just not these same lying PR sites again!.
>>
>>> http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/ http://f4e.europa.eu/
>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/index_en.htm
>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>> is the official site of the European union, not some degenerate
>>> reactionary fossil fuel statist fox news outlet, whose solution to
>>> mass energy consumption and shortages and pollution, is to pass out
>>> LED light bulbs, which by the way are far more toxic for waste
>>> disposal than conventional light bulbs, and the fluroescent light is
>>> an annoyance!!!!!
>>
>> Paranoid, huh.
>>
>> Love spending trillions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, huh?
>>
>> I said it is a government site.
>>
>> IT IS NOT A RESEARCH LAB SITE, but a PR site. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS
>> PRESENTED. Even their fuel use estimates are based on assumptions, not
>> real lab data, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.
>>
>> And again, who cares?
>>
>> This is economic data, not scientific.,
>>
>> US production of D2 is about 525 tons per year from 2 plants.
>>
>> ONE tokamak would use 20% of total US production, assuming it is given
>> priority.
>>
>> Total world production of Li is 39000 tons. About 8% of that is unusable
>> LI6. A worldwide shortage is predicted by 2015.
>>
>> So, another challenge you will ignore to call me names.
>>
>> Find me the lab in the EU doing this work.
>>
>> I couldn't, even though I found the existing labs. None of them admitted
>> to being a part of this fantasy.
>>
>> So the EU is going to spend 10 B euro .
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> Failing that, show me the actual budget with the money allocated instead
>> of a PR blitz. Actual euros in some lab's bank account.
>>
>> Can't do it, huh?
>>
>> Thought not.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2011 11:01 AM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:04 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2011 9:44 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> regarding the fuel consumption needs of the Tokamak fusion reactor:
>>
>>>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>>>> Last response.
>>
>>>> This site is a PR site for the European Union government, not a
>>>> scientific research site.
>>
>>>> Individual European countries, including France, Germany(2), UK(2),
>>>> Russia(2), Switzerland, Czech Republic (2) and Portugal all have
>>>> operating tokamaks and ongoing research .
>>
>>>> None of them are part of this.
>>
>>>> 22 tokamak research projects in 16 countries are operating, including 3
>>>> in the US (Princeton, MIT, and General Atomics --- yeah, they're real
>>>> and government contractors for Sandia Labs and others). Some of these
>>>> projects have been ongoing since the 60's --- the US has had an
>>>> operating tokamak since 1980.
>>
>>>> None of them buy this.
>>
>>>> I'll take their word for it instead of your site aimed at the
>>>> scientifically illiterate gee whizzers --- and that IS a slam.
>>
>>>> Larry
>>
>>>>>>> "Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
>>>>>>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
>>>>>>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
>>>>>>> climate.
>>
>>>>>>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
>>>>>>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
>>>>>>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
>>>>>>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
>>>>>>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant."
>>
>>>>>> And again, so what?
>>
>>>>>> It is an apples to oranges , pie in the sky prediction, comparison.
>>
>>>>>> This fusion reactor DOES NOT EXIST, and WILL NOT EXIST for a decade, at
>>>>>> best.
>>
>>>>>> Deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% of all hydrogen in the
>>>>>> ocean. To generate 100kg of D2 more than 6.5 million KG pf water would
>>>>>> need to be processed, assuming 100% capture.
>>>>> Larry your figures are wrong. Here are the actual fuel consumption
>>>>> ratios regarding deuterium and tritium and lithium fuel for the
>>>>> Tokamak:
>>
>>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_...
>>
>>>>> Limitless fuel - The raw fuels for fusion are water and lithium. There
>>>>> is around 0.033 grams of deuterium in every litre of water. Tritium is
>>>>> not found on Earth but can be easily made from lithium - an abundant
>>>>> metal found in batteries that power mobile phones and laptops. Tritium
>>>>> can be made in situ in a fusion reactor by using the neutron released
>>>>> by the fusion reaction. If the neutron is absorbed by a surrounding
>>>>> 'blanket' of lithium then tritium is produced.
>>
>>>>> Environmental impact - Fusion power will not create greenhouse gases,
>>>>> produce other harmful pollutants or result in long-lasting radioactive
>>>>> waste. Its fuel consumption will be extremely low. A 1000 megawatt
>>>>> electric fusion power station would consume 100 kg of deuterium and
>>>>> three tonnes of lithium a year to generate 7 billion kilowatt-hours of
>>>>> power. To do the same a coal-fired power station would need 1.5
>>>>> million tonnes of coal.
>>
>>>>> The fact is the European union, and a consortium of other nations,
>>>>> including Japan, China, India, etc., is funding and building the
>>>>> Tokamak in Cadarache, France. They have appropiated 10 billion euros
>>>>> for the project, and expect completion of the commercial fusion power
>>>>> plant by 2020. If we dont restart our Tokamak program we will end up
>>>>> having to buy the technology from foreign sources.
>>>>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>>>> discussion archived here:
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>>>>> At 20 PPM in source minerals for Li we would need to smelt 150,000 tons
>>>>>> of ore, again using the unreasonable assumption that 100% is captured.
>>
>>>>>> So what do we compare?
>>
>>>>>> And why bother>
>>
>>>>>> Mining coal uses large amounts of petroleum I have given methods to
>>>>>> totally eliminate that.
>>
>>>>>> D2 and Li require huge amounts of electricity to purify.
>>
>>>>>> No production facility exists capable of producing that much D2. And
>>>>>> with disarmament production of D2 is FALLING.
>>
>>>>>> But who cares?
>>
>>>>>> That large tokamak IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT, and not because of any
>>>>>> conspiracy.
>>
>>>>>> It has huge technological probvlems --- go back and actually read my posts.
>>
>>>>>> It is fantastically expensive. We currently have more than 800!!
>>>>>> electric generating stations in this country alone with that output.
>>
>>>>>> The fuel is fantastically expensive, and building enough extraction
>>>>>> plants will cost TRILLIONS.
>>>>>> \
>>
>>>>>> And ultimately, if we are sensible by the time we are ready to break
>>>>>> ground on the very first one it will not be needed.
>>
>>>>>> For the last time.
>>
>>>>>> For less than the cost of 1 large tokamak --- not including research ---
>>>>>> we can upgrade the grid with in use technology, making the equivalent of
>>>>>> the output of 40 - 50 tokamaks available for consumption. With the added
>>>>>> benefit of cutting outages, business losses,...
>>
>> read more »
>
thomas wheat
2011-07-03 20:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
the discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
located at end of my response below.

Larry regarding electrical power generation, it is a fact, that 30%
of the US total demand for energy, excluding the 70% of total US
energy demand that goes towards transportation fuels, comes from
fossil fuels, like coal and oil.

your ratio regarding the scarcity of deuterium hydrogen used in
Nuclear Fusion reactors was bunked at this link: Also this project @
LLNL.gov has applications for SDI Laser program.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/

"The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium
and tritium), are derived from water and the metal lithium, a
relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually inexhaustible –
one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom – and they are
available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would provide the
equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50 cups of
water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal."

you have been clowned, there is no scarcity issue associated with
deuterium-hydrogen.

regarding Neutron radiation issues, TriAlpha energy, which is
Connected to the University of California Irvine, is developing
Aneutronic Fusion in which the neutron radiation and costs associated
with constructing a nuclear fusion reactor are remarkably cheaper than
ITER. THe project has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Paul
Allen.

UC Irvine connected TriAlpha energy's published paper on their
approach to nuclear fusion, that allegedly decreases dramatically the
neutron radiation associated with conventional Tokamak ITER fusion
reactors.

abstract and paper available for purchase here:

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.045003


TriAlpha's "Aneutronic fusion is any form of fusion power where no
more than 1% of the total energy released is carried by neutrons.
Since the most-studied fusion reactions release up to 80% of their
energy in neutrons, successful aneutronic fusion would greatly reduce
problems associated with neutron radiation such as ionizing damage,
neutron activation, and requirements for biological shielding, remote
handling, and safety issues. Some proponents also see a potential for
dramatic cost reductions by converting the energy of the charged
fusion products directly to electricity. The conditions required to
harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required
for the conventional deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle, and even these
conditions have not yet been produced experimentally. Even if
aneutronic fusion is one day shown to be scientifically feasible, it
is still speculative whether power production could be made
economical." excerpted from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Unlike many government-sponsored efforts, however, Tri Alpha is
working with fusion reactions that produce fewer neutrons and, thus,
less radiation, Mr. Rothrock says. The company also uses a different
method for containing and controlling fusion reactions, which happen
at million-degree temperatures. “It’s a long way from reality, but the
trend line is going in the right direction,” he says. “The science is
rock-solid; the calculations continue to bear out the results.”

Mr. Prouty estimates it will take his company “not 15 to 20 [years],
but not 3 to 5 either” to go from the research stage to power
generation.

A few years ago, Venrock first started investing in Tri Alpha, he
says. The firm later reportedly convinced Goldman Sachs, Vulcan
Capital, Enel Produzione, and PIZ Signal to join as backers. But
neither Mr. Prouty nor Mr. Rothrock would say when the company was
founded, or how much total funding it has. Its original funders are
believed to include billionaire Paul Allen.

Ballpark estimates put worldwide private investment in fusion research
at about $1 billion over the last 50 years. Of that, about $100
million currently funds cold fusion research, and less than $15
million has been invested in all fusion projects in Silicon Valley
since the 1980s.

info on one of the patents associated with TriAlpha's Aneutronic's
Theoretical Fusion reactor which claims to reduce neutron radiation
dramatically:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659

regarding your bunk eia.gov link mine is more comprehensive, here is
the link to the 2011 http://www.eia.gov Energy outlook study with
predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.

So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

“Long-term prospects
In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”

This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
70 posts ago regarding a discussion concerning this article: which
proves increased US Domestic oil drilling will not lower gasoline
prices in the USA.

Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices
By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer April 25, 2011: 11:22 AM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

-excerpt-

"In fact, more domestic oil is just what we've been seeing and
gasoline prices are still going up.

Including liquids from natural gas, biofuels and other products that
are all used to make gasoline, the United States now produces 9.7
million barrels of oil a day, according to EIA. That's the most oil
this country has pumped in 20 years, and puts it just behind Saudi
Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer."

2011 Energy Information Administration, Energy Outlook study, confirms
this

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

"Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
the United
States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)

Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
reported by private institutions, have grown over the past decade as
more shale gas plays have been production tested, it is not known what
shale formations were included in the estimates or what methodology
and data were used to derive them. For example, an estimate relying
only on publicly reported costs and performance profiles for shale gas
wells would tend to overestimate the size of the economic resource
base, because public information is skewed toward high-production and
high-profit wells. Given the lack of information about how private
institutions have derived their resource estimates, this analysis
considers a set of alternative resource estimates that are intended to
provide a plausible but not definitive range of potential shale gas
resources. (38)

Because some plant types—coal, nuclear, and most renewables—are more
capital-intensive than others (in particular, natural gas), the mix of
future capacity installations and consequently the fuels used for
power generation depends on both the relative and absolute level of
capital costs. If construction costs increase proportionately for
plants of all types, leaving relative costs unchanged, natural-gas-
fired capacity will be more economical than the more capital-intensive
coal and nuclear technologies. Over the longer term, higher
construction costs could lead to higher electricity prices, which
could slow the growth of electricity consumption. (40)

Natural gas is a more attractive fuel for complying with a GHG price,
because when it is used in an efficient combined-cycle plant, it emits
approximately 60 percent less CO2 per kilowatthour of generation than
coal burned in a typical existing plant. Toward the end of the
projection, new natural gas plants with CCS are also built in the GHG
Price Economywide case, and in 2035 13 percent of gas-fired
electricity generation is from plants with CCS.
Table 11. Coal-fired plant retirements in nine cases, 2010-2035 (50)

coal plants spew mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitrous dioxide into the
atmosphere.

discussion with moron Larry archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/1a6e7d435911ac81#1a6e7d435911ac81

thomaswheat1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion


On Jul 3, 11:53 am, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/2011 12:35 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 12:03 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2011 12:37 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>> Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
> >>> dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
> >>> citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
> >>>http://www.iter.orgAlso you said earlier in this thread that natural
> >>> gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
> >>> largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
> >>> year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
> >>> American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
> >>> be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site
>
> >> I have posted links, you never read them, instead choosing to repost
> >> again and again and again and again and again the same PR dreck.
>
> >> You posted NO scientific data, just PR flack.
>
> >> I posted the "how a tokamak" works.
>
> >> I posted the data on availability  of D2 an LI
>
> >> I posted EIA - federal government ---  data and links.
>
> >> I posted car manufacturer links on their programs to refute your
> >> baseless assertions about H2 as a fuel.
>
> > Wrong again Larry, you are farting out of your neck. Here's info on
> > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's ongoing research into Nuclear
> > Fusion. Once again your ratio of deuterium hydrogen in water was wrong
> > here is the actual ratio:
>
> >https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>
> Are you so scientifically illiterate to not understand that there are
> ratios by weight, ratios by composition, and ratios by volume?
>
> I guess so.
>
> This coming from someone who claimed that 30% of electricity generation
> in the us is from oil.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -excerpt-
>
> > "Fusion, nuclear fission and solar energy (including biofuels) are the
> > only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power
> > for the next century and beyond without the negative environmental
> > impacts of fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes
> > of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the
> > metal lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
> > inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
> > – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
> > provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
> > cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
> > fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
> > considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
> > radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
> > would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
> > power plant."
>
> PR
>
> No mention of IF, let alone When, it can be done.
>
> They talk ALL atoms on earth --- dirt, rocks, air, aardvarks, people.
>
> I doubt they are going to process people for their D2.
>
> D2 is currently extracted from heavy water, D2(2)O, as I told you before
> but you apparently could not understand.
>
> Heavy water is extracted from sea water. Its abundance in sea water
> varies slightly with location , and it is more abundant in sea water
> than fresh water. (heavier than "normal" water, it evaporates at a very
> slightly lower rate, thus is a lower ratio in  the clouds that
> ultimately fill lakes, ...)
>
> D2 exists in many, many compounds not currently used as a D2 source---
> semi-heavy water HD2O, methane CH2D2, CHD2(2), and CD2(3), ammonia
> NH2D2.., even the proteins and fats in your body ..., so talking total
> abundance is horse hockey The only ratios that make sense are for heavy
> water --- which I used.
>
> For example, some methane (NG) molecules have THREE D2 atoms, a
> seemingly better source since NG is abundant, but processing it and
> extracting the D2 is more expensive than it is for water.
>
> >http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
> > regarding the fact that global oil reserves will be exhausted by year
> > 2100:
>
> > "Energy experts estimate that over the next 75 years, the demand for
> > energy could grow to as much as three times what it is today, while
> > supplies of petroleum and natural gas will decline steadily and may
> > well be exhausted by the turn of the century"
>
> Never disputed this, and this is why I am pushing for action NOW to
> COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the use of petroleum for transportation --- 90% of
> US consumption --- rather than your stupid suggestion of waiting years
> for H2 to become  available or your MPG conspiracy theory.
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
>
> Add up all fuels, not just gasoline.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cnn.com news article on the current status of the TOKAMAK ITER Nuclear
> > Fusion Reactor:
>
> > Can one idea be energy's holy grail?
> > ENERGY
> > June 27, 2011|By Thom Patterson, CNN
>
> >http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grai...
>
> > -excerpt-
>
> > "That sounds like a lot until you consider that the world's biggest
> > fusion research facility -- under construction in France -- is
> > expected to cost $20 billion. That's billion with a "b."
>
> > Named ITER -- the Latin word for "journey" -- the project is funded
> > and staffed by the United States, European Union and five other
> > nations.
>
> > China announced in May it will train 2,000 scientists for fusion
> > research. Beijing "is going gung ho on this," says Glen Wurden, a top
> > fusion scientist at the cradle of the atom bomb: New Mexico's Los
> > Alamos National Laboratory. The facility has joined Laberge's company,
> > General Fusion, in a cooperative research agreement.
>
> > The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
> > first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.
>
> Okay, thanks,
>
> So it is farther out than I was saying --- research won't start for
> another 6 years.
>
> > Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
> > California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
> > largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
> > about $5 billion.
>
> "attempt" a breakthrough. Still years to commercialization.
>
> > General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in 2012.
>
> So it still takes more energy to run a tokamak than it produces, as I
> said.  hmmmm.
>
> > By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
> > generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.
>
> A small prototype in 7 years. Maybe.
>
> The average utility plant generates 800MW to 1GW --- I posted the EIA
> links before, look 'em up.
>
> > "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
> > orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
> > Delage, General Fusion VP of business development.
>
> "Hope" to be able to sell one in 8 years. A year (optimistic) for
> licensing and constructiom.
>
> A decade out, at best, as I said.
>
> So why are you arguing with me??
>
> > Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
> > attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
> > at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
> > according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
> > think tank.
>
> Irrelevant to tokamaks, unless a major electric car roll out is
> concurrent. As the EIA links I posted show, less than 1% of US oil
> consumption is used to generate electricity.
>
> Look it up.
>
> I dare you.
>
> Find something other than PR --- and a news article is PR.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
> > Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
> > deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
> > could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.
>
> > In fusion, there is no threat of a meltdown and no waste from the
> > fuel. Although the reactor and its components will become radioactive
> > after years of exposure to the process, this radioactivity disappears
> > after a few decades. Conventional nuclear fuel rods need thousands of
> > years to lose radioactivity.
>
> > The current budget-slashing climate on Capitol Hill doesn't bode well
> > for fusion research. The 2012 federal budget is expected to provide
> > about $400 million total.
>
> > An intensified scramble for cash could hurt other small players, such
> > as Seattle-based Helion Energy and a secretive outfit with ties to the
> > University of California called TriAlpha Energy."
>
> > Tokamak at  http://www.iter.orgwill be built!!!!!!!
> > Keep spouting fossil fuel revisionism, and dont complain when you and
> > your reactionary corporatist statist fossil fuel revisionism will be
> > consigned to the dustbin of history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > discussion archived here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> >> If you want a physics lesson, let me know. I charge $^0 an hour to tutor
> >> college kids. I amy even give you a break.
>
> >> I had hoped you would actually do something radical like look on
> >> wikipedia, but apparent EU PR is addicting and you couldn't stay away
> >> from it. FWIW, wikipedia has many good, footnoted articles supporting
> >> what I said. Read them if you dare.
>
> >> I REFUTED your incorrect assertion that no fission takes place in a tokamak.
>
> >> And here you go again.
>
> >> PR cites. AGAIN
>
> >> No science!!!
>
> >> Just PR
>
> >> Here's MIT's link.
>
> >> "closer than ever". No predictions of capacity, cost,  completion dates.
> >>    They know better. You can even get their experimental data, if you
> >> want to pay for it. But don;t bother, you don;t stand a snowball's
> >> chance in the firey furnace of even understanding the executive summary.
>
> >>http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/
>
> >> Here's a link for the General Atomics tokamak --- they are still working
> >> on the...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-03 22:07:51 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
> the discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
> located at end of my response below.
>
> Larry regarding electrical power generation, it is a fact, that 30%
> of the US total demand for energy, excluding the 70% of total US
> energy demand that goes towards transportation fuels, comes from
> fossil fuels, like coal and oil.

No.


First, you are mixing apples and oranges.,

The 70% figure, even if right, is percentage of petroleum consumption,
NOT TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Transportattion accounts for only 30% of
total energy consumption.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_Consumption_by_Sector_2007.PNG


Wind power, biomass , hydro, nuclear fission, solar, solar thermal,
geothermal, and others contribute to total energy production in the US.

> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

You are really, really sloppy in your writing.

>
> your ratio regarding the scarcity of deuterium hydrogen used in
> Nuclear Fusion reactors was bunked at this link: Also this project @
> LLNL.gov has applications for SDI Laser program.
>
> https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/
>
> "The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium
> and tritium), are derived from water and the metal lithium, a
> relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually inexhaustible –
> one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom – and they are
> available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would provide the
> equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50 cups of
> water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal."
>
> you have been clowned, there is no scarcity issue associated with
> deuterium-hydrogen.

And apparently you are really, really sloppy in your reading, too.

I said there was a shortage in PRODUCTION, idiot, not available
resources, idiot.

>
> regarding Neutron radiation issues, TriAlpha energy, which is
> Connected to the University of California Irvine, is developing
> Aneutronic Fusion in which the neutron radiation and costs associated
> with constructing a nuclear fusion reactor are remarkably cheaper than
> ITER. THe project has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Paul
> Allen.
>
> UC Irvine connected TriAlpha energy's published paper on their
> approach to nuclear fusion, that allegedly decreases dramatically the
> neutron radiation associated with conventional Tokamak ITER fusion
> reactors.
>
> abstract and paper available for purchase here:
>
> http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.045003
>
>

The link has nothing to do with what you posted.

It is a refinement of toroidal magnetic technology that improves the
ability to keep the counter-rotating streams of reactants tightly bound.

This paper is not about tokamaks, but may have applications in tokamaks.


Sloppy, sloppy.

> TriAlpha's "Aneutronic fusion is any form of fusion power where no
> more than 1% of the total energy released is carried by neutrons.
> Since the most-studied fusion reactions release up to 80% of their
> energy in neutrons, successful aneutronic fusion would greatly reduce
> problems associated with neutron radiation such as ionizing damage,
> neutron activation, and requirements for biological shielding, remote
> handling, and safety issues. Some proponents also see a potential for
> dramatic cost reductions by converting the energy of the charged
> fusion products directly to electricity. The conditions required to
> harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required
> for the conventional deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle, and even these
> conditions have not yet been produced experimentally. Even if
> aneutronic fusion is one day shown to be scientifically feasible, it
> is still speculative whether power production could be made
> economical." excerpted from wikipedia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>

You need to read your sources more carefully. Sloppy, sloppy.

Physics lesson. All from your link.


Reactions being evaluated are:
D + 3He → 4He (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)
D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.4 MeV
p + 6Li → 4He (1.7 MeV) + 3He (2.3 MeV)
3He + 6Li → 2 4He + p + 16.9 MeV
3He + 3He → 4He + 2 p +12.86 MeV
p + 7Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV
p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
p + 15N → 12C +4He + 5.0 MeV[2]


All D2 reactions produce neutrons, especially in side reactions if the
main reaction is not well behaved. While the number may be small, they
carry of a significant amount of energy, and the reduced numbers only
delay the problem.

"The pure 3He reaction suffers from a fuel-availability problem. 3He
occurs in only minuscule amounts naturally on Earth, so it would either
have to be bred from neutron reactions (counteracting the potential
advantage of aneutronic fusion), or mined from extraterrestrial sources.
" Anyone want to work on the moon? Jupiter's atmosphere has lots of He3.

The LI6 and He3 reactions have a low reaction rate. Investigators are
looking into chaining them --- using the HE3 produced in one to fuel a
second, but it is complex and there is little interest.

The proton LI7 reaction has a lower reaction rate and energy output than
the p B11 reactions, and thus is of little interest.

"For the above reasons, most studies of aneutronic fusion concentrate on
the reaction, p –11B"

BUT!!:

"The technical challenges of hydrogen–boron (p–11B) fusion are so
formidable. Hydrogen–boron fusion requires ion energies or temperatures
almost ten times higher than those for D–T fusion. For any given
densities of the reacting nuclei, the reaction rate for hydrogen boron
achieves its peak rate at around 600 keV (6.6 billion degrees Celsius or
6.6 gigakelvins)[6] while D–T has a peak at around 66 keV (730 million
degrees Celsius).[7]"

They also note problems with power balance and power density which means
the reaction will need higher strength confinement fields, reducing
efficiency.




> Unlike many government-sponsored efforts, however, Tri Alpha is
> working with fusion reactions that produce fewer neutrons and, thus,
> less radiation, Mr. Rothrock says. The company also uses a different
> method for containing and controlling fusion reactions, which happen
> at million-degree temperatures. “It’s a long way from reality, but the
> trend line is going in the right direction,” he says. “The science is
> rock-solid; the calculations continue to bear out the results.”
>

"Its a long way from reality"


> Mr. Prouty estimates it will take his company “not 15 to 20 [years],
> but not 3 to 5 either” to go from the research stage to power
> generation.
>

So 10 years out.

Again.

So what do we do in the mean time?

Sit on our thumbs in the dark?

Shut down factories?


Build more coal plants?

Or eliminate the need for more plants?

> A few years ago, Venrock first started investing in Tri Alpha, he
> says. The firm later reportedly convinced Goldman Sachs, Vulcan
> Capital, Enel Produzione, and PIZ Signal to join as backers. But
> neither Mr. Prouty nor Mr. Rothrock would say when the company was
> founded, or how much total funding it has. Its original funders are
> believed to include billionaire Paul Allen.
>
> Ballpark estimates put worldwide private investment in fusion research
> at about $1 billion over the last 50 years. Of that, about $100
> million currently funds cold fusion research, and less than $15
> million has been invested in all fusion projects in Silicon Valley
> since the 1980s.
>
> info on one of the patents associated with TriAlpha's Aneutronic's
> Theoretical Fusion reactor which claims to reduce neutron radiation
> dramatically:
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659
>
> regarding your bunk eia.gov link mine is more comprehensive, here is
> the link to the 2011 http://www.eia.gov

same link, mine bored in.

And how stupid is "my EIA link is right but yours is wrong"???


Energy outlook study with
> predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
> gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>
> So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
> incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>

What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
cost of gasoline?

You keep harping on this, so do some 'splainin'

ONE MORE TIME.

Raising CAFE to 50MPG will cut gasoline consumption in half using
current technology and current production facilitates in 10 years, if we
mandate it.

So why are you running of to fantasy land of fusion reactors?


> “Long-term prospects
> In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
> explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
> world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
> decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
> AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
> Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
> assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
> demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
> AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
> bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
> prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
> Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
> compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
>
> This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
> 70 posts ago regarding a discussion concerning this article: which
> proves increased US Domestic oil drilling will not lower gasoline
> prices in the USA.
>
> Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices
> By Steve Hargreaves, senior writer April 25, 2011: 11:22 AM ET
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm
>
> -excerpt-
>
> "In fact, more domestic oil is just what we've been seeing and
> gasoline prices are still going up.
>
> Including liquids from natural gas, biofuels and other products that
> are all used to make gasoline, the United States now produces 9.7
> million barrels of oil a day, according to EIA. That's the most oil
> this country has pumped in 20 years, and puts it just behind Saudi
> Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer."
>
> 2011 Energy Information Administration, Energy Outlook study, confirms
> this
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> "Changes in domestic oil production tend to have only a modest impact
> on crude oil and petroleum product prices, because any change in
> domestic oil production is diluted in the world oil market. In 2009,
> the United
> States produced 5.36 million barrels per day of crude oil and lease
> condensate, or 7 percent of the world total of 72.26 million barrels
> per day. Unlike crude oil supply and prices, domestic natural gas
> supply and prices are determined largely by supply and demand for
> natural gas in the North American market, where the development and
> production of shale gas in the Lower 48 States is largely responsible
> for current and foreseeable future market conditions." (pg 36)
>
> Although public estimates of onshore lower 48 shale gas resources, as
> reported by private institutions, have grown over the past decade as
> more shale gas plays have been production tested, it is not known what

----

> shale formations were included in the estimates or what methodology
> and data were used to derive them. For example, an estimate relying
> only on publicly reported costs and performance profiles for shale gas
> wells would tend to overestimate the size of the economic resource

Exactly what I said, idiot.


> base, because public information is skewed toward high-production and
> high-profit wells. Given the lack of information about how private
> institutions have derived their resource estimates, this analysis
> considers a set of alternative resource estimates that are intended to
> provide a plausible but not definitive range of potential shale gas
> resources. (38)
>
> Because some plant types—coal, nuclear, and most renewables—are more
> capital-intensive than others (in particular, natural gas), the mix of
> future capacity installations and consequently the fuels used for
> power generation depends on both the relative and absolute level of
> capital costs. If construction costs increase proportionately for
> plants of all types, leaving relative costs unchanged, natural-gas-
> fired capacity will be more economical than the more capital-intensive
> coal and nuclear technologies. Over the longer term, higher
> construction costs could lead to higher electricity prices, which
> could slow the growth of electricity consumption. (40)
>
> Natural gas is a more attractive fuel for complying with a GHG price,
> because when it is used in an efficient combined-cycle plant, it emits
> approximately 60 percent less CO2 per kilowatthour of generation than
> coal burned in a typical existing plant. Toward the end of the
> projection, new natural gas plants with CCS are also built in the GHG
> Price Economywide case, and in 2035 13 percent of gas-fired
> electricity generation is from plants with CCS.
> Table 11. Coal-fired plant retirements in nine cases, 2010-2035 (50)
>
> coal plants spew mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitrous dioxide into the
> atmosphere.
>

I know, idiot, and have frequently said so. Not to mention the CO2.

So, are you advocating replacing existing coal plants with a tokamak?

I know you are incapable of understanding the importance and benefits of
conservation and efficiency gains, instead wanting to keep feeding the
corporate beast with more and bigger construction and utility bills?


Go off, now, and find me another PR blitz like your aneutronic
bullhockey. And another technical link you cannot comprehend.

Larry
> discussion with moron Larry archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/1a6e7d435911ac81#1a6e7d435911ac81
>
> thomaswheat1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>
>
> On Jul 3, 11:53 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2011 12:35 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 12:03 am, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2011 12:37 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> Larry your posts are like farts, they make a loud noise and then they
>>>>> dissipate leaving a foul smell. You have posted no scientific source
>>>>> citations regarding the non-viability of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor.
>>>>> http://www.iter.orgAlso you said earlier in this thread that natural
>>>>> gas is a minor player, well the fact is El Paso Gas, one of the
>>>>> largest natural gas suppliers in the USA, its stock is up 44% this
>>>>> year, as reported on CNBC. So something is going down in the North
>>>>> American natural gas market. The Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor will
>>>>> be built. My link is not bunk, for one thing the site
>>
>>>> I have posted links, you never read them, instead choosing to repost
>>>> again and again and again and again and again the same PR dreck.
>>
>>>> You posted NO scientific data, just PR flack.
>>
>>>> I posted the "how a tokamak" works.
>>
>>>> I posted the data on availability of D2 an LI
>>
>>>> I posted EIA - federal government --- data and links.
>>
>>>> I posted car manufacturer links on their programs to refute your
>>>> baseless assertions about H2 as a fuel.
>>
>>> Wrong again Larry, you are farting out of your neck. Here's info on
>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's ongoing research into Nuclear
>>> Fusion. Once again your ratio of deuterium hydrogen in water was wrong
>>> here is the actual ratio:
>>
>>> https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/
>>
>> Are you so scientifically illiterate to not understand that there are
>> ratios by weight, ratios by composition, and ratios by volume?
>>
>> I guess so.
>>
>> This coming from someone who claimed that 30% of electricity generation
>> in the us is from oil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -excerpt-
>>
>>> "Fusion, nuclear fission and solar energy (including biofuels) are the
>>> only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth's need for power
>>> for the next century and beyond without the negative environmental
>>> impacts of fossil fuels. The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes
>>> of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), are derived from water and the
>>> metal lithium, a relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually
>>> inexhaustible – one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom
>>> – and they are available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would
>>> provide the equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50
>>> cups of water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal. A
>>> fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as
>>> considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful
>>> radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there
>>> would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion
>>> power plant."
>>
>> PR
>>
>> No mention of IF, let alone When, it can be done.
>>
>> They talk ALL atoms on earth --- dirt, rocks, air, aardvarks, people.
>>
>> I doubt they are going to process people for their D2.
>>
>> D2 is currently extracted from heavy water, D2(2)O, as I told you before
>> but you apparently could not understand.
>>
>> Heavy water is extracted from sea water. Its abundance in sea water
>> varies slightly with location , and it is more abundant in sea water
>> than fresh water. (heavier than "normal" water, it evaporates at a very
>> slightly lower rate, thus is a lower ratio in the clouds that
>> ultimately fill lakes, ...)
>>
>> D2 exists in many, many compounds not currently used as a D2 source---
>> semi-heavy water HD2O, methane CH2D2, CHD2(2), and CD2(3), ammonia
>> NH2D2.., even the proteins and fats in your body ..., so talking total
>> abundance is horse hockey The only ratios that make sense are for heavy
>> water --- which I used.
>>
>> For example, some methane (NG) molecules have THREE D2 atoms, a
>> seemingly better source since NG is abundant, but processing it and
>> extracting the D2 is more expensive than it is for water.
>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
>>> regarding the fact that global oil reserves will be exhausted by year
>>> 2100:
>>
>>> "Energy experts estimate that over the next 75 years, the demand for
>>> energy could grow to as much as three times what it is today, while
>>> supplies of petroleum and natural gas will decline steadily and may
>>> well be exhausted by the turn of the century"
>>
>> Never disputed this, and this is why I am pushing for action NOW to
>> COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the use of petroleum for transportation --- 90% of
>> US consumption --- rather than your stupid suggestion of waiting years
>> for H2 to become available or your MPG conspiracy theory.
>>
>>> http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
>>
>> Add up all fuels, not just gasoline.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cnn.com news article on the current status of the TOKAMAK ITER Nuclear
>>> Fusion Reactor:
>>
>>> Can one idea be energy's holy grail?
>>> ENERGY
>>> June 27, 2011|By Thom Patterson, CNN
>>
>>> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grai...
>>
>>> -excerpt-
>>
>>> "That sounds like a lot until you consider that the world's biggest
>>> fusion research facility -- under construction in France -- is
>>> expected to cost $20 billion. That's billion with a "b."
>>
>>> Named ITER -- the Latin word for "journey" -- the project is funded
>>> and staffed by the United States, European Union and five other
>>> nations.
>>
>>> China announced in May it will train 2,000 scientists for fusion
>>> research. Beijing "is going gung ho on this," says Glen Wurden, a top
>>> fusion scientist at the cradle of the atom bomb: New Mexico's Los
>>> Alamos National Laboratory. The facility has joined Laberge's company,
>>> General Fusion, in a cooperative research agreement.
>>
>>> The ITER facility won't be complete until 2017. Best case, ITER's
>>> first net gain fusion reaction would take place sometime after 2019.
>>
>> Okay, thanks,
>>
>> So it is farther out than I was saying --- research won't start for
>> another 6 years.
>>
>>> Another giant fusion project, the National Ignition Facility at
>>> California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is using the world's
>>> largest lasers to attempt a fusion breakthrough by 2012 at a cost of
>>> about $5 billion.
>>
>> "attempt" a breakthrough. Still years to commercialization.
>>
>>> General Fusion aims to achieve net gain fusion experimentally in 2012.
>>
>> So it still takes more energy to run a tokamak than it produces, as I
>> said. hmmmm.
>>
>>> By 2018, it plans to complete a power plant prototype that would
>>> generate 100 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes.
>>
>> A small prototype in 7 years. Maybe.
>>
>> The average utility plant generates 800MW to 1GW --- I posted the EIA
>> links before, look 'em up.
>>
>>> "We would like to be in a commercial stage of being able to take
>>> orders and build power plants by the end of the decade," said Michael
>>> Delage, General Fusion VP of business development.
>>
>> "Hope" to be able to sell one in 8 years. A year (optimistic) for
>> licensing and constructiom.
>>
>> A decade out, at best, as I said.
>>
>> So why are you arguing with me??
>>
>>> Cutting dependence on foreign oil could prompt nations to shift
>>> attention away from oil-rich regions. The U.S. military already spends
>>> at least $50 billion yearly on "expenditures related to oil,"
>>> according to the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington
>>> think tank.
>>
>> Irrelevant to tokamaks, unless a major electric car roll out is
>> concurrent. As the EIA links I posted show, less than 1% of US oil
>> consumption is used to generate electricity.
>>
>> Look it up.
>>
>> I dare you.
>>
>> Find something other than PR --- and a news article is PR.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The fuel for fusion reactors is relatively cheap and accessible.
>>> Fusion reactors would run on fuel made up of two types of hydrogen:
>>> deuterium, which can be extracted from sea water, and tritium, which
>>> could be produced by the fusion reactors themselves.
>>
>>> In fusion, there is no threat of a meltdown and no waste from the
>>> fuel. Although the reactor and its components will become radioactive
>>> after years of exposure to the process, this radioactivity disappears
>>> after a few decades. Conventional nuclear fuel rods need thousands of
>>> years to lose radioactivity.
>>
>>> The current budget-slashing climate on Capitol Hill doesn't bode well
>>> for fusion research. The 2012 federal budget is expected to provide
>>> about $400 million total.
>>
>>> An intensified scramble for cash could hurt other small players, such
>>> as Seattle-based Helion Energy and a secretive outfit with ties to the
>>> University of California called TriAlpha Energy."
>>
>>> Tokamak at http://www.iter.orgwill be built!!!!!!!
>>> Keep spouting fossil fuel revisionism, and dont complain when you and
>>> your reactionary corporatist statist fossil fuel revisionism will be
>>> consigned to the dustbin of history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> discussion archived here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>>>> If you want a physics lesson, let me know. I charge $^0 an hour to tutor
>>>> college kids. I amy even give you a break.
>>
>>>> I had hoped you would actually do something radical like look on
>>>> wikipedia, but apparent EU PR is addicting and you couldn't stay away
>>>> from it. FWIW, wikipedia has many good, footnoted articles supporting
>>>> what I said. Read them if you dare.
>>
>>>> I REFUTED your incorrect assertion that no fission takes place in a tokamak.
>>
>>>> And here you go again.
>>
>>>> PR cites. AGAIN
>>
>>>> No science!!!
>>
>>>> Just PR
>>
>>>> Here's MIT's link.
>>
>>>> "closer than ever". No predictions of capacity, cost, completion dates.
>>>> They know better. You can even get their experimental data, if you
>>>> want to pay for it. But don;t bother, you don;t stand a snowball's
>>>> chance in the firey furnace of even understanding the executive summary.
>>
>>>> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/
>>
>>>> Here's a link for the General Atomics tokamak --- they are still working
>>>> on the...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-04 00:00:49 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> > Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
> > alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
> > the  discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
> > located at end of my response below.
>
> > Larry  regarding electrical power generation, it is a fact, that 30%
> > of the US total demand for energy, excluding the 70% of total US
> > energy demand that goes towards transportation fuels, comes from
> > fossil fuels, like coal and oil.
>
> No.
>
> First, you are mixing apples and oranges.,
>
> The 70% figure, even if right, is percentage of petroleum consumption,
> NOT TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Transportattion accounts for only 30% of
> total energy consumption.
Correction: transportation is responsible for 70 percent of our
petroleum consumption.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/blueprint-secure-energy-future
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_Consumption_by_Sector_200...
>
> Wind power, biomass , hydro, nuclear fission, solar, solar thermal,
> geothermal, and others contribute to total energy production in the US.
Fission power only accounts for 20% of total energy supplied to our
electric grid. I would assume other alternative fuel sources only
supply power of about 10% to the USA electrical grid. WE need to
increase alternative fuel production for our power grid, and implement
solar, hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas for our transportation
vehicles. This could be supplemented with biomass, like what
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com is working on. Iam sure we could
construct a variety of hybrid fuel tanks utilizing one or more of
these fuels at the same time.
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
>
> You are really, really sloppy in your writing.
>
> > your ratio regarding the scarcity of deuterium hydrogen used in
> > Nuclear Fusion reactors was bunked at this link: Also this project @
> > LLNL.gov has applications for SDI Laser program.
>
> >https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/
>
> > "The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium
> > and tritium), are derived from water and the metal lithium, a
> > relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually inexhaustible –
> > one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom – and they are
> > available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would provide the
> > equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50 cups of
> > water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal."
>
> > you have been clowned, there is no scarcity issue associated with
> > deuterium-hydrogen.
>
> And apparently you are really, really sloppy in your reading, too.
>
> I said there was a shortage in PRODUCTION, idiot, not available
> resources, idiot.
talking out of your ass again. You said deuterium was too scarce. The
fact is one gallon of sea water would provide the equivalant energy of
300 gallons of gasoline. 50 cups of water contain more deuterium fuel
than two tons of coal. Obviously it makes sense for the government to
increase funding for both Tokamak ITER fusion reactors at http://www.iter.org
and TriAlpha Energy's Aneutronic Fusion Reactor. The latter has proven
that it is possible to reduce dramatically neutron radiation from
Fusion power plants. Regardless of this fact, Both Tokamak and
TriAlpha's Aneutronic reactor's emit far less radiation than Nuclear
fission power plants. The cost to construct a USA nuclear fission
power plant currently is about 50% of the cost projected by the
European Union Union in the construction of their TOKAMAK ITER Power
plant. Which is projected to begin operations in 2019.
>
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm
>
>> regarding Neutron radiation issues, TriAlpha energy, which is
> > Connected to the University of California Irvine, is developing
> > Aneutronic Fusion in which the neutron radiation and costs associated
> > with constructing a nuclear fusion reactor are remarkably cheaper than
> > ITER. THe project has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Paul
> > Allen.
>
> > UC Irvine connected TriAlpha energy's published paper on their
> > approach to nuclear fusion, that allegedly decreases dramatically the
> > neutron radiation associated with conventional Tokamak ITER fusion
> > reactors.
>
> > abstract and paper available for purchase here:
>
> >http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.045003
>
> The link has nothing to do with what you posted.
>
> It is a refinement of toroidal magnetic technology that improves the
> ability to keep the counter-rotating streams of reactants tightly bound
Yes and your neocrypto fascist reactionary fossil fuel revisionist
clipped the other link I posted about Aneutronic fusion that decreases
dramatically the neutron radiation levels in Nuclear Fusion power
plants. I will post it again and let's see if you can cite something
from the theory that can be refuted.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659
>
> This paper is not about tokamaks, but may have applications in tokamaks.
This paper does have Tokamak applications. Remember your chief
argument against Tokamak was the levels of neutron radiation. This
patent description regarding TriAlpha's Aneutronic Fusion Reactor,
proves that this phenomena can be resolved theoretically.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659
>
> > TriAlpha's "Aneutronic fusion is any form of fusion power where no
> > more than 1% of the total energy released is carried by neutrons.
> > Since the most-studied fusion reactions release up to 80% of their
> > energy in neutrons, successful aneutronic fusion would greatly reduce
> > problems associated with neutron radiation such as ionizing damage,
> > neutron activation, and requirements for biological shielding, remote
> > handling, and safety issues. Some proponents also see a potential for
> > dramatic cost reductions by converting the energy of the charged
> > fusion products directly to electricity. The conditions required to
> > harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required
> > for the conventional deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle, and even these
> > conditions have not yet been produced experimentally. Even if
> > aneutronic fusion is one day shown to be scientifically feasible, it
> > is still speculative whether power production could be made
> > economical." excerpted from wikipedia
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>
> You need to read your sources more carefully. Sloppy, sloppy.
>
> Physics lesson. All from your link.
Fuck your cut and paste figures. The fact is you still argue for the
status quo.
You really are disengenious. Your the one who said a number of posts
before, that we should continue massive coal production, and you
acknowledged with gusto that coal miners in west virginia should be
allowed to rape their sisters. so you are just talking out of your ass
David Koch astroturfer!!!!!!!!!!1

>
> Reactions being evaluated are:
> D       +       3He     →             4He     (3.6 MeV)       +               p       (14.7 MeV)
> D       +       6Li     →     2       4He     + 22.4 MeV
> p       +       6Li     →             4He     (1.7 MeV)       +               3He     (2.3 MeV)
> 3He     +       6Li     →     2       4He             +               p       + 16.9 MeV
> 3He     +       3He     →             4He             +       2       p         +12.86 MeV
> p       +       7Li     →     2       4He     +  17.2 MeV
> p       +       11B     →     3       4He     +  8.7 MeV
> p       +       15N     →             12C     +4He    +  5.0 MeV[2]
>
Why dont you post a link so I dont have to evaluate your bullshit!!!!!
>
>
> The proton LI7 reaction has a lower reaction rate and energy output than
> the p B11 reactions, and thus is of little interest.
>
> "For the above reasons, most studies of aneutronic fusion concentrate on
> the reaction, p –11B"
>
> BUT!!:
>
> "The technical challenges of hydrogen–boron (p–11B) fusion are so
> formidable. Hydrogen–boron fusion requires ion energies or temperatures
> almost ten times higher than those for D–T fusion. For any given
> densities of the reacting nuclei, the reaction rate for hydrogen boron
> achieves its peak rate at around 600 keV (6.6 billion degrees Celsius or
> 6.6 gigakelvins)[6] while D–T has a peak at around 66 keV (730 million
> degrees Celsius).[7]"
>
> They also note problems with power balance and power density which means
> the reaction will need higher strength confinement fields, reducing
> efficiency.
>
> > Unlike many government-sponsored efforts, however, Tri Alpha is
> > working with fusion reactions that produce fewer neutrons and, thus,
> > less radiation, Mr. Rothrock says. The company also uses a different
> > method for containing and controlling fusion reactions, which happen
> > at million-degree temperatures. “It’s a long way from reality, but the
> > trend line is going in the right direction,” he says. “The science is
> > rock-solid; the calculations continue to bear out the results.”
>
> "Its a long way from reality"
>
> > Mr. Prouty estimates it will take his company “not 15 to 20 [years],
> > but not 3 to 5 either” to go from the research stage to power
> > generation.
>
> So 10 years out.
That's because they have only secured about 50 million dollars in
funding!!!
Your a dipshit, you pay for results!!!!
>
> Again.
>
> So what do we do in the mean time?
>
> Sit on our thumbs in the dark?
>
> Shut down factories?
>
> Build more coal plants?
>
> Or eliminate the need for more plants?
as usual you argue fait accompli for the fossil fuel status quo.
>
> > A few years ago, Venrock first started investing in Tri Alpha, he
> > says. The firm later reportedly convinced Goldman Sachs, Vulcan
> > Capital, Enel Produzione, and PIZ Signal to join as backers. But
> > neither Mr. Prouty nor Mr. Rothrock would say when the company was
> > founded, or how much total funding it has. Its original funders are
> > believed to include billionaire Paul Allen.
>
> > Ballpark estimates put worldwide private investment in fusion research
> > at about $1 billion over the last 50 years. Of that, about $100
> > million currently funds cold fusion research, and less than $15
> > million has been invested in all fusion projects in Silicon Valley
> > since the 1980s.
>
> > info on one of the patents associated with TriAlpha's Aneutronic's
> > Theoretical Fusion reactor which claims to reduce neutron radiation
> > dramatically:
>
> >http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=...
>
> > regarding your bunk eia.gov link mine is more comprehensive, here is
> > the link to the 2011http://www.eia.gov
>
> same link, mine bored in.
>
> And how stupid is "my EIA link is right but yours is wrong"???
No I said mine is more comprehensive, and its current to 2011, and it
includes long term projections to 2035. If your link is so informative
why dont you post some citations from it. Otherwise how do I know your
not talking out of your anus.
Also I find it funny that you try to delete portions of URL's that I
post in your quoted text. You cant handle being proven to be
reactionary.
>
> Energy outlook study with
>
> > predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
> > gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>
> > So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
> > incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
> cost of gasoline?
Fucknut you came in on this discussion late. A large percentage of our
electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels like coal, and heating oil.
Any investment in alternative fuel sources as promising as Nuclear
Fusion decreases our dependence on middle eastern oil. Instead of me
doing all of the research, and you posting hot air pronouncements, why
dont you see how much of the USA power grid is supplied by fossil
fuels, relative to our total energy consumption of fossil fuels
nationwide. Tokamak would reduce our energy consumption needs powering
our electrical grid dramatically. We need to increase the funding for
the nuclear fusion budget. Currently the US fusion budget is about 400
million. In 2004 it was 10 billion, and we were making promising
advances, until George Bussh decided his energy conglomerates couldn't
make enough money of commercialization of this alternative fuel
source. Now European Union, China, Japan and India are going full tilt
investment in the ITER Tokamak Reactor being constructed in france.
China is currently training 2000 nuclear fusion energy scientists. Do
you want to be left behind, them, by indirectly arguing for continuing
increased US domestic oil drilling, carbon capture clean coal
gimmicks, utilizing overall 1950's era technology.
> You keep harping on this, so do some 'splainin'
>
> ONE MORE TIME.
>
> Raising CAFE to 50MPG will cut gasoline consumption in half using
> current technology and current production facilitates in 10 years, if we
> mandate it.
Yes Fuel economy is important, the fact is we need engineers at
***@ORNL.gov to look at the Shell Oil 1970's era, study on
Fuel economy. It's reasonable to assume that we could achieve 100
miles to the gallon with this study: Also we already have the hybrid
technology to get 100 mpg's, with the Chevy Volt. Your stalling,
Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
>
> > “Long-term prospects
> > In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
> > explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
> > world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
> > decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
> > AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
> > Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
> > assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
> > demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
> > AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
> > bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
> > prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
> > Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
> > compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
>
> > This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
> > 70 posts ago regarding a discussion...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-04 02:36:03 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2011 8:00 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
>>> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
>>> the discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
>>> located at end of my response below.
>>
>>> Larry regarding electrical power generation, it is a fact, that 30%
>>> of the US total demand for energy, excluding the 70% of total US
>>> energy demand that goes towards transportation fuels, comes from
>>> fossil fuels, like coal and oil.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> First, you are mixing apples and oranges.,
>>
>> The 70% figure, even if right, is percentage of petroleum consumption,
>> NOT TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Transportattion accounts for only 30% of
>> total energy consumption.
> Correction: transportation is responsible for 70 percent of our
> petroleum consumption.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/blueprint-secure-energy-future
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_Consumption_by_Sector_200...
>>
>> Wind power, biomass , hydro, nuclear fission, solar, solar thermal,
>> geothermal, and others contribute to total energy production in the US.
> Fission power only accounts for 20% of total energy supplied to our
> electric grid. I would assume other alternative fuel sources only
> supply power of about 10% to the USA electrical grid.

A little more, if you include hydro, about the same as fission.

More important is what is taken off the grid as point source generation.

A local company that makes wood shipping pallets generates about 3/4 of
its heat and electricity by burning sawdust and unusable scraps. A
common practice.


WE need to
> increase alternative fuel production for our power grid, and implement
> solar, hydrogen fuel cell and natural gas for our transportation
> vehicles.

You continue to duck my challenge to show me one, just one, alternative
fuel system for transportation that will be ready for consumers in 10 years.

Just one.

You correctly point out the impending end of oil, yet ridicule anything
that can be implemented immediately.

So what is it?

Can we wait a quarter century or do we need to act now?

If we need to act now, what do you suggest we do?
NOW, not when some research lab finds the answer.

This could be supplemented with biomass, like what
> http://www.syntheticgenomics.com is working on. Iam sure we could
> construct a variety of hybrid fuel tanks utilizing one or more of
> these fuels at the same time.

Already exist, to some degree.

Dual CNG/gasoline exists now because CNG is not widely available
geographically. As I keep pointing out, there ain't a whole lotta
places to fill up, most being commercial hauler's depots.

The BMW link I provided claims to have dual gasoline/H2. But no cars
beyond the concept level have been built, and the H2 range is well under
100 miles. And there is no place to fill up.

Need I go into the technical problems and costs of mass CNG and LH2
distribution again?

The others cannot dual fuel. At least with LH2 or CNG gasoline a
nodified engine can be shared.

The others would require dual power plants --- a fuel cell, for ex. is
electric. Too big , heavy, and expensive for prime time.

>>
>>> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
>>
>> You are really, really sloppy in your writing.
>>
>>> your ratio regarding the scarcity of deuterium hydrogen used in
>>> Nuclear Fusion reactors was bunked at this link: Also this project @
>>> LLNL.gov has applications for SDI Laser program.
>>
>>> https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/
>>
>>> "The simplest fusion fuels, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium
>>> and tritium), are derived from water and the metal lithium, a
>>> relatively abundant resource. The fuels are virtually inexhaustible –
>>> one in every 6,500 atoms on Earth is a deuterium atom – and they are
>>> available worldwide. One gallon of seawater would provide the
>>> equivalent energy of 300 gallons of gasoline; fuel from 50 cups of
>>> water contains the energy equivalent of two tons of coal."
>>
>>> you have been clowned, there is no scarcity issue associated with
>>> deuterium-hydrogen.
>>
>> And apparently you are really, really sloppy in your reading, too.
>>
>> I said there was a shortage in PRODUCTION, idiot, not available
>> resources, idiot.
> talking out of your ass again. You said deuterium was too scarce.

No, I DID NOT.

I said PRODUCTION is about 525 tons a year, and your source said 100
would be needed.

I said only 2 plants in the US make it, Savannah River and a plant in
Indiana that's name escapes me. and because of disarmament and DoD not
needing nearly as much to replenish atom bombs the DoE is contemplating
shutting down the Indiana plant.

I gave the percentage of seawater that is D2, an obviously huge number.

The
> fact is one gallon of sea water would provide the equivalant energy of
> 300 gallons of gasoline. 50 cups of water contain more deuterium fuel
> than two tons of coal.

Yeah, there is a lot of potential. But only potential. AA back to the
future nuke powered car isn't here yet.

Obviously it makes sense for the government to
> increase funding for both Tokamak ITER fusion reactors at http://www.iter.org
> and TriAlpha Energy's Aneutronic Fusion Reactor. The latter has proven
> that it is possible to reduce dramatically neutron radiation from
> Fusion power plants.

No, it hasn't, because it ain't been built yet.

Regardless of this fact, Both Tokamak and
> TriAlpha's Aneutronic reactor's emit far less radiation than Nuclear
> fission power plants. The cost to construct a USA nuclear fission
> power plant currently is about 50% of the cost projected by the
> European Union Union in the construction of their TOKAMAK ITER Power
> plant. Which is projected to begin operations in 2019.

Not commercial production, but research production.

And you really like spending my money.

>>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/at-a-glance/index_en.htm
>>
>>> regarding Neutron radiation issues, TriAlpha energy, which is
>>> Connected to the University of California Irvine, is developing
>>> Aneutronic Fusion in which the neutron radiation and costs associated
>>> with constructing a nuclear fusion reactor are remarkably cheaper than
>>> ITER. THe project has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Paul
>>> Allen.
>>
>>> UC Irvine connected TriAlpha energy's published paper on their
>>> approach to nuclear fusion, that allegedly decreases dramatically the
>>> neutron radiation associated with conventional Tokamak ITER fusion
>>> reactors.
>>
>>> abstract and paper available for purchase here:
>>
>>> http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.045003
>>
>> The link has nothing to do with what you posted.
>>
>> It is a refinement of toroidal magnetic technology that improves the
>> ability to keep the counter-rotating streams of reactants tightly bound
> Yes and your neocrypto fascist reactionary fossil fuel revisionist
> clipped

I CLIPPED NOTHING. NOT ONE FREAKING LETTER.

If it ain''t there you clipped it or you didn't put it in.

the other link I posted about Aneutronic fusion that decreases
> dramatically the neutron radiation levels in Nuclear Fusion power
> plants. I will post it again and let's see if you can cite something
> from the theory that can be refuted.
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659
>>
>> This paper is not about tokamaks, but may have applications in tokamaks.
> This paper does have Tokamak applications. Remember your chief
> argument against Tokamak was the levels of neutron radiation. This
> patent description regarding TriAlpha's Aneutronic Fusion Reactor,
> proves that this phenomena can be resolved theoretically.
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070096659&OS=20070096659&RS=20070096659
>>
>>> TriAlpha's "Aneutronic fusion is any form of fusion power where no
>>> more than 1% of the total energy released is carried by neutrons.
>>> Since the most-studied fusion reactions release up to 80% of their
>>> energy in neutrons, successful aneutronic fusion would greatly reduce
>>> problems associated with neutron radiation such as ionizing damage,
>>> neutron activation, and requirements for biological shielding, remote
>>> handling, and safety issues. Some proponents also see a potential for
>>> dramatic cost reductions by converting the energy of the charged
>>> fusion products directly to electricity. The conditions required to
>>> harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required
>>> for the conventional deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle, and even these
>>> conditions have not yet been produced experimentally. Even if
>>> aneutronic fusion is one day shown to be scientifically feasible, it
>>> is still speculative whether power production could be made
>>> economical." excerpted from wikipedia
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>>
>> You need to read your sources more carefully. Sloppy, sloppy.
>>
>> Physics lesson. All from your link.
> Fuck your cut and paste figures.

Truth hurts, huh?

You gonna go to Jupiter to mine He3?


The fact is you still argue for the
> status quo.

My god, you're a flaming idiot.

I'm arguing for eliminating petroleum as a transportation fuel.
Completely. In less than 20 years

I'm arguing to not build another electric generator, and for taking some
of the existing off line.

I'm arguing to take big business' stranglehold off of our wallets by
using point source electric generation, efficiencies, and alternatives
to hopping in the car at $1.00 a mile.

NOW, You?

You want to spend TRILLIONS of dollars in research and construction to
keep the EXACT SAME PARADIGM as we have now --- a few big businesses own
everything, much of which WE PAID TO BUILD OR DEVELOP. And we gotta keep
sending them huge monthly electric utility payments, pay a lot "at the
pump", pay more big businesses BILLIONS to build more roads, keep
putting up with storm related power outages and PAYING to have them
fixed and kiss their asses for the privilege of sitting in our cars an
hour a day crawling to and from work!!


> You really are disengenious. Your the one who said a number of posts
> before, that we should continue massive coal production,


I NEVER SAID THAT.

If you could read I am saying that we can cut CONSUMPTION by 30% or
more, easily. In 5 to 10 years.

That means 30% fewer power plants, 30% less coal.

Are you suggesting that we replace all 600 (my EIA links) coal fired
generators in the US with a tokamak?

600 x $10BILLION = SIX TRILLION DOLLARS

and you
> acknowledged with gusto that coal miners in west virginia should be
> allowed to rape their sisters.

You seriously need help.

Seriously, dude.

My family mines coal in Kentucky.

I know the dangers, human costs, ecological costs.

My grandfather died in his early 50's of black lung.

I have had cousins killed in cave-ins or accidents.

I'd *love* to see them change jobs, get into a factory producing, say,
solar powered street lights, signs, and security light!!

Go take your rape fantasy elsewhere, sicko!

so you are just talking out of your ass
> David Koch astroturfer!!!!!!!!!!1
>
>>
>> Reactions being evaluated are:
>> D + 3He → 4He (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)
>> D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.4 MeV
>> p + 6Li → 4He (1.7 MeV) + 3He (2.3 MeV)
>> 3He + 6Li → 2 4He + p + 16.9 MeV
>> 3He + 3He → 4He + 2 p +12.86 MeV
>> p + 7Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV
>> p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
>> p + 15N → 12C +4He + 5.0 MeV[2]
>>
> Why dont you post a link so I dont have to evaluate your bullshit!!!!!
>>
>>
>> The proton LI7 reaction has a lower reaction rate and energy output than
>> the p B11 reactions, and thus is of little interest.
>>
>> "For the above reasons, most studies of aneutronic fusion concentrate on
>> the reaction, p –11B"
>>
>> BUT!!:
>>
>> "The technical challenges of hydrogen–boron (p–11B) fusion are so
>> formidable. Hydrogen–boron fusion requires ion energies or temperatures
>> almost ten times higher than those for D–T fusion. For any given
>> densities of the reacting nuclei, the reaction rate for hydrogen boron
>> achieves its peak rate at around 600 keV (6.6 billion degrees Celsius or
>> 6.6 gigakelvins)[6] while D–T has a peak at around 66 keV (730 million
>> degrees Celsius).[7]"
>>
>> They also note problems with power balance and power density which means
>> the reaction will need higher strength confinement fields, reducing
>> efficiency.
>>
>>> Unlike many government-sponsored efforts, however, Tri Alpha is
>>> working with fusion reactions that produce fewer neutrons and, thus,
>>> less radiation, Mr. Rothrock says. The company also uses a different
>>> method for containing and controlling fusion reactions, which happen
>>> at million-degree temperatures. “It’s a long way from reality, but the
>>> trend line is going in the right direction,” he says. “The science is
>>> rock-solid; the calculations continue to bear out the results.”
>>
>> "Its a long way from reality"
>>
>>> Mr. Prouty estimates it will take his company “not 15 to 20 [years],
>>> but not 3 to 5 either” to go from the research stage to power
>>> generation.
>>
>> So 10 years out.
> That's because they have only secured about 50 million dollars in
> funding!!!
> Your a dipshit, you pay for results!!!!


ding ding ding ding. Say the magic word and win a prize .

PAY.

$50 B here, $50B there , and soon you're talking real money.

I'm all for innovation.

I'm not for bankruptcy.


Hell, repugs are taking food out of babies' mouths to save a couple of
hundred million, and you want them to spend $50 Billion on fusion
research!!!

>>
>> Again.
>>
>> So what do we do in the mean time?
>>
>> Sit on our thumbs in the dark?
>>
>> Shut down factories?
>>
>> Build more coal plants?
>>
>> Or eliminate the need for more plants?
> as usual you argue fait accompli for the fossil fuel status quo.
>>
>>> A few years ago, Venrock first started investing in Tri Alpha, he
>>> says. The firm later reportedly convinced Goldman Sachs, Vulcan
>>> Capital, Enel Produzione, and PIZ Signal to join as backers. But
>>> neither Mr. Prouty nor Mr. Rothrock would say when the company was
>>> founded, or how much total funding it has. Its original funders are
>>> believed to include billionaire Paul Allen.
>>
>>> Ballpark estimates put worldwide private investment in fusion research
>>> at about $1 billion over the last 50 years. Of that, about $100
>>> million currently funds cold fusion research, and less than $15
>>> million has been invested in all fusion projects in Silicon Valley
>>> since the 1980s.
>>
>>> info on one of the patents associated with TriAlpha's Aneutronic's
>>> Theoretical Fusion reactor which claims to reduce neutron radiation
>>> dramatically:
>>
>>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=...
>>
>>> regarding your bunk eia.gov link mine is more comprehensive, here is
>>> the link to the 2011http://www.eia.gov
>>
>> same link, mine bored in.
>>
>> And how stupid is "my EIA link is right but yours is wrong"???
> No I said mine is more comprehensive, and its current to 2011, and it
> includes long term projections to 2035. If your link is so informative
> why dont you post some citations from it. Otherwise how do I know your
> not talking out of your anus.

You never read my quotes anyway. I cited what I needed to to support my
statement.

2035 projections are worthless if we are trying to change things.

> Also I find it funny that you try to delete portions of URL's that I
> post in your quoted text. You cant handle being proven to be
> reactionary.

I DELETE NOTHING. NOT EVEN YOUR SICK INCEST RAPE FANTASY. (you really
need to see a shrink about that)

>>
>> Energy outlook study with
>>
>>> predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
>>> gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>>
>>> So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
>>> incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>>
>> What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
>> cost of gasoline?
> Fucknut you came in on this discussion late.

I am THE ONLY person replying.

A large percentage of our
> electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels like coal, and heating oil.

NONE of our grid is powered by heating oil.

Less than 1% of the grid is powered by less refined oil.

> Any investment in alternative fuel sources as promising as Nuclear
> Fusion decreases our dependence on middle eastern oil.

No, it doesn't. as I have tried to get through to you many times.

1% of US electricity production is oil fueled.

It uses less than 2% of US oil consumption.

The EIA links I provided even has graphs and pictures.


Instead of me
> doing all of the research, and you posting hot air pronouncements, why
> dont you see how much of the USA power grid is supplied by fossil
> fuels, relative to our total energy consumption of fossil fuels
> nationwide.


I don't understand why this is important?

72.284745t092w02754986% of coal is used to generate electricity??

Who cares?

51.03494875672t654384859% of fossil fuel consumption goes to generate
electricity??

Who cares?

Why is it important to compare this against NG and oil used to heat
homes? Or bake the Lance peanut butter cheese crackers (yum!) made up
the street? Or run the LPG heaters and stoves in the trailer park down
the road? Or used in a BBQ grill? Or heat the iron smelting furnace?

You keep changing the subject. You just said fusion will lessen our
dependence on foreign oil.

It won't It will produce only electricity, saving us at most 2% of
consumption.

Coal we got plenty of. I'd love to get rid of it's use.

But SIX TRILLION DOLLARS?


Tokamak would reduce our energy consumption needs powering
> our electrical grid dramatically.

Wrong again.

Tokamaks will provide exactly the same amount of electricity. DEMAND
drives grid use, not production, and tokamaks do nothing for DEMAND.

The point source generation I advocate and you ridiculed DOES.

We need to increase the funding for
> the nuclear fusion budget. Currently the US fusion budget is about 400
> million. In 2004 it was 10 billion, and we were making promising
> advances, until George Bussh decided his energy conglomerates couldn't
> make enough money of commercialization of this alternative fuel
> source.


I'd really, really like to see a source for that $10 B, a precise source
not a general "alternative energy" budget.

Because, quite frankly, I don't believe it.

Not one research project has shut down, or even significantly scaled
back, in that time period.

Now European Union, China, Japan and India are going full tilt
> investment in the ITER Tokamak Reactor being constructed in france.

The US is participating too, per your link,

Don't you read them?

> China is currently training 2000 nuclear fusion energy scientists. Do
> you want to be left behind, them, by indirectly arguing for continuing
> increased US domestic oil drilling, carbon capture clean coal
> gimmicks, utilizing overall 1950's era technology.


Never said any of that.

You really need to start taking meds for that brain malfunction.

>> You keep harping on this, so do some 'splainin'
>>
>> ONE MORE TIME.
>>
>> Raising CAFE to 50MPG will cut gasoline consumption in half using
>> current technology and current production facilitates in 10 years, if we
>> mandate it.

> Yes Fuel economy is important, the fact is we need engineers at
> ***@ORNL.gov to look at the Shell Oil 1970's era, study on
> Fuel economy. It's reasonable to assume that we could achieve 100
> miles to the gallon with this study: Also we already have the hybrid
> technology to get 100 mpg's, with the Chevy Volt. Your stalling,
> Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

It is totally unreasonable. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory,
fine.

But it is public domain. and the idea that NO ONE in 40 years would
break the conspiracy is lunacy.

I know about hybrids and electrics, too.

Where do I plug it in?

The nearby city of Charlotte, NC was putting in 10, count 'em 10 ,
"refill" stations downtown for commuters at a cost of about a quarter
of a million taxpayer dollars. TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS A PLUG.
Duke energy will be putting in about 300 more statewide at a cost of $16
M taxpayer dollars from several federal grants. Charging is expected to
cost a buck, At the time of this article payment method was uncertain.
It could be anything from an add on to your utility bill,a credit card
charge, or a coin operated meter like a parking meter.


Duke is balking about putting in recharging systems in homes. Here's a
surprise --- they have concerns about grid capacity!! Yes, you can
illegally (no inspection) install the special outlet in your garage.

Expected cost of a plug in a garage is a few hundred dollars --- if a
curbside pole is required because you don't have a garage --- TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS and up.

The cars have a $7k to $10K premium over gasoline powered models.

Without home based recharging only those who live within 20 miles of a
station can go all electric.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541291/plug-in-and-drive-out-recharge.html


Despite a summer 2011 promised installation date for all 110 stations,
only 4 have been installed as of May.

You *really* like to spend other people's money!!

Larry

> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>>
>>
>>> “Long-term prospects
>>> In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
>>> explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
>>> world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
>>> decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
>>> AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
>>> Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
>>> assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
>>> demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
>>> AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
>>> bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
>>> prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
>>> Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
>>> compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
>>
>>> This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
>>> 70 posts ago regarding a discussion...
>>
>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-04 05:04:23 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 3, 7:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/2011 8:00 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
> >>> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
> >>> the  discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
> >>> located at end of my response below.

> I DELETE NOTHING. NOT EVEN YOUR SICK INCEST RAPE FANTASY. (you really
> need to see a shrink about that)
no its your sick rape fantasy here:

On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> > > here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> > in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> > COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> > MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> > MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> Absolutely.

here's the link as proof for where you argue to continue coal
production and your acknowledgement of the sexual predatory incestous
behaviors of west virginia coal miners:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/msg/80344e08d6e77480

you also argue for decreasing natural gas. You just want to maintain
the fossil fuel status quo. Regarding h3, its generated from fusing
hydrogen 1 into hydrogen 2, through a proton-proton reaction, through
magnetic inertial confinement, h1-h2 fuses into h3, and later h4,
deuterium is not scarce, we also have plentiful supplies of lithium,
tritium is manufactured in the deuterium hydrogen fusion reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

"Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fusion fuel for fusion
power uses. Tritium, with a 12-year half-life, decays into helium-3,
which can be recovered. Irradiation of lithium in a nuclear reactor —
either a fusion or fission reactor — can also produce tritium, and
thus (after decay) helium-3.

Due to the rarity of helium-3 on Earth, it is manufactured instead of
recovered from natural deposits. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium
decay, and tritium can be produced through neutron bombardment of
lithium, boron, or nitrogen targets. Current supplies of helium-3
come, in part, from the dismantling of nuclear weapons where it
accumulates;[26] approximately 150 kilograms of it have resulted from
decay of US tritium production since 1955, most of which was for
warheads.[27] However, the production and storage of huge amounts of
the gaseous tritium is probably uneconomical, as tritium must be
produced at the same rate as helium-3, and roughly eighteen times as
much of tritium stock is required as the amount of helium-3 produced
annually by decay (production rate dN/dt from number of moles or other
unit mass of tritium N, is N γ = N ln 2/t½ where the value of t½/(ln
2) is about 18 years; see radioactive decay). If commercial fusion
reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of
tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world's power,
implying need for the same amount of new tritium production, as well
as the need to keep 18 times this figure in total tritium breeder
stocks.[28] Breeding tritium with lithium-6 consumes the neutron,
while breeding with lithium-7 produces a low energy neutron as a
replacement for the consumed fast neutron. Note that any breeding of
tritium on Earth requires the use of a high neutron flux, which
proponents of helium-3 nuclear reactors hope to avoid.[citation
needed]"

However, the Tokamak is not exclusively dependant on Helium 3, it also
uses Helium 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4

"Helium-4 (42He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of helium. It is
by far the most abundant of the two naturally-occurring isotopes of
helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on earth. Its nucleus
is the same as an alpha particle, consisting of two protons and two
neutrons. Alpha decay of heavy elements in the Earth's crust is the
source of most naturally occurring helium-4 on Earth. Helium-4 is also
produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Most of the helium-4 in the
universe, however (including most of the helium in the Sun), was
thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. Helium-4 makes up about
a quarter of the ordinary matter in the universe, with almost all of
the rest being hydrogen."

I think you are still using nuclear fission theories on h3 fuel needs
for fusion reactions. http://www.PPPl.gov generated fusion tempatures
almost 5 times the required tempratures for Nuclear fusion. The
Tokamak reactor was shut down due to politics, not because of failing
to meet target goals. At least Europe is progressive enough to
continue funding for the TOKAMAK ITER:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail/2?_s=PM:TECH

The amount of resources required to power a nuclear Fusion Tokamak
ITER plant is much less than your dirty coal power plant.
revisionism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

also As i've posted earlier solar and natural gas / Hydrogen fuel cell
is the most viable alternative to fossil fuel, used in transportation,
which incidently is where the majority of our demand for oil is used.
In your deluded fantasy, your hoping that we will replace gasoline
with liquid coal, which has higher fossil fuel emissions than
conventional unleaded gasoline.

https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php

"Today, hydrogen is commonly generated from natural gas with about 80
percent efficiency. Hydrogen is also extracted from water using
electricity to power an electrolysis reaction.

The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
incorporation by 2020."

To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
hydrogen gas."


http://www.bloomenergy.com is already marketing hydrogen fuel cells.
Former California Governor, Arnold Scharzenegger owns a 1996 or 1997
Hummer powered entirely by Hydrogen fuel. So don't tell me we dont
have the technological capability to make the transition to this
alternative fuel source!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

>
>
>
> >> Energy outlook study with
>
> >>> predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
> >>> gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>
> >>> So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
> >>> incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> >> What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
> >> cost of gasoline?
> > Fucknut you came in on this discussion late.
>
> I am THE ONLY person replying.
>
> A large percentage of our
>
> > electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels like coal, and heating oil.
>
> NONE of our grid is powered by heating oil.
>
> Less than 1% of the grid is powered by less refined oil.
>
> > Any investment in alternative fuel sources as promising as Nuclear
> > Fusion decreases our dependence on middle eastern oil.
>
> No, it doesn't. as I have tried to get through to you many times.
>
> 1% of US electricity production is oil fueled.
>
> It uses less than 2% of US oil consumption.
>
> The EIA links I provided even has graphs and pictures.
>
> Instead of me
>
> > doing all of the research, and you posting hot air pronouncements, why
> > dont you see how much of the USA power grid is supplied by fossil
> > fuels, relative to our total energy consumption of fossil fuels
> > nationwide.
>
> I don't understand why this is important?
>
> 72.284745t092w02754986% of coal is used to generate electricity??
>
> Who cares?
>
> 51.03494875672t654384859% of fossil fuel consumption goes to generate
> electricity??
>
> Who cares?
>
> Why is it important to compare this against NG and oil used to heat
> homes? Or bake the Lance peanut butter cheese crackers (yum!) made up
> the street? Or run the LPG heaters and stoves  in the trailer park down
> the road? Or used in a BBQ grill? Or heat the iron smelting furnace?
>
> You keep changing the subject. You just said fusion will lessen our
> dependence on foreign oil.
>
> It won't It will produce only electricity, saving us at most 2% of
> consumption.
>
> Coal we got plenty of. I'd love to get rid of it's use.
>
>   But SIX TRILLION DOLLARS?
>
> Tokamak would reduce our energy consumption needs powering
>
> > our electrical grid dramatically.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Tokamaks will provide exactly the same amount of electricity. DEMAND
> drives grid use, not production, and tokamaks do nothing for DEMAND.
>
> The point source generation I advocate and you ridiculed DOES.
>
> We need to increase the funding for
>
> > the nuclear fusion budget. Currently the US fusion budget is about 400
> > million. In 2004 it was 10 billion, and we were making promising
> > advances, until George Bussh decided his energy conglomerates couldn't
> > make enough money of commercialization of this alternative fuel
> > source.
>
> I'd really, really like to see a source for that $10 B, a precise source
> not a general "alternative energy" budget.
>
> Because, quite frankly, I don't believe it.
>
> Not one research project has shut down, or even significantly scaled
> back,  in that time period.
>
> Now European Union, China, Japan and India are going full tilt
>
> > investment in the ITER Tokamak Reactor being constructed in france.
>
> The US is participating too, per your link,
>
> Don't you read them?
>
> > China is currently training 2000 nuclear fusion energy scientists. Do
> > you want to be left behind, them, by indirectly arguing for continuing
> > increased US domestic oil drilling, carbon capture clean coal
> > gimmicks, utilizing overall 1950's era technology.
>
> Never said any of that.
>
> You really need to start taking meds for that brain malfunction.
>
> >> You keep harping on this, so do some 'splainin'
>
> >> ONE MORE TIME.
>
> >> Raising CAFE to 50MPG will cut gasoline consumption in half using
> >> current technology and current production facilitates in 10 years, if we
> >> mandate it.
> > Yes Fuel economy is important, the fact is we need engineers at
> > ***@ORNL.gov to look at the Shell Oil 1970's era, study on
> > Fuel economy. It's reasonable to assume that we could achieve 100
> > miles to the gallon with this study: Also we already have the hybrid
> > technology to get 100 mpg's, with the Chevy Volt. Your stalling,
> > Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It is totally unreasonable. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory,
> fine.
>
> But it is public domain. and the idea that NO ONE in 40 years  would
> break the conspiracy is lunacy.
>
> I know about hybrids and electrics, too.
>
> Where do I plug it in?
>
> The nearby city of Charlotte, NC was  putting in 10, count 'em 10 ,
> "refill" stations downtown for commuters at a cost of  about a quarter
> of a million taxpayer dollars.  TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS A PLUG.
> Duke energy will be putting in about 300 more statewide at a cost of $16
> M taxpayer dollars from several federal grants. Charging is expected to
> cost a buck, At the time of this article payment method was uncertain.
> It could be anything from an add on to your utility bill,a credit card
> charge,  or a coin operated meter like a parking meter.
>
> Duke is balking about putting in recharging systems in homes. Here's a
> surprise --- they have concerns about grid capacity!! Yes, you can
> illegally (no inspection) install the special outlet in your garage.
>
> Expected cost of a plug in a garage is a few hundred dollars --- if a
> curbside pole is required because you don't have a garage --- TWO
> THOUSAND DOLLARS and up.
>
> The cars have a  $7k to $10K premium over gasoline powered models.
>
> Without home based recharging only those who live within 20 miles of a
> station can go all electric.
>
> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541291/plug-in-and-drive...
>
> Despite a summer 2011 promised installation date for all 110 stations,
> only 4 have been installed as of May.
>
> You *really* like to spend other people's money!!
>
> Larry>http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>
> >http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>
> >>> “Long-term prospects
> >>> In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
> >>> explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
> >>> world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
> >>> decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
> >>> AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
> >>> Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
> >>> assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
> >>> demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
> >>> AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
> >>> bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
> >>> prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
> >>> Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
> >>> compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
>
> >>> This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
> >>> 70 posts ago regarding a discussion...
>
> >> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-04 06:00:24 UTC
Permalink
On 7/4/2011 1:04 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2011 8:00 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
>>>>> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
>>>>> the discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
>>>>> located at end of my response below.
>
>> I DELETE NOTHING. NOT EVEN YOUR SICK INCEST RAPE FANTASY. (you really
>> need to see a shrink about that)
> no its your sick rape fantasy here:

You thought it up, fool.

>
> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> here's the link as proof for where you argue to continue coal
> production and your acknowledgement of the sexual predatory incestous
> behaviors of west virginia coal miners:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/msg/80344e08d6e77480
>
> you also argue for decreasing natural gas. You just want to maintain
> the fossil fuel status quo.


Natural gas is a fossil fuel, fool.

Regarding h3, its generated from fusing
> hydrogen 1 into hydrogen 2, through a proton-proton reaction, through
> magnetic inertial confinement, h1-h2 fuses into h3, and later h4,


there is no such thing as h4.

h2 is deuterium, which is plentiful, so why fuse it?

h3 is tritium, and creation through fusion of D2 with a proton (h1)
requires huge energies with a very low output. Fission ractors have a
higher, but still low, output through fusion of D2 with a neutron.

It is produced by the neutron induced fission of LI7 (remember my
tokamak physics lesson?)

T3, if allowed to decay naturally, decays to He3 though beta decay. But
HE3 easily decays back to h3 in the presence of neutron.


Accoridng to the DoE h3 was produced in heavy water reactors at Savanna
River Plant. When those reactors were shut down in 1996 as part of START
a total of 225KG had been produced since 1955, almost all going into
bombs. Because of its relatively short half life only 75kg was estimated
to remain by 1996.

Production via the LI reactions was started in 2006.

I have no idea what you intend h4 to be.

>

Nope, It is made either through D2 capturing a neutron, or a neutron
splitting LI7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

deuterium is not scarce, we also have plentiful supplies of lithium,
> tritium is manufactured in the deuterium hydrogen fusion reaction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Ok, now I get part of it. But if you do not know the difference between
H and He then you are lost.

Why you include the stable He4 (alpha particle) is a mystery

> "Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fusion fuel for fusion
> power uses. Tritium, with a 12-year half-life, decays into helium-3,
> which can be recovered. Irradiation of lithium in a nuclear reactor —
> either a fusion or fission reactor — can also produce tritium, and
> thus (after decay) helium-3.

Yep.

I explained that, and listed as one of the possible aneutronic pathways.

But with 225KG produced in 41 yrs, terrestrial sources are out.

So, bucking for a manager's position on Jupiter?

>
> Due to the rarity of helium-3 on Earth, it is manufactured instead of
> recovered from natural deposits. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium
> decay, and tritium can be produced through neutron bombardment of
> lithium, boron, or nitrogen targets. Current supplies of helium-3
> come, in part, from the dismantling of nuclear weapons where it
> accumulates;[26] approximately 150 kilograms of it have resulted from
> decay of US tritium production since 1955, most of which was for
> warheads.[27] However, the production and storage of huge amounts of
> the gaseous tritium is probably uneconomical, as tritium must be
> produced at the same rate as helium-3, and roughly eighteen times as
> much of tritium stock is required as the amount of helium-3 produced
> annually by decay (production rate dN/dt from number of moles or other
> unit mass of tritium N, is N γ = N ln 2/t½ where the value of t½/(ln
> 2) is about 18 years; see radioactive decay). If commercial fusion
> reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of
> tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world's power,
> implying need for the same amount of new tritium production, as well
> as the need to keep 18 times this figure in total tritium breeder
> stocks.[28] Breeding tritium with lithium-6 consumes the neutron,
> while breeding with lithium-7 produces a low energy neutron as a
> replacement for the consumed fast neutron. Note that any breeding of
> tritium on Earth requires the use of a high neutron flux, which
> proponents of helium-3 nuclear reactors hope to avoid.[citation
> needed]"
>

Which, as noted, kinda kills the idea of aneutronic fusion.

> However, the Tokamak is not exclusively dependant on Helium 3, it also
> uses Helium 4.
>

Apparently you do not understand nuclear reaction syntax.

He4 is a product, not a reactant. The He4 nucleus is an alpha particle
--- after creation it snags a couple of electrons out of the plasma to
form the neutral atom.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4
>
> "Helium-4 (42He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of helium. It is
> by far the most abundant of the two naturally-occurring isotopes of
> helium, making up about 99.99986%

So He3 is extremely rare.

of the helium on earth. Its nucleus
> is the same as an alpha particle, consisting of two protons and two
> neutrons. Alpha decay of heavy elements in the Earth's crust is the
> source of most naturally occurring helium-4 on Earth. Helium-4 is also
> produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Most of the helium-4 in the
> universe, however (including most of the helium in the Sun), was
> thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. Helium-4 makes up about
> a quarter of the ordinary matter in the universe, with almost all of
> the rest being hydrogen."
>
> I think you are still using nuclear fission theories on h3 fuel needs
> for fusion reactions. http://www.PPPl.gov generated fusion tempatures
> almost 5 times the required tempratures for Nuclear fusion. The
> Tokamak reactor was shut down due to politics, not because of failing
> to meet target goals. At least Europe is progressive enough to
> continue funding for the TOKAMAK ITER:
>

I have no idea what you are trying to say, and why you brought helium-4
up, since you use He and H interchangeably (improperly).

> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grail-junk-mail/2?_s=PM:TECH
>
> The amount of resources required to power a nuclear Fusion Tokamak
> ITER plant is much less than your dirty coal power plant.
> revisionism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>


What revisionism?

Is the weoght og NG required to generate a BTU compared to the weight of
coal important?

No.\
I'm not revising anything. I'm calling your comparison nonsense.

> also As i've posted earlier solar and natural gas / Hydrogen fuel cell
> is the most viable alternative to fossil fuel,

NG is a fossil fuel, idiot.

Larry

used in transportation,
> which incidently is where the majority of our demand for oil is used.
> In your deluded fantasy, your hoping that we will replace gasoline
> with liquid coal, which has higher fossil fuel emissions than
> conventional unleaded gasoline.
>
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> "Today, hydrogen is commonly generated from natural gas with about 80
> percent efficiency. Hydrogen is also extracted from water using
> electricity to power an electrolysis reaction.
>
> The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
> for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
> production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
> incorporation by 2020."
>
> To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
> demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
> can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
> driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
> microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
> production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
> furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
> carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
> hydrogen gas."
>
>
> http://www.bloomenergy.com is already marketing hydrogen fuel cells.
> Former California Governor, Arnold Scharzenegger owns a 1996 or 1997
> Hummer powered entirely by Hydrogen fuel. So don't tell me we dont
> have the technological capability to make the transition to this
> alternative fuel source!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Energy outlook study with
>>
>>>>> predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
>>>>> gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>>
>>>>> So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
>>>>> incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>>
>>>> What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
>>>> cost of gasoline?
>>> Fucknut you came in on this discussion late.
>>
>> I am THE ONLY person replying.
>>
>> A large percentage of our
>>
>>> electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels like coal, and heating oil.
>>
>> NONE of our grid is powered by heating oil.
>>
>> Less than 1% of the grid is powered by less refined oil.
>>
>>> Any investment in alternative fuel sources as promising as Nuclear
>>> Fusion decreases our dependence on middle eastern oil.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. as I have tried to get through to you many times.
>>
>> 1% of US electricity production is oil fueled.
>>
>> It uses less than 2% of US oil consumption.
>>
>> The EIA links I provided even has graphs and pictures.
>>
>> Instead of me
>>
>>> doing all of the research, and you posting hot air pronouncements, why
>>> dont you see how much of the USA power grid is supplied by fossil
>>> fuels, relative to our total energy consumption of fossil fuels
>>> nationwide.
>>
>> I don't understand why this is important?
>>
>> 72.284745t092w02754986% of coal is used to generate electricity??
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>> 51.03494875672t654384859% of fossil fuel consumption goes to generate
>> electricity??
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>> Why is it important to compare this against NG and oil used to heat
>> homes? Or bake the Lance peanut butter cheese crackers (yum!) made up
>> the street? Or run the LPG heaters and stoves in the trailer park down
>> the road? Or used in a BBQ grill? Or heat the iron smelting furnace?
>>
>> You keep changing the subject. You just said fusion will lessen our
>> dependence on foreign oil.
>>
>> It won't It will produce only electricity, saving us at most 2% of
>> consumption.
>>
>> Coal we got plenty of. I'd love to get rid of it's use.
>>
>> But SIX TRILLION DOLLARS?
>>
>> Tokamak would reduce our energy consumption needs powering
>>
>>> our electrical grid dramatically.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Tokamaks will provide exactly the same amount of electricity. DEMAND
>> drives grid use, not production, and tokamaks do nothing for DEMAND.
>>
>> The point source generation I advocate and you ridiculed DOES.
>>
>> We need to increase the funding for
>>
>>> the nuclear fusion budget. Currently the US fusion budget is about 400
>>> million. In 2004 it was 10 billion, and we were making promising
>>> advances, until George Bussh decided his energy conglomerates couldn't
>>> make enough money of commercialization of this alternative fuel
>>> source.
>>
>> I'd really, really like to see a source for that $10 B, a precise source
>> not a general "alternative energy" budget.
>>
>> Because, quite frankly, I don't believe it.
>>
>> Not one research project has shut down, or even significantly scaled
>> back, in that time period.
>>
>> Now European Union, China, Japan and India are going full tilt
>>
>>> investment in the ITER Tokamak Reactor being constructed in france.
>>
>> The US is participating too, per your link,
>>
>> Don't you read them?
>>
>>> China is currently training 2000 nuclear fusion energy scientists. Do
>>> you want to be left behind, them, by indirectly arguing for continuing
>>> increased US domestic oil drilling, carbon capture clean coal
>>> gimmicks, utilizing overall 1950's era technology.
>>
>> Never said any of that.
>>
>> You really need to start taking meds for that brain malfunction.
>>
>>>> You keep harping on this, so do some 'splainin'
>>
>>>> ONE MORE TIME.
>>
>>>> Raising CAFE to 50MPG will cut gasoline consumption in half using
>>>> current technology and current production facilitates in 10 years, if we
>>>> mandate it.
>>> Yes Fuel economy is important, the fact is we need engineers at
>>> ***@ORNL.gov to look at the Shell Oil 1970's era, study on
>>> Fuel economy. It's reasonable to assume that we could achieve 100
>>> miles to the gallon with this study: Also we already have the hybrid
>>> technology to get 100 mpg's, with the Chevy Volt. Your stalling,
>>> Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> It is totally unreasonable. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory,
>> fine.
>>
>> But it is public domain. and the idea that NO ONE in 40 years would
>> break the conspiracy is lunacy.
>>
>> I know about hybrids and electrics, too.
>>
>> Where do I plug it in?
>>
>> The nearby city of Charlotte, NC was putting in 10, count 'em 10 ,
>> "refill" stations downtown for commuters at a cost of about a quarter
>> of a million taxpayer dollars. TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS A PLUG.
>> Duke energy will be putting in about 300 more statewide at a cost of $16
>> M taxpayer dollars from several federal grants. Charging is expected to
>> cost a buck, At the time of this article payment method was uncertain.
>> It could be anything from an add on to your utility bill,a credit card
>> charge, or a coin operated meter like a parking meter.
>>
>> Duke is balking about putting in recharging systems in homes. Here's a
>> surprise --- they have concerns about grid capacity!! Yes, you can
>> illegally (no inspection) install the special outlet in your garage.
>>
>> Expected cost of a plug in a garage is a few hundred dollars --- if a
>> curbside pole is required because you don't have a garage --- TWO
>> THOUSAND DOLLARS and up.
>>
>> The cars have a $7k to $10K premium over gasoline powered models.
>>
>> Without home based recharging only those who live within 20 miles of a
>> station can go all electric.
>>
>> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541291/plug-in-and-drive...
>>
>> Despite a summer 2011 promised installation date for all 110 stations,
>> only 4 have been installed as of May.
>>
>> You *really* like to spend other people's money!!
>>
>> Larry>http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&...
>>
>>>>> “Long-term prospects
>>>>> In past AEOs, High Oil Price and Low Oil Price cases have been used to
>>>>> explore the potential impacts of changes in world liquids supply on
>>>>> world (and U.S.) oil markets as a result of either OPEC production
>>>>> decisions or changes in economic access to non-OPEC resources. In
>>>>> AEO2011, the High Oil Price and Low
>>>>> Oil Price cases have been expanded to incorporate alternative
>>>>> assumptions about liquids supply, economic developments, and liquids
>>>>> demand as key price determinants. The assumed price paths in the
>>>>> AEO2011 High and Low Oil Price cases
>>>>> bracket a broad range of possible future world oil price paths, with
>>>>> prices in 2035 (in real 2009 dollars) at $200 per barrel in the High
>>>>> Oil Price case and $50 per barrel in the Low Oil Price case, as
>>>>> compared with $125 in the Reference case (Figure 13).(pg 23)”
>>
>>>>> This discussion devolved on US domestic oil production fallacies some
>>>>> 70 posts ago regarding a discussion...
>>
>>>> read more »
>
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-07-04 18:35:50 UTC
Permalink
As usual Larry is talking out of ass. Tritium can be bred
indefinitely, in a D-T Fusion reaction, Helium 3 and helium 4 can as
well.

http://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding

Tritium and Deuterium are two isotopes of Hydrogen that will be used
to fuel the fusion reaction in ITER. While Deuterium can be extracted
from seawater in virtually boundless quantities, the supply of Tritium
in the Earth's crust is limited, estimated currently at twenty kilos.
A second source of Tritium fortunately exists: Tritium can be produced
within the tokamak when neutrons escaping the plasma interact with a
specific element—Lithium—contained in the Blanket. This concept of
'breeding' Tritium during the fusion reaction is an important one for
the future needs of a large-scale fusion power plant.

regarding Helium 4 see pg 581
New Scientist, March 3 1983

-excerpt-
"The ability to suppress D-D reactions has two implications. One
possible fusion fuel cycle involves D-He3 reactions. Unlike D-T
reactions, D-He3 fusion, does not produce energetic neutrons,and a
helium 4 nucleus, instead it would yield a helium 4 nucleus and a
proton...
Polarisation may also vary the way in which fusion takes place. For
example the alignment of the nuclear spin relative to the magnetic
field in afusion device influences the direction in which the products
of fusion emerge from the plasma. When the deuterons are polarised in
a D-T reaction, the fusion products, helium 4, nuclei (alpha
particles), and neutrons come out of the plasma perpendicular to the
magnetic field. In a fusion device known as the Tokamak the field runs
around the donut shape torodial container. This means that neutrons
produced in polarised deuterium reactions would travel perpendicularly
through the walls of the reactor, and so follow the shortest possible
path through the material of the wall and create less radiation
damage." (581)


url:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6eSE0cBa3E0C&lpg=PA581&ots=8A8bw3nKu1&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA581#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false

also see this link: regarding the existence of the isotope helium 4,
in Popular science, August, 1993 pg 51
http://books.google.com/books?id=vypUfjzMwlAC&lpg=PA51&ots=rNFcicPJIh&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-3He fuel cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#D-T_fuel_cycle

A second-generation approach to controlled fusion power involves
combining helium-3 (3He) and deuterium (2H). This reaction produces a
helium-4 nucleus (4He) and a high-energy proton. As with the p-11B
aneutronic fusion fuel cycle, most of the reaction energy is released
as charged particles, reducing activation of the reactor housing and
potentially allowing more efficient energy harvesting (via any of
several speculative technologies). In practice, D-D side reactions
produce a significant number of neutrons, resulting in p-11B being the
preferred cycle for aneutronic fusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tritium:
The third isotope of Hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons
in the nucleus.

Tritium can be bred indefinitely:

http://www.iter.org/glossary#lst_173

If Blanket modules contain Lithium, a reaction occurs: the incoming
neutron is absorbed by the Lithium atom, which recombines into an atom
of Tritium and an atom of Helium. The Tritium can be removed from the
Blanket and recycled into the plasma as fuel. Blankets containing
Lithium are thus considered "Breeding Blankets" for Tritium. Within
the fusion reaction, Tritium can be 'bred' indefinitely.

Tritium Breeding

http://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding

Tritium and Deuterium are two isotopes of Hydrogen that will be used
to fuel the fusion reaction in ITER. While Deuterium can be extracted
from seawater in virtually boundless quantities, the supply of Tritium
in the Earth's crust is limited, estimated currently at twenty kilos.
A second source of Tritium fortunately exists: Tritium can be produced
within the tokamak when neutrons escaping the plasma interact with a
specific element—Lithium—contained in the Blanket. This concept of
'breeding' Tritium during the fusion reaction is an important one for
the future needs of a large-scale fusion power plant.

ITER will procure the Tritium "fuel" necessary for its expected 20-
year lifetime from the global inventory. But for DEMO, the next step
on the way to commercial fusion power, about 300g of Tritium will be
required per day to produce 800 MW of electrical power. No sufficient
external source of Tritium exists for fusion energy development beyond
ITER, making the successful development of Tritium Breeding essential
for the future of fusion energy.


http://books.google.com/books?id=6eSE0cBa3E0C&lpg=PA581&ots=8A8bw3nKu1&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA581#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false


Helium 4
pg 581
------------------------------------------------------
We've had this technology since the 1950's, so obviously the only
reason, we haven't developed commercial reactors is because of a
conspiracy launched by Coal, Oil and Fission atomic power
industries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.iter.org/glossary#lst_173

Tokamak:
A fusion device for containing a plasma inside a torus chamber through
the use of two magnetic fields--one created by electric coils around
the torus, the other created by intense electric current in the plasma
itself. The tokamak was invented in the 1950s by Soviet physicists
Igor Yevgenyevich Tamm and Andrei Sakharov. The term tokamak is a
transliteration of a Russian expression (toroidalnaya kamera +
magnitnaya katushka) meaning toroidal chamber with magnetic coils.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/app/fusion.html


with slightly heavier isotopes, such a deuterium, tritium and
helium-4, there are other methods open to us. The first, and still the
most popular, method of confinement is magnetic confinement. The first
experiments were performed in Russia beginning in 1956 at the
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Scientists led by Lev Artsimovich
constructed large donut shaped chambers within a giant magnetic coil.
The idea was to introduce matter into the chamber at temperatures so
high that the atoms had been stripped of all their electrons,
essentially a mass of nuclei, called a plasma. Since all this plasma
would be composed of entirely positively charged nuclei, they would
follow the lines of the magnetic field generated by the coil and
circulate around the toroidal chamber like a race track and not be
able to escape.

The Russian scientists gave this design a name: toroidal'naya kamera v
magnitnykh katushkakh, which means toroidal chamber in magnetic coils.
This long winded name was then turned into the acronym tokamak.

So within the tokamak, the plasma would be at high temperature, the
nuclei travelling at high speed and confined to the narrow race track
by the magnetic field, theoretically it would be possible some nuclei
would be able to smash into each, despite their repulsion and fuse
together. In 1968, in Novosibirsk, the T-4 tokamak reactor
successfully achieved nuclear fusion in a stationary reactor.


article in Motor trend magazine regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger's
hydrogen powered Hummer:

Arnold Schwarzenegger and GM's Hydrogen Hummer
In a march towards cleaner air through zero fuel emissions, Governor
Schwarzenegger joined General Motors to unveil a converted Hummer H2,
powered by hydrogen
November 29, 2004
From the November, 2004 issue of Motor Trend

http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news041129_hummer/index.html

discussion archived here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de


On Jul 3, 11:00 pm, Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 7/4/2011 1:04 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2011 8:00 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>
> >>>>> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
> >>>>> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
> >>>>> the  discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
> >>>>> located at end of my response below.
>
> >> I DELETE NOTHING. NOT EVEN YOUR SICK INCEST RAPE FANTASY. (you really
> >> need to see a shrink about that)
> > no its your sick rape fantasy here:
>
> You  thought it up, fool.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> >>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
> >>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
> >>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
> >>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
> >>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>
> >> Absolutely.
>
> > here's the link as proof for where you argue to continue coal
> > production and your acknowledgement of the sexual predatory incestous
> > behaviors of west virginia coal miners:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/msg/80344e08d6e7...
>
> > you also argue for decreasing natural gas. You just want to maintain
> > the fossil fuel status quo.
>
> Natural gas is a fossil fuel, fool.
>
> Regarding h3, its generated from fusing
>
> > hydrogen 1 into hydrogen 2, through a proton-proton reaction, through
> > magnetic inertial confinement, h1-h2 fuses into h3, and later h4,
>
> there is no such thing as h4.
>
> h2 is deuterium, which is plentiful, so why fuse it?
>
> h3 is tritium, and creation through fusion  of D2 with a proton (h1)
> requires huge energies with a very low output.  Fission ractors have a
> higher, but still low, output through fusion of D2 with a neutron.
>
> It is produced by the neutron induced fission of LI7 (remember my
> tokamak physics lesson?)
>
> T3, if allowed to decay naturally, decays to He3 though beta decay. But
> HE3 easily decays back to h3 in the presence of neutron.
>
> Accoridng to the DoE h3 was produced in heavy water reactors at Savanna
> River Plant. When those reactors were shut down in 1996 as part of START
> a total of 225KG had been produced since 1955, almost all going into
> bombs. Because of its relatively short half life only 75kg was estimated
> to remain by 1996.
>
> Production via the LI reactions was started in 2006.
>
> I have no idea what you intend h4 to be.
>
>
>
> Nope, It is made either through D2 capturing a neutron, or a neutron
> splitting LI7.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
>
> deuterium is not scarce, we also have plentiful supplies of lithium,
>
> > tritium is manufactured in the deuterium hydrogen fusion reaction.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
>
> Ok, now I get part of it. But if you do not know the difference between
> H and He then you are lost.
>
> Why you include the stable He4 (alpha particle) is a mystery
>
> > "Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fusion fuel for fusion
> > power uses. Tritium, with a 12-year half-life, decays into helium-3,
> > which can be recovered. Irradiation of lithium in a nuclear reactor —
> > either a fusion or fission reactor — can also produce tritium, and
> > thus (after decay) helium-3.
>
> Yep.
>
> I explained that, and listed as one of the possible aneutronic pathways.
>
> But with 225KG produced in 41 yrs, terrestrial sources are out.
>
> So, bucking for a manager's position on Jupiter?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Due to the rarity of helium-3 on Earth, it is manufactured instead of
> > recovered from natural deposits. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium
> > decay, and tritium can be produced through neutron bombardment of
> > lithium, boron, or nitrogen targets. Current supplies of helium-3
> > come, in part, from the dismantling of nuclear weapons where it
> > accumulates;[26] approximately 150 kilograms of it have resulted from
> > decay of US tritium production since 1955, most of which was for
> > warheads.[27] However, the production and storage of huge amounts of
> > the gaseous tritium is probably uneconomical, as tritium must be
> > produced at the same rate as helium-3, and roughly eighteen times as
> > much of tritium stock is required as the amount of helium-3 produced
> > annually by decay (production rate dN/dt from number of moles or other
> > unit mass of tritium N, is N γ = N ln 2/t½ where the value of t½/(ln
> > 2) is about 18 years; see radioactive decay). If commercial fusion
> > reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of
> > tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world's power,
> > implying need for the same amount of new tritium production, as well
> > as the need to keep 18 times this figure in total tritium breeder
> > stocks.[28] Breeding tritium with lithium-6 consumes the neutron,
> > while breeding with lithium-7 produces a low energy neutron as a
> > replacement for the consumed fast neutron. Note that any breeding of
> > tritium on Earth requires the use of a high neutron flux, which
> > proponents of helium-3 nuclear reactors hope to avoid.[citation
> > needed]"
>
> Which, as noted, kinda kills the idea of aneutronic fusion.
>
> > However, the Tokamak is not exclusively dependant on Helium 3, it also
> > uses Helium 4.
>
> Apparently you do not understand nuclear reaction  syntax.
>
> He4 is a product, not a reactant. The He4 nucleus is an alpha particle
> --- after creation it snags a couple of electrons out of the plasma to
> form the neutral atom.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4
>
> > "Helium-4 (42He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of helium. It is
> > by far the most abundant of the two naturally-occurring isotopes of
> > helium, making up about 99.99986%
>
> So He3 is extremely rare.
>
> of the helium on earth. Its nucleus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > is the same as an alpha particle, consisting of two protons and two
> > neutrons. Alpha decay of heavy elements in the Earth's crust is the
> > source of most naturally occurring helium-4 on Earth. Helium-4 is also
> > produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Most of the helium-4 in the
> > universe, however (including most of the helium in the Sun), was
> > thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. Helium-4 makes up about
> > a quarter of the ordinary matter in the universe, with almost all of
> > the rest being hydrogen."
>
> > I think you are still using nuclear fission theories on h3 fuel needs
> > for fusion reactions.http://www.PPPl.govgenerated fusion tempatures
> > almost 5 times the required tempratures for Nuclear fusion. The
> > Tokamak reactor was shut down due to politics, not because of failing
> > to meet target goals. At least Europe is progressive enough to
> > continue funding for the TOKAMAK ITER:
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say, and why you brought helium-4
> up, since you use He and H interchangeably (improperly).
>
> >http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/fusion_1_hot-fusion-holy-grai...
>
> > The amount of resources required to power a nuclear Fusion Tokamak
> > ITER plant is much less than your dirty coal power plant.
> > revisionism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What revisionism?
>
> Is the weoght og NG required to generate a BTU compared to the weight of
> coal     important?
>
> No.\
> I'm not revising anything. I'm calling your comparison nonsense.
>
> > also As i've posted earlier solar and natural gas / Hydrogen fuel cell
> > is the most viable alternative to fossil fuel,
>
> NG is a fossil fuel, idiot.
>
> Larry
>
>   used in transportation,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > which incidently is where  the majority of our demand for oil is used.
> > In your deluded fantasy, your hoping that we will replace gasoline
> > with liquid coal, which has higher fossil fuel emissions than
> > conventional unleaded gasoline.
>
> >https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> > "Today, hydrogen is commonly generated from natural gas with about 80
> > percent efficiency. Hydrogen is also extracted from water using
> > electricity to power an electrolysis reaction.
>
> > The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
> > for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
> > production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
> > incorporation by 2020."
>
> > To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
> > demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
> > can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
> > driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
> > microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
> > production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
> > furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
> > carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
> > hydrogen gas."
>
> >http://www.bloomenergy.comis already marketing hydrogen fuel cells.
> > Former California Governor, Arnold Scharzenegger owns a 1996 or 1997
> > Hummer powered entirely by Hydrogen fuel. So don't tell me we dont
> > have the technological capability to make the transition to this
> > alternative fuel source!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > thomaswheat1975
>
> >>>> Energy outlook study with
>
> >>>>> predictions to 2035 when oil is predicted to rise to 8 dollars a
> >>>>> gallon or 200 dollars a barrel.
>
> >>>>> So you are happy to pay 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline in 2035, when
> >>>>> incidently we will have 10 billion people on earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>>>>http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> >>>> What does a tokamak or an aneutronic fusion reactor have to do with the
> >>>> cost of gasoline?
> >>> Fucknut you came in on this discussion late.
>
> >> I am THE ONLY person replying.
>
> >> A large percentage of our
>
> >>> electrical grid is powered by fossil fuels like coal, and heating oil.
>
> >> NONE of our grid is powered by heating oil.
>
> >> Less than 1% of the grid is...
>
> read more »
Larry Hewitt
2011-07-04 19:45:05 UTC
Permalink
On 7/4/2011 2:35 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> As usual Larry is talking out of ass. Tritium can be bred
> indefinitely, in a D-T Fusion reaction, Helium 3 and helium 4 can as
> well.
>

You really need to pay more attention to what I write, fool.

T IS TRITIUM!!

It CANNOT BE BRED IN A D -T REACTION. YOU ALREADY HAVE IT, FOOL.

I never said He3 cannot be infinitely bred, idiot. I said it has a very
slow production rate fool. I quoted experts that , in their
P{ROFESSIONAL OPINIONS, say the production is so slow and expensive it
isn't worth the effort, fopol.

I also quoted experts who note He3 is produced by neutron reactions,
idiot, and that the use of a high neutron flux (ooh, big science word
you don't understand) kinda negates the idea of aneutronic generation of
electricity --- YOUR TOPIC.

Why would we want to breed He4, idiot??

It is abundant naturally, and a byproduct of fusion reactions.

Please, please stop the insanity.

You are embarrassing yourself.


> http://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding
>
> Tritium and Deuterium are two isotopes of Hydrogen that will be used
> to fuel the fusion reaction in ITER. While Deuterium can be extracted
> from seawater in virtually boundless quantities, the supply of Tritium
> in the Earth's crust is limited, estimated currently at twenty kilos.
> A second source of Tritium fortunately exists: Tritium can be produced
> within the tokamak when neutrons escaping the plasma interact with a
> specific element—Lithium—contained in the Blanket. This concept of
> 'breeding' Tritium during the fusion reaction is an important one for
> the future needs of a large-scale fusion power plant.
>
> regarding Helium 4 see pg 581
> New Scientist, March 3 1983
>
> -excerpt-
> "The ability to suppress D-D reactions has two implications. One
> possible fusion fuel cycle involves D-He3 reactions. Unlike D-T
> reactions, D-He3 fusion, does not produce energetic neutrons,and a
> helium 4 nucleus, instead it would yield a helium 4 nucleus and a
> proton...
> Polarisation may also vary the way in which fusion takes place. For
> example the alignment of the nuclear spin relative to the magnetic
> field in afusion device influences the direction in which the products
> of fusion emerge from the plasma. When the deuterons are polarised in
> a D-T reaction, the fusion products, helium 4, nuclei (alpha
> particles), and neutrons come out of the plasma perpendicular to the
> magnetic field. In a fusion device known as the Tokamak the field runs
> around the donut shape torodial container. This means that neutrons
> produced in polarised deuterium reactions would travel perpendicularly
> through the walls of the reactor, and so follow the shortest possible
> path through the material of the wall and create less radiation
> damage." (581)
>

And you have no idea what this means.

Larry
>
> url:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6eSE0cBa3E0C&lpg=PA581&ots=8A8bw3nKu1&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA581#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false
>
> also see this link: regarding the existence of the isotope helium 4,
> in Popular science, August, 1993 pg 51
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vypUfjzMwlAC&lpg=PA51&ots=rNFcicPJIh&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> D-3He fuel cycle
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#D-T_fuel_cycle
>
> A second-generation approach to controlled fusion power involves
> combining helium-3 (3He) and deuterium (2H). This reaction produces a
> helium-4 nucleus (4He) and a high-energy proton. As with the p-11B
> aneutronic fusion fuel cycle, most of the reaction energy is released
> as charged particles, reducing activation of the reactor housing and
> potentially allowing more efficient energy harvesting (via any of
> several speculative technologies). In practice, D-D side reactions
> produce a significant number of neutrons, resulting in p-11B being the
> preferred cycle for aneutronic fusion.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tritium:
> The third isotope of Hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons
> in the nucleus.
>
> Tritium can be bred indefinitely:
>
> http://www.iter.org/glossary#lst_173
>
> If Blanket modules contain Lithium, a reaction occurs: the incoming
> neutron is absorbed by the Lithium atom, which recombines into an atom
> of Tritium and an atom of Helium. The Tritium can be removed from the
> Blanket and recycled into the plasma as fuel. Blankets containing
> Lithium are thus considered "Breeding Blankets" for Tritium. Within
> the fusion reaction, Tritium can be 'bred' indefinitely.
>
> Tritium Breeding
>
> http://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding
>
> Tritium and Deuterium are two isotopes of Hydrogen that will be used
> to fuel the fusion reaction in ITER. While Deuterium can be extracted
> from seawater in virtually boundless quantities, the supply of Tritium
> in the Earth's crust is limited, estimated currently at twenty kilos.
> A second source of Tritium fortunately exists: Tritium can be produced
> within the tokamak when neutrons escaping the plasma interact with a
> specific element—Lithium—contained in the Blanket. This concept of
> 'breeding' Tritium during the fusion reaction is an important one for
> the future needs of a large-scale fusion power plant.
>
> ITER will procure the Tritium "fuel" necessary for its expected 20-
> year lifetime from the global inventory. But for DEMO, the next step
> on the way to commercial fusion power, about 300g of Tritium will be
> required per day to produce 800 MW of electrical power. No sufficient
> external source of Tritium exists for fusion energy development beyond
> ITER, making the successful development of Tritium Breeding essential
> for the future of fusion energy.
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6eSE0cBa3E0C&lpg=PA581&ots=8A8bw3nKu1&dq=helium%204%20tokamak&pg=PA581#v=onepage&q=helium%204%20tokamak&f=false
>
>
> Helium 4
> pg 581
> ------------------------------------------------------
> We've had this technology since the 1950's, so obviously the only
> reason, we haven't developed commercial reactors is because of a
> conspiracy launched by Coal, Oil and Fission atomic power
> industries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> http://www.iter.org/glossary#lst_173
>
> Tokamak:
> A fusion device for containing a plasma inside a torus chamber through
> the use of two magnetic fields--one created by electric coils around
> the torus, the other created by intense electric current in the plasma
> itself. The tokamak was invented in the 1950s by Soviet physicists
> Igor Yevgenyevich Tamm and Andrei Sakharov. The term tokamak is a
> transliteration of a Russian expression (toroidalnaya kamera +
> magnitnaya katushka) meaning toroidal chamber with magnetic coils.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/app/fusion.html
>
>
> with slightly heavier isotopes, such a deuterium, tritium and
> helium-4, there are other methods open to us. The first, and still the
> most popular, method of confinement is magnetic confinement. The first
> experiments were performed in Russia beginning in 1956 at the
> Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Scientists led by Lev Artsimovich
> constructed large donut shaped chambers within a giant magnetic coil.
> The idea was to introduce matter into the chamber at temperatures so
> high that the atoms had been stripped of all their electrons,
> essentially a mass of nuclei, called a plasma. Since all this plasma
> would be composed of entirely positively charged nuclei, they would
> follow the lines of the magnetic field generated by the coil and
> circulate around the toroidal chamber like a race track and not be
> able to escape.
>
> The Russian scientists gave this design a name: toroidal'naya kamera v
> magnitnykh katushkakh, which means toroidal chamber in magnetic coils.
> This long winded name was then turned into the acronym tokamak.
>
> So within the tokamak, the plasma would be at high temperature, the
> nuclei travelling at high speed and confined to the narrow race track
> by the magnetic field, theoretically it would be possible some nuclei
> would be able to smash into each, despite their repulsion and fuse
> together. In 1968, in Novosibirsk, the T-4 tokamak reactor
> successfully achieved nuclear fusion in a stationary reactor.
>
>
> article in Motor trend magazine regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger's
> hydrogen powered Hummer:
>
> Arnold Schwarzenegger and GM's Hydrogen Hummer
> In a march towards cleaner air through zero fuel emissions, Governor
> Schwarzenegger joined General Motors to unveil a converted Hummer H2,
> powered by hydrogen
> November 29, 2004
> From the November, 2004 issue of Motor Trend
>
> http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news041129_hummer/index.html
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/96b8c6e0efc0315d/67dfc9108e4ee6de
>
>
> On Jul 3, 11:00 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>> On 7/4/2011 1:04 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 7:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2011 8:00 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 3:07 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2011 4:37 PM, thomas wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Larry posted some corporatist fossil fuel statist nonsense @
>>>>>>> alt.politics.democrats.d, and now he's trying to engage in semantics,
>>>>>>> the discussion URL link to forum and message thread on usenet is
>>>>>>> located at end of my response below.
>>
>>>> I DELETE NOTHING. NOT EVEN YOUR SICK INCEST RAPE FANTASY. (you really
>>>> need to see a shrink about that)
>>> no its your sick rape fantasy here:
>>
>> You thought it up, fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>>>>> here the argument that we can start converting coal to gasoline, which
>>>>> in fact by the way has higher emissions than standard gasoline. CLEAN
>>>>> COAL IS A FUCKIN LIE, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE RICH INBRED
>>>>> MINERS WHO RAPE THEIR SISTERS IN WEST VIRGINA. BYRD-ROCKEFELLER-
>>>>> MANSION-CENTRAL!!!!!!
>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>
>>> here's the link as proof for where you argue to continue coal
>>> production and your acknowledgement of the sexual predatory incestous
>>> behaviors of west virginia coal miners:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrat/msg/80344e08d6e7...
>>
>>> you also argue for decreasing natural gas. You just want to maintain
>>> the fossil fuel status quo.
>>
>> Natural gas is a fossil fuel, fool.
>>
>> Regarding h3, its generated from fusing
>>
>>> hydrogen 1 into hydrogen 2, through a proton-proton reaction, through
>>> magnetic inertial confinement, h1-h2 fuses into h3, and later h4,
>>
>> there is no such thing as h4.
>>
>> h2 is deuterium, which is plentiful, so why fuse it?
>>
>> h3 is tritium, and creation through fusion of D2 with a proton (h1)
>> requires huge energies with a very low output. Fission ractors have a
>> higher, but still low, output through fusion of D2 with a neutron.
>>
>> It is produced by the neutron induced fission of LI7 (remember my
>> tokamak physics lesson?)
>>
>> T3, if allowed to decay naturally, decays to He3 though beta decay. But
>> HE3 easily decays back to h3 in the presence of neutron.
>>
>> Accoridng to the DoE h3 was produced in heavy water reactors at Savanna
>> River Plant. When those reactors were shut down in 1996 as part of START
>> a total of 225KG had been produced since 1955, almost all going into
>> bombs. Because of its relatively short half life only 75kg was estimated
>> to remain by 1996.
>>
>> Production via the LI reactions was started in 2006.
>>
>> I have no idea what you intend h4 to be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, It is made either through D2 capturing a neutron, or a neutron
>> splitting LI7.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
>>
>> deuterium is not scarce, we also have plentiful supplies of lithium,
>>
>>> tritium is manufactured in the deuterium hydrogen fusion reaction.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
>>
>> Ok, now I get part of it. But if you do not know the difference between
>> H and He then you are lost.
>>
>> Why you include the stable He4 (alpha particle) is a mystery
>>
>>> "Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fusion fuel for fusion
>>> power uses. Tritium, with a 12-year half-life, decays into helium-3,
>>> which can be recovered. Irradiation of lithium in a nuclear reactor —
>>> either a fusion or fission reactor — can also produce tritium, and
>>> thus (after decay) helium-3.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> I explained that, and listed as one of the possible aneutronic pathways.
>>
>> But with 225KG produced in 41 yrs, terrestrial sources are out.
>>
>> So, bucking for a manager's position on Jupiter?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Due to the rarity of helium-3 on Earth, it is manufactured instead of
>>> recovered from natural deposits. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium
>>> decay, and tritium can be produced through neutron bombardment of
>>> lithium, boron, or nitrogen targets. Current supplies of helium-3
>>> come, in part, from the dismantling of nuclear weapons where it
>>> accumulates;[26] approximately 150 kilograms of it have resulted from
>>> decay of US tritium production since 1955, most of which was for
>>> warheads.[27] However, the production and storage of huge amounts of
>>> the gaseous tritium is probably uneconomical, as tritium must be
>>> produced at the same rate as helium-3, and roughly eighteen times as
>>> much of tritium stock is required as the amount of helium-3 produced
>>> annually by decay (production rate dN/dt from number of moles or other
>>> unit mass of tritium N, is N γ = N ln 2/t½ where the value of t½/(ln
>>> 2) is about 18 years; see radioactive decay). If commercial fusion
>>> reactors were to use helium-3 as a fuel, they would require tens of
>>> tons of helium-3 each year to produce a fraction of the world's power,
>>> implying need for the same amount of new tritium production, as well
>>> as the need to keep 18 times this figure in total tritium breeder
>>> stocks.[28] Breeding tritium with lithium-6 consumes the neutron,
>>> while breeding with lithium-7 produces a low energy neutron as a
>>> replacement for the consumed fast neutron. Note that any breeding of
>>> tritium on Earth requires the use of a high neutron flux, which
>>> proponents of helium-3 nuclear reactors hope to avoid.[citation
>>> needed]"
>>
>> Which, as noted, kinda kills the idea of aneutronic fusion.
>>
>>> However, the Tokamak is not exclusively dependant on Helium 3, it also
>>> uses Helium 4.
>>
>> Apparently you do not understand nuclear reaction syntax.
>>
>> He4 is a product, not a reactant. The He4 nucleus is an alpha particle
>> --- after creation it snags a couple of electrons out of the plasma to
>> form the neutral atom.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4
>>
>>> "Helium-4 (42He or 4H