The main point anybody should take away from the fantasy of Fusion, is that it will likely never be a factor in energy production. Physics simply shows it is never going to work. Of course he did. He is one of the most unscientific people there is in here. He believes anything that is shoveled to him, and has absolutely no filter to recognize junk science from real science. He talks about fusion above as being "decades" away. No, in reality it is centuries if it ever is. We have had fusion reactors now for 48 years. The first reactors used twice as much energy than they recovered. The best reactor ever produced has a Q factor of .7. In other words, for every 100 units of energy put into it to start the fusion reaction, it gains 70 units back. And they have pretty much been stuck at within a few decimal point of that now for over 2 decades with no real change. Well over a decade ago, the ITER promised a fusion reactor by 2025 with a Q factor of 10. In other words, producing 100 units of power for every 10 units invested. And needless to say, they are nowhere even close to achieving that goal. And the fools still eating the crap they and other groups are shoveling still somehow believe we are "just around the corner" of seeing that 0.7 transform into 50 "any day now". The same way he believes the future is in solar power and electric cars. One technology that will never provide more than a fraction of the power needed. And the other that is absolutely unworkable if they ever became more than a small percentage of vehicles in use. Hell, just a few months ago the Governor of California (who wants to see nothing but electric cars on the road in 13 years) told people to stop charging their electric cars because of the drain it is putting on the power grid. https://www.foxweather.com/weather-...sidents-avoid-charging-electric-cars-heatwave That is a perfect example of this kind of moronic thought. One moment saying they will ban all ICE cars. Then a few days later telling the 10% of population that does use them to stop charging them. I would love to use a time machine to see what in the hell they will be saying in 2035. When their power grid (which has been overstretched for decades) tries to somehow charge even double the number of cars in use today. Let alone 3-5 times the number in use now.
California has a plan. If everyone has an EV they can’t fully charge they can’t flee the state. It’s a tax base preservation scheme. Fusion is definitely long on promises and short on delivery. The bottom line is if it became high energy yield and economically viable tomorrow it’s doubtful we would see much of it anyway. We have had fission energy options for decades that are safer and cleaner than fossil fuels people claim to hate. But the last fission power plant to go online in the US took 43 years to build. It is sad the misinformation and disinformation folks believe about climate was sold to them as “science “. It not only breeds ignorance, it sullies the reputation of real science. That’s what bothers me the most.
This is an issue of technology more than an issue of science. Physicists know what is required. It's a pretty wild statement to suggest engineers can never accomplish a productive fusion reactor - that engineering is doomed to failure. Plus, it is a useless statement from all aspects other than whether it is justified to invest some amount of public technology research money in this direction - as other countries are doing. As for EVs, everyone in CA knows that our energy future needs serious work both in generation and in transmission. But, that's not the only issue. We also need to stop burning oil products on the streets of our largest cities. The healthcare costs of that are huge, as I've cited in the past. CA is certainly having to ask that discressionary uses be moved out of peak hours during periods of high heat - which have been increasing as one would expect.
Simple reason, for decades California has not been able to meet the needs of their population. Remember, I used to live there. I remember being sent home from work with the "Gray-outs" were shutting down large areas of the state because there was just not enough power. That was over 20 years ago now. Since then, the population has grown from 33 to over 39 million people. And during those two decades, they have closed several power plants, and built some questionable new ones that come nowhere close to making up the difference, let alone in meeting all the needs. They built two that use biomass, that have polluted the ocean and are often down for maintenance. A new geothermal plant that is often down for maintenance and does not produce as much as was promised. They added pumped storage on one of the smallest reservoirs in the state. And the bulk of new production is the 37 new gas powered plants. Which by themselves produce almost ten times the amount of the 32 photovoltaic plants they have built. In fact, add in the 16 wind plants and the 3 thermal solar plants, and those are new gas plants are still providing more than five times the power of all of those combined. They are still not producing enough power, and try to scream that they are the Greenest State, and they are the Masters of Solar and Wind Power! But in reality, it is those gas plants that is the only thing from preventing it from becoming an American Calcutta. What California is doing is smoke and mirrors. And they are still in trouble, as they are still saying over and over there is not enough power to go around. I would expect things like that form "third world countries", not what many are claiming is the most advanced state in the country. That says that within 15 years all cars will be electric. When they do not even have enough electricity to power the 18% that they have on the road now. Where the hell are they going to get the power if 50% are electric? Harvesting the gas from magic unicorns and using that? It is not an issue of "technology", if there is simply no way to do it. We understand the concept and science behind a Space Elevator, n Orbital Ring, a Dyson Sphere, a Space Fountain, a Mass Driver, and a slew of other things that humans have thought up. But the difference is realizing which of those are just "Science Fiction" and are centuries away, and realizing what can realistically be made in a decade, or even the lifetime of most people. And Fusion Power, that is right there with the Space Elevator and Mass Driver as happening within the next 4 decades (if even possible then). No, that is why you keep failing. You seem to think it is "right around the corner", and that it will save all the problems of the planet. Me, I say it may likely never happen, and even if it does not likely until the next century at the soonest. So we have to concentrate on real solutions, not fantasies. Most of your posting come off as something that David Wolfe would post. And like all the brain dead reposters of his junk, you seem to have no filter between reality and fantasy. Like those that keep trying to get people to invest in "Gravity Batteries". Or that the Hyperloop will change everything.
You are mixing issues too much to bother with comment. And, your last paragraph demonstrates this defect in how you think. Also, had you actually read my post, you would know that my opinion is that fusion will continue to take decades and can not be considered part of any actual energy strategy. So, why take off on ME when you AGREE??? What's driving your thinking?
And I see it as more than a century maybe two. Not even "decades", that is how far off the reality you are. It should net even be considered, period. Anybody that brings up "fusion" when talking about energy should be laughed out of any serious discussion. Just as those who talk about gravity batteries, solar and wind ever being more than a fractional provider of power, and other fantasy beliefs. They are not true, they have never been true, they will never be true. It is all just smoke and mirrors, that hides the reality that nobody wants to talk about. I am not mixing issues, I was providing just some examples of how wrong California is in how they are handling their problem. Yet people still think of them as leaders in the issue. Like their complete and utter failure in managing their resources that is now causing huge parts of the state to go up in flames every year. Great, they plant more trees, and then will do nothing. Then in another 40 years watch them all go up in flames again and still have absolutely no understanding of why it keeps happening. I do not agree with you, because you have a fantasy belief that fusion is "decades away". You seem to think the future is solar and wind, which is impossible, and will never be true.
I've never touted fusion as something that can be a factor in our energy plans for decades. So, why are you on ME about that? Batteries of a scale that affects grid level power are proven to make a difference and be of financial benefit. Solar and wind have a potential of being as much as 30% of our consumption. To be more than that, we would need a substantially better grid. Yes, CA is a leader in these issues. So are Iowa and some other places. China is a serious leader. The fires started by electric transmission lines were a problem with the utility that owns and was supposed to maintain those lines. You're just flat out wrong about this - showing what can only indicate political bias, not relaity. Oh, please. Just get over it. As I stated we can not include fusion in any of our energy plans. After that, what you are suggesting about fusion here is irrelevant. The primary fuel for generating power in Iowa is wind. Solar+wind power is growing at least as fast as the increase in demand for electricity in the USA. Natural gas power is increasing at about the rate of the decline in coal power. That is today. And, don't misquote me with the common total BULL about goals of 100% wind+solar. As I've said, with our current grid + infrastructure help, those fuels can reach 30% or maybe even 40% at some point. To exceed that would require serious grid improvement to reduce the cost and increase the rate of power movement. I'm in favor of creating a plan for nuclear power, but such plants take a long time to site and build and are stupendously expensive, raising the cost of electricity. The study should include what higher electricity prices would mean for the viability of other solutions. The new projects in UK should be studied before commenting on nuclear.
The only "battery" of such that actually works is pumped-water hydro. There is no other "battery" to "store" power in a grid level. "Potential" is politician speak. In reality, it is incredibly expensive, not reliable, and provides only around 10% of power. Not 15%, not 20 %, not anywhere close to 30%. And this is exactly what I mean. You keep throwing out these numbers that are not even close to reality. Me, I discuss almost only reality. Seriously, you consider a state a "leader" when they have not met their own power requirements for decades, and they already import a quarter of their electricity from other states. And that demand is only increasing, they are importing on average 2.4% more each year than the year prior. In fact, they can not even keep up with their own growth because they are seeing reductions in other areas where they do produce power. It is not "really green" if you import over 25% of your power from states that use things like gas and coal to produce the power. And anybody that tries to make that claim (like California) is a liar. God, you really do love China. China is the largest producer of coal electricity on the planet, and that is only increasing. China has no interest in trying to convert to anything other than coal, gas, and hydro. They have massive coal deposits, and coal plants cost a fraction to build and produce far more power than solar or wind. Oh, they will sell them to anybody that will buy from them, but they are not trying to change their own grid. Once again, you are falling for the lies an somehow thinking it is true. That was a single fire, and I lived just a few miles from there at the time. In fact, it was hilarious. On my way to work, they were talking about their possibly having to shut down power because of the 40 mph winds we were having, and people started screaming that they could not do that. But once again, you miss the mark. The cause does not matter. Power lines, car accident, homeless encampment fire, lightning strike, the ignition source is irrelevant. California burns like clockwork because they have absolutely no idea what "land management" actually means. And for the last 4 decades, it has meant to let everything grow wild, maintain nothing. So now they have decades of wild undergrowth, no fire breaks, and dead trees littering their woodlands. So when it does catch fire, it can't be contained. But I would love to see how my frustration at their refusing to maintain their forests is somehow a "political bias". So tell me, what exactly is that bias? Uh-huh. It is sure as hell not doing it in California. True fact, Solar has grown little as a percent of power produced in the US for over 15 years. It still provides about 10% of power produced, the same as it was a decade ago. It has only kept up with itself. California built 27 new gas plants in the 500 megawatt plus range, and it still was not enough to meet growth. You think 30% growth in the 10% segment means something? It does not, solar is still as insignificant as it was two decades ago. Actually, nuclear is fairly cheap. It is the insanity of regulations and NIMBY that prevent it from ever being used again. Because way too many times, companies spent huge amounts of money to build nuclear plants, only to never be allowed to use them and losing all the money spent. One of the funniest I thought was Bailly, in Indiana. It was stopped by the "Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site" group, and they celebrated when almost a billion dollars was spent and the program was cancelled. It was then turned into a coal power plant. Out of over 40 plants under construction that were cancelled, that is the only one that did eventually become a power plant. Ant to know the reality of nuclear in our future? Put of curiosity, I just looked. We have added a grand total of three new nuclear plants in the United States. Since the first Clinton Administration! And every single one of those plants started construction in the Nixon Administration! Yes, 20 years or more to build each one. Not because it takes that long, but because of the insane regulations that are placed over them. The next ones to come on line are supposed to be in Georgia next year. Units 3 and 4 of Vogtle are going a bit faster as Units 1 and 2 went online in 1987. And if they are finished next year, that will be 14 years of construction, at over $28 billion. Nobody is really interested in building new plants, because of the cost in red tape.
Musk moderated the power grid in Southwest Australia with a battery backup facility that saved the locals millions. There are more advanced facilities in operation or being constructed in CA. Nope. Science points to that potential. The fact is that China is by far the leader in developing clean energy capability. They own more patents, manufacture more such equipment, have by far the highest exports of that equipment and are the leaders in installation. There isn't a measure that you can use to denigrate their progress in clean energy. They are a huge emerging economy. Their need for energy far outstrips what they can accomplish with clean energy today. But, you can't knock their clean energy direction. Good lord - read my posts before comment. With that, I'm fed up and stop here.
Notice, they use damned near none? Holy cow, just because a nation destroys their own country to make them and sell them for money, you think they are amazing. They have no "clean energy direction". Of course, you have forgiven them for anything in the past, I am not surprised you are praising them yet again. They are the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet. Something you dismiss every time it is brought up. They are the largest slave nation on the planet, something I guess you are fine with. They are destroying the environment with their strip mines that make those in the US 50 years ago seem like Sierra Club sites. And because they are the largest exporter of a product that involves huge amounts of toxic chemicals to manufacture, you think that makes them awesome. I keep bringing these kinds of things up because as the topic states, you simply can not follow the science. You spout almost endless platitudes, believe and praise almost insignificant amounts of production, and praise the largest polluting nation on the planet. You just don't seem to like that I call you on your BS constantly. Tell me, how many people in the US die every year due to pollution? Because in China, most place it somewhere between a quarter to half a million people a year. And for all your "claims", most of their power and home heating is still done by coal. Hell, coal has not had a large amount of home heating in the US in almost 80 years. Yet that is their major source of residential heating, and you try to scream how green they are. You are the one that is delusional, and ignoring facts and science to push an agenda. Oh, and BTW, I am still waiting to find out what my political agenda is about my disgust as California not maintaining their forests.
There is no question that they are the leader in clean energy. They produce more patents. They manufacture more product. They install more and home. They export more - including to the US. That's a clean sweep. You lose, because China has many times our population. So, pretending that it is valid to compare their total emissions to our total emissions is just plain silly. The USA still leads major countries in terms of emissions per capital. Thus, what WE need is for other countries to NOT DO WHAT WE DO. Because WE are the bad example. The fact is that China is an emerging nation with rapidly growing energy requirements. So, they do have an enormous problem. And, they are the world leaders in attacking that kind of problem - as noted above. THEY are the ones working on their problem, while WE whine about China - as if that is an excuse.
"Per Capital"? Oh, then China leads by far because each nation has exactly 1 capital. And why does India have almost the same population as China, but only a fraction of their pollution? But of course, you will deflect this as you always do. Because it detracts from your trying to blame the US for everything, and makes China look like the greatest nation on the planet.
Sorry you got so confused by the typo. India will increase its energy consumption as it advances toward the first world. I object to the "blame China" game, as it is pretty much always inaccurate and fundamentally used for generating excuses for our own bad behavior.
India will never be "first world". Nor will almost all of the world. And I was not confused, I simply assumed it was typical of you. Not knowing much of anything and just spouting off once again from your imagination.
Whether India becomes a first world nation is NOT the issue. India will move in that direction, and the result will be that they will require major amounts of energy. Yes, you make a lot of assumptions.
India will never become a "world leader", at least in this century. Likely not even the next. This is typical of all your claims. It is the worst of outright speculation, and fraud. You make these constant silly arsed claims, and try to prove nothing. Even outright denying facts and trying to spin things for some political reason. But India does not need the power that China does. Their industrial capacity is geared completely differently, and is not as destructive as that of China is. They are also trying to guide their economy not to being an industrial power, but to one that is a service provider. And that requires much less power. Much of the industrial base in India is actually based on small factories, only needing a small number of employees. Not the massive operations of China where a hundred square miles of forest and jungle is destroyed to make a massive factory city that exists only to make goods for export. And everybody is essentially slave labor for the factory and has no choice but to work there. But yes, you love China. And praise them and want other nations to emulate them.
The issue has never been "world leadership". With India's population exceeding that of China and with the certainty that their need for energy will be increasing as they move forward, pretending that India isn't a huge deal is inexcusable. I don't love China. However, they absolutely do some stuff that we should recognize as positive. A preconception that your enemy does nothing right is how one takes a path to failure. We see that self destructive attitude showing up A LOT in our politics and on this board. What's OUR plan for maintaining our standard of living in a world where we are a tiny percent of the population?
Oh yes, like destroying their environment and being the largest polluting nation on the planet simply because they care more about money than anything else. Yeah, go them! And India's power needs are never going to be anywhere even close to China because they are not building huge strip mines and leaving damage to their country that will take hundreds of years to repair and leaving vast deposits of wasteland and contamination behind. They are also not building slave cities with high polluting factories once again for wealth. And "our plan"? You refuse to even recognize that the US has done more to reduce these problems than any other country on the planet. The massive strip mining and deforestation going on in China? We stopped doing that almost a century ago and have spent the last century trying to restore those places we have done it in. China is still destroying their environment like it was the 19th century still. Belching huge amounts of pollutants because coal is cheap and they do not care about the environment. The CO2 and other emissions in the US have been going down for the last 2 decades. Yet you demand to know what we are doing? Meanwhile ignoring the simple fact that emissions from China are increasing every year? As I keep saying, you are not and are never actually discussing science. Only your own weird politics.
I think you need to settle down and discuss some issue. AND, you need to remember that the per capita pollution of the USA is worse than that of China. We belch more for each individual than they do. So, you need to be more careful than that about how you whine about China.
do you admit that Democrat Politicians and their media, and democrats in general, tend to only "follow the science", when it benefits them?
Yes, you can reject the entire world of science related to climate if you so desire. It's still the case that pollution from burning fossil fuel in our cities is bringing us significant healthcare costs. That's not all due to cars, of course. I've seen articles pointing out that we should be focusing on electrifying public transit in our cities, as busses, etc., are a major form of transportation in cities, and in many places they aren't even held to automobile emissions standards.
It would help if you purchased a clue. CO2 has never been a pollutant ever until activists conned the Supreme Court into allowing it to be redefined. Not ever. And it still has no toxic effects (unless you want to tie a plastic bag around your head. But if that's the case, water is also a pollutant because you can drown in it. Check with your theoretically "scientific" blogs to see how they explain away that impossibility). Now try to make those same dopey arguments without CO2 included.
If you followed my posts you would know that I didn't include any significant focus on climate change issues. I DID point to healthcare issues, as they are costing Americans today.
