200KW self regulating Mini Reactor with 40 year lifespan
Update:
I want to know if it is a true fission reactor or just a decay based one.
More here don't think it is the same thing though this one looks more like an RTG.
and Here
And here Homeland Security angle
This one talks about the 4S mentioned above
Showing posts with label Energy Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy Environment. Show all posts
20 December, 2007
29 October, 2007
TNR Beauchamp - NEI ?
I have been following the Beauchamp TNR storry for a while and while it disgusts me I haven't had much to say that many others are not already saying more effectively.
This morning I read this post at that I found via instapundit.
I was quite surprised to see the NEI as one of their advertisers.
I have cross linked with the NEI blog a number of times and am a regular reader of TNR online. Believe me when I say that it is unlikely that ardent readers of TNR are unlikely to support NEI's goals of increasing the acceptance of nuclear power. It seems their advertising budget would be better spent in less hostile venues.
Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of either of the organizations? Or could this be a case of the Yankee picking algorithm planted adds and equating them with direct advertisement? An understandable mistake but still possibly a mistake. If so we might want to be judicious in approaching the advertisers or laying blame.
Was this in the paper publication or did it only appear on their site?
In any case I agree with the general need to press TNR to stop presenting lies targeting the military.
This morning I read this post at that I found via instapundit.
I was quite surprised to see the NEI as one of their advertisers.
I have cross linked with the NEI blog a number of times and am a regular reader of TNR online. Believe me when I say that it is unlikely that ardent readers of TNR are unlikely to support NEI's goals of increasing the acceptance of nuclear power. It seems their advertising budget would be better spent in less hostile venues.
Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of either of the organizations? Or could this be a case of the Yankee picking algorithm planted adds and equating them with direct advertisement? An understandable mistake but still possibly a mistake. If so we might want to be judicious in approaching the advertisers or laying blame.
Was this in the paper publication or did it only appear on their site?
In any case I agree with the general need to press TNR to stop presenting lies targeting the military.
16 July, 2007
Nuclear Safety in Japan
The headline "NUKE PLANT LEAKS AFTER EARTHQUAKE"
Oh my!!!
I might be calling this one a bit early because the news is just coming out but I suspect that this will be much ado about nothing.
From what I have read so far there was almost a gallon of water and it was contained in the containment building. No release of fission products.
So there is a 6.8 magnitude quake that left 3 foot fissures and the nuke plant only had a small leak that was contained.
I would call this a success in engineering. If this had been a gasoline or heaven forbid a LNG storage facility the result would almost certainly be worse.
Update:
Oh this is priceless
"Aileen Mioko Smith, of the environmentalist group Green Action, said the fire showed that some facilities at nuclear power plants such as electrical transformers were built to lower quake-resistance levels than other equipment such as reactor cores."
Duh - You think they might want to give higher priority to the safety of the reactor core maybe?? Sheesh presenting ggod engineering as a problem.
Oh my!!!
I might be calling this one a bit early because the news is just coming out but I suspect that this will be much ado about nothing.
From what I have read so far there was almost a gallon of water and it was contained in the containment building. No release of fission products.
So there is a 6.8 magnitude quake that left 3 foot fissures and the nuke plant only had a small leak that was contained.
I would call this a success in engineering. If this had been a gasoline or heaven forbid a LNG storage facility the result would almost certainly be worse.
Update:
Oh this is priceless
"Aileen Mioko Smith, of the environmentalist group Green Action, said the fire showed that some facilities at nuclear power plants such as electrical transformers were built to lower quake-resistance levels than other equipment such as reactor cores."
Duh - You think they might want to give higher priority to the safety of the reactor core maybe?? Sheesh presenting ggod engineering as a problem.
08 June, 2007
Same as it ever was
Tesla did this a long time ago.
I kind of wonder what kind of ionizing effect this has on cells (Specifically the DNA in the cells) exposed to the energy. I hope they study that some first.
I kind of wonder what kind of ionizing effect this has on cells (Specifically the DNA in the cells) exposed to the energy. I hope they study that some first.
30 April, 2007
Fusion - Some thoughts on Tokamak
Back in January I got caught up in one of my crazy idea posts after reading about Boron fusion over at Classical Values and Power and Control.
I have been stewing on those for a while and doing some light research and what has really troubled me was the implications of this on Tokamak designs that I had never considered. I caught the beginning inclination of this in my post but have clarified it somewhat lately.
I am not saying they haven't been considered but I hadn't though of them. Some of this post is going to come off as anti nuke and anti fusion. Nothing could be further from the truth in all honesty nuclear power is our only realistic long term solution to the energy challenges we will have in the future and fission despite its advantages has some pretty significant drawbacks as well.
Fusion has always been served as the Holy Grail to solve these disadvantages and despite my background in Nuclear Physics and operation I never really questioned it. I have eagerly read about the development of toroidal field reactors and overlooked one key issue.
They have to use Neutron energy as the means to transfer energy from the fusion reaction to the power generation or transfer mechanism.
The impact of this is huge. In order to get any real power out of a fusion reaction in this manner the neutron flux would have to be insanely large. To put it in context in u235 fission reactions the neutrons produce on average less than 3 percent of the energy transfer. It results in a few degrees of heat in the primary coolant and further a few degrees in the shield tanks. While it does this it is also one of the primary problem creators for the entire reactor (of course one that by definition must be present).
It causes embrittlement and metallurgical changes in all of the reactor materials.
It is the mechanism of radioactive contamination creation.
It is the most difficult radiation to shield from with the most perplexing health impacts for people exposed.
and
It fundamentally alters the chemistry of the complex materials used to operate and control the reactor over time.
None of these issues go away in a Tokamak they way they identify the energy transfer mechanisms. As a matter of fact they would be about 20-30 times worse for the same thermal power output. I am not sure how anyone could ever make a viable case for a net energy producing Toroidal design and certainly not an economical one with that in mind. To go a step further it would create far more waste and more dangerous waste (admittedly only in the short term due to the lack of transuranic long lived waste) than existing fission designs.
So Dr. Bussard is quite right when he questions why we are spending the money on those approaches.
As far as the video and presentation, they make sense. I could see them adding injection fields that might use some of the toroidal design properties to help mitigate some of the electron leakage problems he mentioned in their existing designs but he has me sold.
If anyone wants to chime in and correct me feel free especially if I am missing something fundamental in the way Physicists are planning on getting power out of the Tokamaks.
I have been stewing on those for a while and doing some light research and what has really troubled me was the implications of this on Tokamak designs that I had never considered. I caught the beginning inclination of this in my post but have clarified it somewhat lately.
I am not saying they haven't been considered but I hadn't though of them. Some of this post is going to come off as anti nuke and anti fusion. Nothing could be further from the truth in all honesty nuclear power is our only realistic long term solution to the energy challenges we will have in the future and fission despite its advantages has some pretty significant drawbacks as well.
Fusion has always been served as the Holy Grail to solve these disadvantages and despite my background in Nuclear Physics and operation I never really questioned it. I have eagerly read about the development of toroidal field reactors and overlooked one key issue.
They have to use Neutron energy as the means to transfer energy from the fusion reaction to the power generation or transfer mechanism.
The impact of this is huge. In order to get any real power out of a fusion reaction in this manner the neutron flux would have to be insanely large. To put it in context in u235 fission reactions the neutrons produce on average less than 3 percent of the energy transfer. It results in a few degrees of heat in the primary coolant and further a few degrees in the shield tanks. While it does this it is also one of the primary problem creators for the entire reactor (of course one that by definition must be present).
It causes embrittlement and metallurgical changes in all of the reactor materials.
It is the mechanism of radioactive contamination creation.
It is the most difficult radiation to shield from with the most perplexing health impacts for people exposed.
and
It fundamentally alters the chemistry of the complex materials used to operate and control the reactor over time.
None of these issues go away in a Tokamak they way they identify the energy transfer mechanisms. As a matter of fact they would be about 20-30 times worse for the same thermal power output. I am not sure how anyone could ever make a viable case for a net energy producing Toroidal design and certainly not an economical one with that in mind. To go a step further it would create far more waste and more dangerous waste (admittedly only in the short term due to the lack of transuranic long lived waste) than existing fission designs.
So Dr. Bussard is quite right when he questions why we are spending the money on those approaches.
As far as the video and presentation, they make sense. I could see them adding injection fields that might use some of the toroidal design properties to help mitigate some of the electron leakage problems he mentioned in their existing designs but he has me sold.
If anyone wants to chime in and correct me feel free especially if I am missing something fundamental in the way Physicists are planning on getting power out of the Tokamaks.
13 February, 2007
10 February, 2007
A solution to the CO2 Imbalance - Global Warming
Instapundit Linked to the Gore Branson challenge
I also think it is a great idea. Of coursre there is already at least one solution that has met the goals.
all we have to do is more of it.
Nuclear Power via Nei blog
of course more options is always better how about my biofuel crazy idea
I also think it is a great idea. Of coursre there is already at least one solution that has met the goals.
all we have to do is more of it.
Nuclear Power via Nei blog
of course more options is always better how about my biofuel crazy idea
06 February, 2007
Yucca Mountain and Edwards
Interesting post on Yucca Mountain and John Edwards stand on it.
In defense of Edwards there are concerns about the long term viability of any site that stores large amounts of very long lived waste. The post's authors are right in pointing out the advantages of nuclear power and in emphasising that distributed long term storage really isn't a viable option but I wouldn't expect any politician to understand these arguments completely.
There are a lot of studies and plans that have been aggressively researched regarding the Yucca storage location and most have reinforced its potential viability but residents have legitimate doubts and rights that should be addressed.
I doubt Edwards realizes that continued operation with local storage isn't viable for much more than another 50 years. Failure to resolve the issue will result in shutdown of the facilities (which is exactly the goal of many ignorant activists). The loss of nuclear power as a source of energy would result in the need to replace 20% of the Nations base load power supply. That would require 1 Rhode Island of solar power (and even then only during the day during the summer)
Another Cubic mile of oil a year (in addition to the one we currently use) along with attendant CO2 emissions over 100 Coal power plants (again with CO2 and other pollutants) tens of thousands of wind turbines (as long as they are not off the Cape)
You get the point.
Most people (let alone politicians who are bombarded by activist lobbies) really don't understand the role that base load nuclear fission energy already plays in the US. The US version of light water reactors have the best safety and environmental record of any industry anywhere ever for the amount of energy produced and total time of operations. Pebble beds will be even better. Somehow we have to get that through to the politicians.
My advice if you don't like what the candidates are saying write to them. They probably won't read it of course but if their staff is any good they will and not discard it. Enough people write and the message will get to the candidate.
In any case it is a great blog with lots of good data.
Please Digg It
In defense of Edwards there are concerns about the long term viability of any site that stores large amounts of very long lived waste. The post's authors are right in pointing out the advantages of nuclear power and in emphasising that distributed long term storage really isn't a viable option but I wouldn't expect any politician to understand these arguments completely.
There are a lot of studies and plans that have been aggressively researched regarding the Yucca storage location and most have reinforced its potential viability but residents have legitimate doubts and rights that should be addressed.
I doubt Edwards realizes that continued operation with local storage isn't viable for much more than another 50 years. Failure to resolve the issue will result in shutdown of the facilities (which is exactly the goal of many ignorant activists). The loss of nuclear power as a source of energy would result in the need to replace 20% of the Nations base load power supply. That would require 1 Rhode Island of solar power (and even then only during the day during the summer)
Another Cubic mile of oil a year (in addition to the one we currently use) along with attendant CO2 emissions over 100 Coal power plants (again with CO2 and other pollutants) tens of thousands of wind turbines (as long as they are not off the Cape)
You get the point.
Most people (let alone politicians who are bombarded by activist lobbies) really don't understand the role that base load nuclear fission energy already plays in the US. The US version of light water reactors have the best safety and environmental record of any industry anywhere ever for the amount of energy produced and total time of operations. Pebble beds will be even better. Somehow we have to get that through to the politicians.
My advice if you don't like what the candidates are saying write to them. They probably won't read it of course but if their staff is any good they will and not discard it. Enough people write and the message will get to the candidate.
In any case it is a great blog with lots of good data.
Please Digg It
Nuclear Fission - Ping Pong Ball Experiment
Before the Super-Bowl there was an ad on about the propagation of ideas that I really liked (though it failed in its marketing because I cannot remember who it was for).
The narrator of the ad held a ping pong ball over a basketball court covered with mousetraps with ping pong balls on them. When he dropped the ball on one it went off and launched its ball in the air which landed on several others which launched theirs and so on.
This struck me as an awesome way to display the principles behind nuclear fission chain reactions.
It hits all of the key concepts.
Neutron absorption cross section is simulated by the relative size of the traps and the balls. Fuel density by how close the traps are to each other. Neutron escape by the proximity to the edge of the court. Balls that are launched too energetically bounce fewer times so they display absorption resonance zones and fast neutron escape. If you wanted to simulate thermalizing effects on the probability of absorption you could place curtains or sheets to knock energetic ones back into the field of traps. Poisons could be simulated by pillows or sticky mats to stop or slow down the bouncing balls. Try different shapes to see how geometry affects the likelihood of escape.
You could judge efficiency of the designs based on how many traps are left unsprung and how fast or slow the entire reaction takes to finish.
Of course it is all two dimensional but it still gives a good idea of what happens.
All in all a pretty good science experiment for someone who wants to do it. Of course you probably want to replace the mouse traps with something less likely to break a student’s fingers. Has anyone done this this way before?
Update:
This commercial demonstates an old science experiment I once saw on PBS and on a science video shown in a science classroom. It goes back 20 years I think. Todd
The narrator of the ad held a ping pong ball over a basketball court covered with mousetraps with ping pong balls on them. When he dropped the ball on one it went off and launched its ball in the air which landed on several others which launched theirs and so on.
This struck me as an awesome way to display the principles behind nuclear fission chain reactions.
It hits all of the key concepts.
Neutron absorption cross section is simulated by the relative size of the traps and the balls. Fuel density by how close the traps are to each other. Neutron escape by the proximity to the edge of the court. Balls that are launched too energetically bounce fewer times so they display absorption resonance zones and fast neutron escape. If you wanted to simulate thermalizing effects on the probability of absorption you could place curtains or sheets to knock energetic ones back into the field of traps. Poisons could be simulated by pillows or sticky mats to stop or slow down the bouncing balls. Try different shapes to see how geometry affects the likelihood of escape.
You could judge efficiency of the designs based on how many traps are left unsprung and how fast or slow the entire reaction takes to finish.
Of course it is all two dimensional but it still gives a good idea of what happens.
All in all a pretty good science experiment for someone who wants to do it. Of course you probably want to replace the mouse traps with something less likely to break a student’s fingers. Has anyone done this this way before?
Update:
This commercial demonstates an old science experiment I once saw on PBS and on a science video shown in a science classroom. It goes back 20 years I think. Todd
05 February, 2007
Global Warming Denier!!! - Get a rope
Pretty good post at ComputerDefense on Global Warming
He does a good job at voicing one side of the argument that I often think gets short shift.
Anyone who has read me for a while will know that I take the Global Warming discussion pretty seriously. I have several posts on the topic and like to advocate bio fuels and other environmental causes.
There is a comment on his blog that I think portrays a huge flaw in the current nature of the conversation primarily from the Government mandated change crowd.
Angela says "Although you do try to consider material from both believers and non-believers in global warming"
The first sentence portrays exactly what is wrong in the whole global warming discussion as it exists right now. People divide the groups into "believers" and "non believers". This ideologically faith based approach is what the entire debate has turned into. Unfortunately people have been burning others at the stake for thousands of years because they "made the drought happen by killing a pig" or by "giving the evil eye" . What is the difference between roasting them in a bronze idol to appease Marduk or Al? The real discussion cannot exist if the only mechanism of argument is to classify then dismiss.
The second stage of this argument is "that research must be excluded because it was funded by the oil companies (or Greenpeace take your pick)". This method of argument is slightly more legitimate but it cannot be used to discard information only to increase the scrutiny of it.
I'll restate that. The only valid use of the second argument is to identify potential biases and require a more thorough review of the data. They cannot legitimately be used to disprove the data directly. Both sides are guilty of having ulterior motives for their arguments. Professors have trouble getting grants and promotions if they don't jump on the Global Warming is killing the planet bandwagon. Oil companies are making a lot of money but their already paper thin margins will be even smaller if they have to start pumping CO2 back into the earth. For that matter we are not truly sure what pumping it back into the ground will do.
Hey I am all for (actually strongly for) bio fuels and CO2 reduction tech. I think that anything we can do to reduce our footprint on the world around us has some value. The real question is how much value in comparison to what we trade off for it. If we didn't have an environmental movement we would literally be choking to death on coal smog like we were in the 1800's. We wouldn't have the automobile (which in the early days was marketed as a way of reducing the number of rotting horse and cow carcass and manure in the cities).
Right now I have seen a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that Global Warming is occurring. Enough to convince me that it is happening until proven otherwise at least for the short term (next century or so).
Despite the recent findings advocated by the UN
Or Detailed counterpoint here (sorry about the popups it is a Canadian Rag)
I have not seen an overwhelming set of evidence to support Global Warming being an anthropomorphic event. I think we have a lot of hubris when we assume that our .1% of the Biomass and 3% of total global energy use that we create or even the 2% of total greenhouse gases on the planet that are due to humans have that great of an effect. There are certainly models that show that it does but we do not have a large enough data pool to know. In all of these models the contribution of greenhouse gases is an exponential function (which it is). Anyone who plays with math knows how easily misunderstandings of the role of an exponential variable can really skew the outcome of a model. Neither do we have a good data set to draw on. 200 years out of 4 billion isn't that big of a data set.
I am also not much of an advocate of the precautionary principle. Anyone who really is should never get in a car. For that matter they should never leave their house... Actually that is faulty as well since most accidents occur at home... Whoopie we're all gonna die.
You get my point.
None of these counter arguments should be construed to mean we shouldn't do anything. On the contrary we should be aggressively pursuing more data and debate. We can't do that by disregarding the points and arguments of either side of the conversation. We should also constantly be working for more efficient and renewable energy sources and means of doing what ever we do daily. This provides us other advantages as well. Reduced reliance on energy sources controlled by questionable entities, reduced costs, and operational streamlining. We wouldn't have moved to coal if wood didn't have problems or oil if coal or Natural Gas if oil...
Besides in the long run this is probably the answer. Got it from Here
Digg It
He does a good job at voicing one side of the argument that I often think gets short shift.
Anyone who has read me for a while will know that I take the Global Warming discussion pretty seriously. I have several posts on the topic and like to advocate bio fuels and other environmental causes.
There is a comment on his blog that I think portrays a huge flaw in the current nature of the conversation primarily from the Government mandated change crowd.
Angela says "Although you do try to consider material from both believers and non-believers in global warming"
The first sentence portrays exactly what is wrong in the whole global warming discussion as it exists right now. People divide the groups into "believers" and "non believers". This ideologically faith based approach is what the entire debate has turned into. Unfortunately people have been burning others at the stake for thousands of years because they "made the drought happen by killing a pig" or by "giving the evil eye" . What is the difference between roasting them in a bronze idol to appease Marduk or Al? The real discussion cannot exist if the only mechanism of argument is to classify then dismiss.
The second stage of this argument is "that research must be excluded because it was funded by the oil companies (or Greenpeace take your pick)". This method of argument is slightly more legitimate but it cannot be used to discard information only to increase the scrutiny of it.
I'll restate that. The only valid use of the second argument is to identify potential biases and require a more thorough review of the data. They cannot legitimately be used to disprove the data directly. Both sides are guilty of having ulterior motives for their arguments. Professors have trouble getting grants and promotions if they don't jump on the Global Warming is killing the planet bandwagon. Oil companies are making a lot of money but their already paper thin margins will be even smaller if they have to start pumping CO2 back into the earth. For that matter we are not truly sure what pumping it back into the ground will do.
Hey I am all for (actually strongly for) bio fuels and CO2 reduction tech. I think that anything we can do to reduce our footprint on the world around us has some value. The real question is how much value in comparison to what we trade off for it. If we didn't have an environmental movement we would literally be choking to death on coal smog like we were in the 1800's. We wouldn't have the automobile (which in the early days was marketed as a way of reducing the number of rotting horse and cow carcass and manure in the cities).
Right now I have seen a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that Global Warming is occurring. Enough to convince me that it is happening until proven otherwise at least for the short term (next century or so).
Despite the recent findings advocated by the UN
Or Detailed counterpoint here (sorry about the popups it is a Canadian Rag)
I have not seen an overwhelming set of evidence to support Global Warming being an anthropomorphic event. I think we have a lot of hubris when we assume that our .1% of the Biomass and 3% of total global energy use that we create or even the 2% of total greenhouse gases on the planet that are due to humans have that great of an effect. There are certainly models that show that it does but we do not have a large enough data pool to know. In all of these models the contribution of greenhouse gases is an exponential function (which it is). Anyone who plays with math knows how easily misunderstandings of the role of an exponential variable can really skew the outcome of a model. Neither do we have a good data set to draw on. 200 years out of 4 billion isn't that big of a data set.
I am also not much of an advocate of the precautionary principle. Anyone who really is should never get in a car. For that matter they should never leave their house... Actually that is faulty as well since most accidents occur at home... Whoopie we're all gonna die.
You get my point.
None of these counter arguments should be construed to mean we shouldn't do anything. On the contrary we should be aggressively pursuing more data and debate. We can't do that by disregarding the points and arguments of either side of the conversation. We should also constantly be working for more efficient and renewable energy sources and means of doing what ever we do daily. This provides us other advantages as well. Reduced reliance on energy sources controlled by questionable entities, reduced costs, and operational streamlining. We wouldn't have moved to coal if wood didn't have problems or oil if coal or Natural Gas if oil...
Besides in the long run this is probably the answer. Got it from Here
Digg It
01 February, 2007
Biofuels not to Blame
Register Wrong
It isn't biofuels that drove the price spike it was the switch from MTBE to ethanol as the additive to reduce smog.
That switch is also the primary reason for the gasoline price spike last summer. All US refineries had to adjust to a different mix in a short period of time resulting in a relative reduction in gasoline stock. Supply goes down price goes up. Imagine that.
By the way that switch to ethanol was a good thing and worth the price. MTBE was mandated as an additive by many States in the US even though it is a pretty nasty carcinogen. It is the chemical that Erin Brokovich made famous when suing companies that were required by law to use it. Hhhmmm...
On the other side of the coin MTBE was responsible for significantly reducing the smog levels in urban areas across the country. Everyone thinks that the environment is worse now than ever but forgets that there were days were you couldn't breath in LA or NY in the '70's.
We found a mix using ethanol that was less dangerous and the government decided to switch (for good reason) everyone freaked at the 3.50USD a gallon gas which was still a third of the price in Europe. Things balanced out but now corn costs more.
It just goes to show that decisions involving environmental requirements sometimes have unforeseen consequences.
Oh yea
Biofuels are not to blame and if we are smart we can use them to turn the bread basket into one of the next global energy sources and a huge cash cow for the US as a whole again if we are smart. That will have an impact in unforeseen ways on other prices. No matter how hard governments try they cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Just ask the USSR.
Update:
From the author in the Comments
I wouldn't say we are wrong, though.
We wrote: "Demand for eco-friendly bio-fuels in the US is being blamed for a massive rise in the price of corn in Mexico."
Ah I see, so we shouldn't take the title to be the meaning of the article.
It isn't biofuels that drove the price spike it was the switch from MTBE to ethanol as the additive to reduce smog.
That switch is also the primary reason for the gasoline price spike last summer. All US refineries had to adjust to a different mix in a short period of time resulting in a relative reduction in gasoline stock. Supply goes down price goes up. Imagine that.
By the way that switch to ethanol was a good thing and worth the price. MTBE was mandated as an additive by many States in the US even though it is a pretty nasty carcinogen. It is the chemical that Erin Brokovich made famous when suing companies that were required by law to use it. Hhhmmm...
On the other side of the coin MTBE was responsible for significantly reducing the smog levels in urban areas across the country. Everyone thinks that the environment is worse now than ever but forgets that there were days were you couldn't breath in LA or NY in the '70's.
We found a mix using ethanol that was less dangerous and the government decided to switch (for good reason) everyone freaked at the 3.50USD a gallon gas which was still a third of the price in Europe. Things balanced out but now corn costs more.
It just goes to show that decisions involving environmental requirements sometimes have unforeseen consequences.
Oh yea
Biofuels are not to blame and if we are smart we can use them to turn the bread basket into one of the next global energy sources and a huge cash cow for the US as a whole again if we are smart. That will have an impact in unforeseen ways on other prices. No matter how hard governments try they cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Just ask the USSR.
Update:
From the author in the Comments
I wouldn't say we are wrong, though.
We wrote: "Demand for eco-friendly bio-fuels in the US is being blamed for a massive rise in the price of corn in Mexico."
Ah I see, so we shouldn't take the title to be the meaning of the article.
20 January, 2007
Fusion - Crazy Ideas
Real Interesting post at Classical Values about Boron - Proton Fusion.
I traced down all of the links and it is quite interesting. The most interesting piece for me was the last section with the questions about how to access the energy produced.
One thing that always tickles me about how the MSM usually leads a story about fusion is that they describe it as a safe "waste free" type of nuclear power.
With the Tokamak designs they rely on neutron heating of a water (or other medium) tank as the primary external energy transfer mechanism. In order to get enough energy to be efficient using this method you would have to have one heck of a massive neutron flux. Neutron fluxes create active isotopes so there will be large amounts of radioactive material (RAM) created. Of course this can all be contained in a similar way that RAM from fission reactors are. There is an advantage over fission reactors in that since transuranic elements are not used the really long lived RAM will be very small to non existent but Tokamaks will create a lot of RAM including every nukes favorite Isotope CO-60.
Energy capture from a Boron proton fusion would have to involve heat collection from the collisions and scatters of the three resulting alphas. The biggest drawback there is that there is no easy mechanism to get them out of the reaction area. Neutrons literally walk right though walls but the alphas won't go far. The design would probably have to have a high enough operating temperature range at certain locations for standard heat transfer mechanisms to be efficient.
This quote is spot on:
"The fusion is quite real, unlike the cold-fusion fiasco. What seems like the biggest problems are energy break even and durability of the equipment. The conventional fusion reactor has achieved energy break even already, the next step for it is economic break even."
This doesn't seem to be junk science but still wouldn't be easy. In any case full development of it or a similar fusion methodology using different isotopes is certainly worth the effort. I'm not sure overall explorations should be limited to this combination either.
I traced down all of the links and it is quite interesting. The most interesting piece for me was the last section with the questions about how to access the energy produced.
One thing that always tickles me about how the MSM usually leads a story about fusion is that they describe it as a safe "waste free" type of nuclear power.
With the Tokamak designs they rely on neutron heating of a water (or other medium) tank as the primary external energy transfer mechanism. In order to get enough energy to be efficient using this method you would have to have one heck of a massive neutron flux. Neutron fluxes create active isotopes so there will be large amounts of radioactive material (RAM) created. Of course this can all be contained in a similar way that RAM from fission reactors are. There is an advantage over fission reactors in that since transuranic elements are not used the really long lived RAM will be very small to non existent but Tokamaks will create a lot of RAM including every nukes favorite Isotope CO-60.
Energy capture from a Boron proton fusion would have to involve heat collection from the collisions and scatters of the three resulting alphas. The biggest drawback there is that there is no easy mechanism to get them out of the reaction area. Neutrons literally walk right though walls but the alphas won't go far. The design would probably have to have a high enough operating temperature range at certain locations for standard heat transfer mechanisms to be efficient.
This quote is spot on:
"The fusion is quite real, unlike the cold-fusion fiasco. What seems like the biggest problems are energy break even and durability of the equipment. The conventional fusion reactor has achieved energy break even already, the next step for it is economic break even."
This doesn't seem to be junk science but still wouldn't be easy. In any case full development of it or a similar fusion methodology using different isotopes is certainly worth the effort. I'm not sure overall explorations should be limited to this combination either.
03 January, 2007
Science Helpline - Celebrities
The Register has a good article about a Science Helpline for Hyper political but Scientifically deficient Celebs.
I thought it was pretty funny when they fell into their own trap at the end. It seems they were uncomfortable with the facts about nuclear power (which I read and are very accurate and somewhat pedestrian if you know the real science) and felt the need to try to debunk the very site they were plugging at the end.
It is kind of sad when people turn beliefs into pseudo Science and Pseudo Religion. Science allows for things to be proven wrong.
I provided a lot of links in my last post on global warming.
I am going to make a statement now that will probably irritate some.
Global warming is a fact.
Now hold on a second. Don't start labeling me as a political operative.
Stating that it is a fact does not mean it is a true fact. It simply means that it is possible to prove it wrong. (it is almost never possible to prove something true)
Facts grow in strength based on surviving attempts to disprove them. There have been many many attempts to disprove global warming. Many of the sub facts have been disproven but many others have stood. The argument is far from decided.
I am not a climatologist or geologist so I am no where near qualified to weigh all of the smaller facts in this.
It is interesting (and sad) that like the nuclear discussion this has reached the dogmatic stage where each side feels as if it must silence the other.
It is irresponsible for politicians to call for an end to the discussion and threaten financial ramifications. It is just as irresponsible for large corporations to obfuscate facts that are contrary to their side of the argument.
Nuclear power has been at this dogmatic stage for a while. Long enough that certain positions are trust cues for inclusion in many political groups.
My advice to politicians, reporters and pundits is engage in the discussion make your opinions known but don't try to use external pressure to change the science and don't disregard facts (true or not) just because they are counter to your preexisting meme structure.
I thought it was pretty funny when they fell into their own trap at the end. It seems they were uncomfortable with the facts about nuclear power (which I read and are very accurate and somewhat pedestrian if you know the real science) and felt the need to try to debunk the very site they were plugging at the end.
It is kind of sad when people turn beliefs into pseudo Science and Pseudo Religion. Science allows for things to be proven wrong.
I provided a lot of links in my last post on global warming.
I am going to make a statement now that will probably irritate some.
Global warming is a fact.
Now hold on a second. Don't start labeling me as a political operative.
Stating that it is a fact does not mean it is a true fact. It simply means that it is possible to prove it wrong. (it is almost never possible to prove something true)
Facts grow in strength based on surviving attempts to disprove them. There have been many many attempts to disprove global warming. Many of the sub facts have been disproven but many others have stood. The argument is far from decided.
I am not a climatologist or geologist so I am no where near qualified to weigh all of the smaller facts in this.
It is interesting (and sad) that like the nuclear discussion this has reached the dogmatic stage where each side feels as if it must silence the other.
It is irresponsible for politicians to call for an end to the discussion and threaten financial ramifications. It is just as irresponsible for large corporations to obfuscate facts that are contrary to their side of the argument.
Nuclear power has been at this dogmatic stage for a while. Long enough that certain positions are trust cues for inclusion in many political groups.
My advice to politicians, reporters and pundits is engage in the discussion make your opinions known but don't try to use external pressure to change the science and don't disregard facts (true or not) just because they are counter to your preexisting meme structure.
Global Warming
Aggregation post.
No judgments just a bunch of links.
Forest Fires Reversal
Breathing Earth
Typical UN Effectiveness
A letter to Exxon
The Cow
I found this when reading Volokh.
an Exerpt
"Here's what I like about Ebenezer Scrooge: His meager lodgings were dark because darkness is cheap, and barely heated because coal is not free. His dinner was gruel, which he prepared himself. Scrooge paid no man to wait on him.
Scrooge has been called ungenerous. I say that's a bum rap. What could be more generous than keeping your lamps unlit and your plate unfilled, leaving more fuel for others to burn and more food for others to eat? Who is a more benevolent neighbor than the man who employs no servants, freeing them to wait on someone else?
Oh, it might be slightly more complicated than that. Maybe when Scrooge demands less coal for his fire, less coal ends up being mined. But that's fine, too. Instead of digging coal for Scrooge, some would-be miner is now free to perform some other service for himself or someone else."
and best of all
"In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world's resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide."
On the other hand there was that whole Tiny Tim thing. Not so great there. Pretty good description of the whole problem isn't it.
Was Scrooge the first real environmentalist?
Orbital Influences
No judgments just a bunch of links.
Forest Fires Reversal
Breathing Earth
Typical UN Effectiveness
A letter to Exxon
The Cow
I found this when reading Volokh.
an Exerpt
"Here's what I like about Ebenezer Scrooge: His meager lodgings were dark because darkness is cheap, and barely heated because coal is not free. His dinner was gruel, which he prepared himself. Scrooge paid no man to wait on him.
Scrooge has been called ungenerous. I say that's a bum rap. What could be more generous than keeping your lamps unlit and your plate unfilled, leaving more fuel for others to burn and more food for others to eat? Who is a more benevolent neighbor than the man who employs no servants, freeing them to wait on someone else?
Oh, it might be slightly more complicated than that. Maybe when Scrooge demands less coal for his fire, less coal ends up being mined. But that's fine, too. Instead of digging coal for Scrooge, some would-be miner is now free to perform some other service for himself or someone else."
and best of all
"In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world's resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide."
On the other hand there was that whole Tiny Tim thing. Not so great there. Pretty good description of the whole problem isn't it.
Was Scrooge the first real environmentalist?
Orbital Influences
25 December, 2006
Rago's Rant, Part II
So Joseph Rago doesn't think much of Blogs? Well guess what, we bloggers don't think much of his ilk either. Credentialed Journalists indeed! It would be different if these so-called Journalists actually knew something besides Journalism. In fact, I'd settle for Journalists who actually understood their own craft, never mind what the rest of the world has to offer.
Yeah, we've seen lots of hard bitten Journalists lately. We've seen ignoramuses who couldn't detect blatently photoshopped images from their "photo-journalist" bretheren. We've seen people who selectively report what world leaders say. We've seen opinion and theories reported as fact. And they wonder why people hold them in such low regard? Wake Up Mr. Rago.
Meanwhile, there are scandals of world shaking magnitude brewing all around the UN and nobody sees fit to report on it. Remember Oil for Food? What about all the interesting dirt that Claudia Rosette dug up years ago and continues to research? Has anyone seen fit to follow up on it?
We're blasted daily about reports of global warming. What we don't see are the numerous studies indicating that the consequences may not be as rapid or as dire as first thought. For example, the polar bear population study on the cover of Time? That was one study of many. It was the only study showing a decline in polar bear population. Guess which one got reported?
Sensationalism sells. That's what's wrong with the decendants of town criers. Nobody likes to yell "All's Well." It's much more fun to scream "THE EARTH IS BURNING" at the public. By the way, I do not doubt that the earth probably is warming. I merely question the hysteria that surrounds this issue: a hysteria fomented primarily by your colleagues, Mr. Rago.
As for my credentials, well, I feel I'm far more qualified to report about a SCADA system than any wordsmith who calls him/herself a Journalist. Sure enough, my description may not be as concise and my language may be rough around the edges. However I will be far more precise and I will use the correct terms. Shall I get a ghost writer to mediate this stuff, or would you prefer to read about first hand?
Let me ask a similar question: Do we need to be certified graduate with a computer science degree to write good software? Go look on Sourceforge. Yes, there are some folks who could use help writing a decently stable program. But if there weren't some really talented amateurs out there I wouldn't be typing this 'blog on an open source OS and browser.
This is also true about scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and so on. Yeah, there are lots of amateurs out there. Many do not know as much as they should. But they're learning. And so is the public. Among the literate, you'll often find that popularity is not a bad guide for who knows their stuff and who doesn't.
Wait, did I say Popularity? Well, I guess I did. It is the same gauge we use to see how well newspapers and magazines measure up. Mr. Rago, I think you need to consider the message buried deep in those unworthy 'blogs. They just might know what you do not.
You see, I think Marshall McLuhan was wrong: The medium is not the message. It's all about the information, stupid.
Yeah, we've seen lots of hard bitten Journalists lately. We've seen ignoramuses who couldn't detect blatently photoshopped images from their "photo-journalist" bretheren. We've seen people who selectively report what world leaders say. We've seen opinion and theories reported as fact. And they wonder why people hold them in such low regard? Wake Up Mr. Rago.
Meanwhile, there are scandals of world shaking magnitude brewing all around the UN and nobody sees fit to report on it. Remember Oil for Food? What about all the interesting dirt that Claudia Rosette dug up years ago and continues to research? Has anyone seen fit to follow up on it?
We're blasted daily about reports of global warming. What we don't see are the numerous studies indicating that the consequences may not be as rapid or as dire as first thought. For example, the polar bear population study on the cover of Time? That was one study of many. It was the only study showing a decline in polar bear population. Guess which one got reported?
Sensationalism sells. That's what's wrong with the decendants of town criers. Nobody likes to yell "All's Well." It's much more fun to scream "THE EARTH IS BURNING" at the public. By the way, I do not doubt that the earth probably is warming. I merely question the hysteria that surrounds this issue: a hysteria fomented primarily by your colleagues, Mr. Rago.
As for my credentials, well, I feel I'm far more qualified to report about a SCADA system than any wordsmith who calls him/herself a Journalist. Sure enough, my description may not be as concise and my language may be rough around the edges. However I will be far more precise and I will use the correct terms. Shall I get a ghost writer to mediate this stuff, or would you prefer to read about first hand?
Let me ask a similar question: Do we need to be certified graduate with a computer science degree to write good software? Go look on Sourceforge. Yes, there are some folks who could use help writing a decently stable program. But if there weren't some really talented amateurs out there I wouldn't be typing this 'blog on an open source OS and browser.
This is also true about scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and so on. Yeah, there are lots of amateurs out there. Many do not know as much as they should. But they're learning. And so is the public. Among the literate, you'll often find that popularity is not a bad guide for who knows their stuff and who doesn't.
Wait, did I say Popularity? Well, I guess I did. It is the same gauge we use to see how well newspapers and magazines measure up. Mr. Rago, I think you need to consider the message buried deep in those unworthy 'blogs. They just might know what you do not.
You see, I think Marshall McLuhan was wrong: The medium is not the message. It's all about the information, stupid.
02 December, 2006
Crazy Idea #2 - Biofuel X Challenge or VC Challenge
Unfortunately I don't have the money to back this up myself but looking at some of the items yesterday in the VC's post I got to thinking about a twist on an idea I have been toying with for a bit.
Develop a remotely automated "production plant" that is sized to fit within a standard sized shipping container.
The plant would have to be able to receive farm waste (It must receive any bio farm waste) and process it into three outputs. BioDiesel, Ethanol and unprocessable waste. A farmer would order it and after processing their normal crops would feed their waste into it. The useful outputs would go to appropriate external tanks. Periodically someone would pick them up (or more properly their contents) for delivery to refineries.
The keys are:
Entire thing sized to fit in (or as part of) a standard shipping container.
Remotely operated and monitored. Perhaps even to the extent of optimization software being remote.
Requires nothing more than the dumping of farm waste and removal of unprocessable waste by the farm hands.
Economics:
Most of the cost would be development costs. Once the basic design is set it should be relatively inexpensive to make. Viability would be dependant on how much Bio diesel and Ethanol can be produced per time unit and relative work requirements for the farmers. Economy of scale would certainly apply.
A few models of use
Direct sale to the farms and agriculture groups.
Purchase by Oil/Energy Companies (any BP guys reading you guys are into green)and disperse to farms for free. The farmers get steeply discounted diesel oil for their work or might even produce enough for free oil and cash payments.
Governmental support in terms of augment of subsidies based on participation with goal to supplant "Foreign Oil" and reduce cumulative CO2 emissions.
This weeks crazy idea. Spread the Meme
Last weeks at the end of this post
SO VC's and DARPA step up.
Develop a remotely automated "production plant" that is sized to fit within a standard sized shipping container.
The plant would have to be able to receive farm waste (It must receive any bio farm waste) and process it into three outputs. BioDiesel, Ethanol and unprocessable waste. A farmer would order it and after processing their normal crops would feed their waste into it. The useful outputs would go to appropriate external tanks. Periodically someone would pick them up (or more properly their contents) for delivery to refineries.
The keys are:
Entire thing sized to fit in (or as part of) a standard shipping container.
Remotely operated and monitored. Perhaps even to the extent of optimization software being remote.
Requires nothing more than the dumping of farm waste and removal of unprocessable waste by the farm hands.
Economics:
Most of the cost would be development costs. Once the basic design is set it should be relatively inexpensive to make. Viability would be dependant on how much Bio diesel and Ethanol can be produced per time unit and relative work requirements for the farmers. Economy of scale would certainly apply.
A few models of use
Direct sale to the farms and agriculture groups.
Purchase by Oil/Energy Companies (any BP guys reading you guys are into green)and disperse to farms for free. The farmers get steeply discounted diesel oil for their work or might even produce enough for free oil and cash payments.
Governmental support in terms of augment of subsidies based on participation with goal to supplant "Foreign Oil" and reduce cumulative CO2 emissions.
This weeks crazy idea. Spread the Meme
Last weeks at the end of this post
SO VC's and DARPA step up.
23 November, 2006
Basement Fusion - Cool I scooped the Register by two days
Basement Fusion
http://dcssec.blogspot.com/2006/11/basement-fusion-no-really.html
Did I mention that a 17 year old made fusion in has basement? In Detroit.
http://dcssec.blogspot.com/2006/11/basement-fusion-no-really.html
Did I mention that a 17 year old made fusion in has basement? In Detroit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
