UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal

[Kosh]

They aren't promoting coal over nuclear over political spite...we promote coal because the left in this country has successfully stopped the creation of nuclear power plants...conservatives don't care where energy comes from...we have no emotional ties to energy sources...we want safe, clean energy that is cheap...and it doesn't matter where it comes from...if you can make solar and wind as efficient and reliable and as cheap and as land efficient as coal, oil and natural gas...fine...I don't care...but tell me I have to accept solar and wind even though it is currently less efficient, less reliable, more costly and less land efficient...simply because green energy makes lefties happy...sorry, not going to go along with that...

You can't possibly believe that.

Everyday on this board we hysterical, 100% emotional, subjective attacks against any form of renewable energy, be it tidal, solar, solar thermal or wind. We also see people triumphing coal, despite the fact that everyone knows that coal is often more expensive, dirtier and less efficient than a good half-dozen other options. Those views are in no way based on science or economics, but as based on blind partisan politics.

I'm not saying the left wing cannot be blind and partisan as well, but let's be honest about it.

You obviously do not understand what you read..

Renewable energies as the replacement for fossil fuels is not even close and that is what is being pointed out. Only the far left wants to end all fossil fuels before any of these renewable energies can replace it.

The other problem you have is that here in the US Obama has made a mockery out of these programs as the far left rammed government money into these projects, only to have them fail so their high end donors could get rich of the unsustainable companies.

 

[Politico]

Fusion is, like nuclear, potentially a wonderful clean, green form of energy production.

The key word here is safety, and I think we are some years away from harnessing safe fusion energy.

You obviously don't know jack shit about fusion. Safety isn't an issue whatsoever with fusion. The fuel is various forms of Hydrogen, all of which are completely safe. There are no fissionable byproducts. The issue is getting it to work.

I don't know a great deal about fusion, but I understand enough to know - as with any form of energy production - safety IS a factor.

"In the magnetic approach, strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to "explode" outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident or an MRI machine quench/explosion, and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.

"Most reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that at about 1 kg the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant's perimeter fence.[135]

"The likelihood of small industrial accidents including the local release of radioactivity and injury to staff cannot be estimated yet. These would include accidental releases of lithium, tritium, or mis-handling of decommissioned radioactive components of the reactor itself.

Fusion power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

All you need to know is fusion is how the sun works. Funny how people are having a multipage argument about something we can't do.

 

[elektra]

I was around before they had commercial nuclear power. I remember the selling points. Absolutely fail safe. Electricity so cheap it would not be metered. And plentiful power. Only the last turned out to be true. Nuclear is very expensive power. And it is a point source, easily shut down either at the point of generation, or somewhere in the transmission. The alternatives are less costly, and closer to the places where the electricity is used. Nuclear has a place in the mix, but it is not viable as the sole source of our power.

I worked at the first commercial nuclear station so I know what you say is true. The thing that killed nuclear was Three Mile Island. It stopped new construction and cost the utilities, consumers, a boat load of money. After TM the cost of nuclear went through the roof.

As for cost you are correct:

Table 8.4. Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 2002 through 2012 (Mills per Kilowatthour)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Operation	Maintenance
Year	Nuclear	Fossil Steam	Hydro-electric	Gas Turbine and Small Scale	Nuclear	Fossil Steam	Hydro-electric	Gas Turbine and Small Scale
2002	9.00	2.59	3.71	3.26	5.04	2.67	2.62	2.38
2003	9.12	2.74	3.47	3.50	5.23	2.72	2.32	2.26
2004	8.97	3.13	3.83	4.27	5.38	2.96	2.76	2.14
2005	8.26	3.21	3.95	3.69	5.27	2.98	2.73	1.89
2006	9.03	3.57	3.76	3.51	5.69	3.19	2.70	2.16
2007	9.54	3.63	5.44	3.26	5.79	3.37	3.87	2.42
2008	9.89	3.72	5.78	3.77	6.20	3.59	3.89	2.72
2009	10.00	4.23	4.88	3.05	6.34	3.96	3.50	2.58
2010	10.50	4.04	5.33	2.79	6.80	3.99	3.81	2.73
2011	10.89	4.02	5.13	2.81	6.80	3.99	3.74	2.93
2012	11.60	3.73	6.71	2.46	6.80	3.99	4.63	2.76

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

SAS Output

Not sure about your "point source" comment. Close to where I live there is a nuclear station and a coal station right next to each other. They would both be "point sources." Never the less both could be shut down at the source regardless of location.

As for reliability, doing a google I came up with these numbers from a UK site:

wind farms have an assumed availability at peak of 10%
Solar power is an intermittent energy source.
hydroelectric power stations have an assumed availability at peak of 60%.
nuclear power stations have an assumed availability at peak of 75%.
gas-fired power stations have an assumed availability at peak of 90%
coal-fired power stations have an assumed availability at peak of 90%.
oil-fired power stations have an assumed availability at peak of 80%.

So it seems that one of the cheapest most reliable sources is what we are shutting down. Nuclear is good and reliable with an output that is very predictable. One of the major metrics in measuring nuclear performance is on line time. Which really is the only way nuclear is viable. Short outages and nice long on line times.

You worked at waltz mill?

 

[Saigon]

Renewable energies as the replacement for fossil fuels is not even close and that is what is being pointed out. Only the far left wants to end all fossil fuels before any of these renewable energies can replace it.

The other problem you have is that here in the US Obama has made a mockery out of these programs as the far left rammed government money into these projects, only to have them fail so their high end donors could get rich of the unsustainable companies.

Do you ever post anything without all of this childish nosennse about the "far left"?

Firstly, you patently have no idea at all what 'far left' is, or you would know that it is far more applicable to Belarus, North Korea or Transnistria than it ever has been to the USA.

Secondly, I can think of a good 20 countries that do not use fossil fuels to generate electricity, but instead use a combination of nuclear and/or hydro and renewables. So obviously fossil fuels not only can be phased out in many countries - they already had been a decade ago.

Thirdly, no donor or investor gets rich if a company fails. This is not exactly rocket science.

Really, Kosh - try and post with a little common sense, otherwise there is simply no point in anyone reading your posts, let alone respond to them.

 

[elektra]

Renewable energies as the replacement for fossil fuels is not even close and that is what is being pointed out. Only the far left wants to end all fossil fuels before any of these renewable energies can replace it.

The other problem you have is that here in the US Obama has made a mockery out of these programs as the far left rammed government money into these projects, only to have them fail so their high end donors could get rich of the unsustainable companies.

Do you ever post anything without all of this childish nosennse about the "far left"?

Firstly, you patently have no idea at all what 'far left' is, or you would know that it is far more applicable to Belarus, North Korea or Transnistria than it ever has been to the USA.

Secondly, I can think of a good 20 countries that do not use fossil fuels to generate electricity, but instead use a combination of nuclear and/or hydro and renewables. So obviously fossil fuels not only can be phased out in many countries - they already had been a decade ago.

Thirdly, no donor or investor gets rich if a company fails. This is not exactly rocket science.

Really, Kosh - try and post with a little common sense, otherwise there is simply no point in anyone reading your posts, let alone respond to them.

Fossil fuels can be phased out?

Not if you plan on using green energy, green energy is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels.

No country can live without fossil fuel.

 

[Kosh]

Renewable energies as the replacement for fossil fuels is not even close and that is what is being pointed out. Only the far left wants to end all fossil fuels before any of these renewable energies can replace it.

The other problem you have is that here in the US Obama has made a mockery out of these programs as the far left rammed government money into these projects, only to have them fail so their high end donors could get rich of the unsustainable companies.

Do you ever post anything without all of this childish nosennse about the "far left"?

Firstly, you patently have no idea at all what 'far left' is, or you would know that it is far more applicable to Belarus, North Korea or Transnistria than it ever has been to the USA.

Secondly, I can think of a good 20 countries that do not use fossil fuels to generate electricity, but instead use a combination of nuclear and/or hydro and renewables. So obviously fossil fuels not only can be phased out in many countries - they already had been a decade ago.

Thirdly, no donor or investor gets rich if a company fails. This is not exactly rocket science.

Really, Kosh - try and post with a little common sense, otherwise there is simply no point in anyone reading your posts, let alone respond to them.

To point out the evil on the planet (the far left) is not childish, it is fight against that extreme group (which is worse than ISIS).

And yes I know what "far left" is in modern translations. Then again you must think that was huge difference between nazism and communism, all because of certain labels.

There is no country on this planet that does not use fossil fuels. You just outed yourself again.

And yes people can make money on failing companies. The companies that government monies were not sustainable, yet million and billons were piped into them. The insider trading (which is legal if you are in Congress) is well known. The stocks are every low the donors get wind buy all they can, then with a week the government money flows into that company. The stock prices shoot up. The company fails and those that invested based on their buddies in Congress get rich as all those workers get kicked to the curb.

Do you really know anything about anything? or do you like to argue just argue like a good far left soldier does?

 

[Saigon]

Kosh -

You're a child.

Given I derive no pleasure from watching you walk around with your pants around your ankles, I'll put you on ignore mode for your own protection. In all honest,y I don't recall when I last came across a weaker poster.

 

[Saigon]

Fossil fuels can be phased out?

Not if you plan on using green energy, green energy is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels.

No country can live without fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel can be phased out in electricity production; yes, of course. As mentioned earlier, I can think of a dozen countries that do not use fossil fuels to produce electricity.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh -

You're a child.

Given I derive no pleasure from watching you walk around with your pants around your ankles, I'll put you on ignore mode for your own protection. In all honest,y I don't recall when I last came across a weaker poster.

And thus proves that they are far left..

 

[elektra]

Fossil fuels can be phased out?

Not if you plan on using green energy, green energy is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels.

No country can live without fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel can be phased out in electricity production; yes, of course. As mentioned earlier, I can think of a dozen countries that do not use fossil fuels to produce electricity.

Like?

 

[Kosh]

Fossil fuels can be phased out?

Not if you plan on using green energy, green energy is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels.

No country can live without fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel can be phased out in electricity production; yes, of course. As mentioned earlier, I can think of a dozen countries that do not use fossil fuels to produce electricity.

And yet has no evidence to back up their claims. This is typical of the far left.

Again there is no nation that does NOT use fossil fuels in their electricity. Unless one does NOT consider natural gas as fossil fuel..

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hey, OP! I missed the part where lefties are opposed to fusion reactors.

This is something that USMB nutters do often. They grab something that they see as positive and convince themselves that liberals hate it. This is often something that liberals really love. Like America, freedom, business and personal responsibility, the first amendment. Lots of stuff.

It's a bullshit political strategy. And some USMB nutters have become very good at lying to themselves.

Fail thread. You should have just put it in "energy" and had a nice discussion about it, asshole.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bump.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yo, OP. Where'd ya go?