Tesla to blanket the US with supercharging stations in 2 years

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

30x20 of solar panels isn't that depressing. That would fit just fine on most roofs, wouldn't it?

Given that there is no shade and the roof is entirely slanted toward the sun... maybe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against solar energy... but everything we are discussing doesn't take into account the install costs, the maintenance, the lifespan, etc etc

Originally Posted by mesmith31

Now here you have a project that understands the scope of coverage required to get the kind of power needed. It's completely impractical on many levels but it shows the massive square footage you are talking about when you look at our power requirements.

The biggest issue is a simple one... we just waste too damn much energy. That isn't likely to change much. Which is why I am a huge proponent of funding fusion research. As "impractical" as it sounds, it is actually one of the most realistic measures we can take towards safe, clean renewable energy that would exceed demand such that it would drive down costs and could theoretically bring a boatload of manufacturing back to the US. As we move more and more toward automation, energy and transport costs not labor will be the deciding factor on where a factory gets built.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Given that there is no shade and the roof is entirely slanted toward the sun... maybe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against solar energy... but everything we are discussing doesn't take into account the install costs, the maintenance, the lifespan, etc etc



Now here you have a project that understands the scope of coverage required to get the kind of power needed. It's completely impractical on many levels but it shows the massive square footage you are talking about when you look at our power requirements.

The biggest issue is a simple one... we just waste too damn much energy. That isn't likely to change much. Which is why I am a huge proponent of funding fusion research. As "impractical" as it sounds, it is actually one of the most realistic measures we can take towards safe, clean renewable energy that would exceed demand such that it would drive down costs and could theoretically bring a boatload of manufacturing back to the US. As we move more and more toward automation, energy and transport costs not labor will be the deciding factor on where a factory gets built.

What do you think it would take to initiate a self-sustaining and safe fusion reaction?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

What do you think it would take to initiate a self-sustaining and safe fusion reaction?

The safe part is the easiest part. Unlike fission, a fusion reactor that has a catastrophic failure simple stops. The only "unsafe" part of it is the irradiation of any casing/shielding materials which produce a minimal amount of waste. The "Holy Grail" is to get to aneutronic fusion which eliminates that by creating a reaction whose byproduct can be converted directly to electrical energy. Think of it in terms of creating a mini sun to power solar cells. That isn't accurate but it works well enough as an analogy.

The self-sustaining part is where we have problems. The term for this is "ignition." You have two basic approaches to achieve this. I can go into details if anyone cares but let's just say the US facility working on this uses lasers and the Europeans use magnets. (Wow, that is so oversimplified it sounds stupid) At one point we were ahead of the Europeans on this but massive cutbacks in funding (thanks to both Obama and Congress) have let the Europeans jump ahead. It actually doesn't matter who "wins" the race in this both approaches have significantly advanced the science in recent years.

Ok, let's focus on the Euro project, ITER, since they are currently in the lead. (could change at any point though and I still think NIF has a more solid approach) The Euros aren't messing around. They are building an experimental reactor now and expect it to be operational by the 2030s. IF it works, they expect to produce 10 times the energy that is put into the reaction.

I can go through a litany of engineering issues that both projects are facing but the real issue is funding. We know the science works it's now down to engineering issues which can always be solved with time and money. The problem is that the scale of time and money we are talking about is pretty damn huge, but the payoff is well worth it in my mind.

[SPATCH]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Given that there is no shade and the roof is entirely slanted toward the sun... maybe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against solar energy... but everything we are discussing doesn't take into account the install costs, the maintenance, the lifespan, etc etc

install costs, maintenance, etc. don't scare me as much as knowingly continuing to increase our dependency on an energy source that is not renewable.

There are challenges facing green technology.. but that's exciting. I hope that advancing renewable energy will be one of the great feats that we accomplish as humans of the early 21st century.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by the_spatula

install costs, maintenance, etc. don't scare me as much as knowingly continuing to increase our dependency on an energy source that is not renewable.

There are challenges facing green technology.. but that's exciting. I hope that advancing renewable energy will be one of the great feats that we accomplish as humans of the early 21st century.

I agree I just look at all the limitations and think we currently have a "middle of the road" approach to things. We are looking past the short term of fossil fuels but are jumping the gun and wasting a ton of money on "solutions" that are half baked and simply CAN'T EVER truly meet our long term needs. Again, this is why I'm a "fusion guy."

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I agree I just look at all the limitations and think we currently have a "middle of the road" approach to things. We are looking past the short term of fossil fuels but are jumping the gun and wasting a ton of money on "solutions" that are half baked and simply CAN'T EVER truly meet our long term needs. Again, this is why I'm a "fusion guy."

You're right in saying that much of the problem is waste. A huge amount of energy can be saved by continuing to make our country more efficient.

Which is why Philips move away from low voltage lighting pisses me off. I'd like to find a good system before I build a house. Doesn't make a lot of sense to try to build energy efficient, and use antiquated lighting systems.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I agree I just look at all the limitations and think we currently have a "middle of the road" approach to things. We are looking past the short term of fossil fuels but are jumping the gun and wasting a ton of money on "solutions" that are half baked and simply CAN'T EVER truly meet our long term needs. Again, this is why I'm a "fusion guy."

Iter's not even really begun yet, and they're already years behind. Plus, even if ITER works, it's just the experiment and not going to be used as an actual power plant. We probably won't see fusion power in our lifetimes.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Iter's not even really begun yet, and they're already years behind. Plus, even if ITER works, it's just the experiment and not going to be used as an actual power plant. We probably won't see fusion power in our lifetimes.

ITER is funded and has been under construction for 3 years now. It's moving along quite nicely right now. Of course there WILL be delays, there are always are. My point is that if we keep redirecting funding to half assed "solutions" it only delays fusion further.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

ITER is funded and has been under construction for 3 years now. It's moving along quite nicely right now. Of course there WILL be delays, there are always are. My point is that if we keep redirecting funding to half assed "solutions" it only delays fusion further.

I don't count the science buildings as part of the reactor, so I don't count that as construction. The contract for building the Tokamak Complex was just signed this March. I should have been more clear in my post, so my apologies for any confusion. As for the project itself, the completion date has already been pushed back to 2022, and that's likely just the beginning. Heck, they just recently got design approval for a reactor component, so we're really talking about a project that's not even past the drawing board stage in some ways.

Also, one of ITER's problems has been cost overruns that have resulted in other projects getting scrapped so that ITER can continue, so I'm not really sure where you're getting the notion of funding being redirected elsewhere.

One example:

ITER has been a thorn in the side of the seven partners—China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States—because its estimated cost has almost tripled since the final agreement was struck in 2006. This is particularly difficult for the European Union because, as host, it must foot 45% of the bill. When the full extent of the cost overruns became apparent last year, the European Union found that its funding pot for fusion research, which runs to the end of 2013, was short by €1.3 billion. An agreement was made to use unspent funds in the 2010 E.U. budget to pay for the shortfall, but that deal fell victim to the politicking surrounding the E.U.'s 2011 budget.

Now the three statutory bodies of the European Union have agreed to cobble together €360 million from anticipated unspent funds in the still-to-be-decided 2013 budget. Another €840 million will be found by shifting money from 2012 and 2013 budget lines for farm and fishing subsidies, rural development, and environment, into the ones covering research. The remaining €100 million had already been allocated to ITER in the 2012 budget.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...on-needed.html

Are you talking about it strictly here in the USA, even though the USA is funding part of ITER?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I don't count the science buildings as part of the reactor, so I don't count that as construction. The contract for building the Tokamak Complex was just signed this March. I should have been more clear in my post, so my apologies for any confusion. As for the project itself, the completion date has already been pushed back to 2022, and that's likely just the beginning. Heck, they just recently got design approval for a reactor component, so we're really talking about a project that's not even past the drawing board stage in some ways.

Also, one of ITER's problems has been cost overruns that have resulted in other projects getting scrapped so that ITER can continue, so I'm not really sure where you're getting the notion of funding being redirected elsewhere.

One example:



http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...on-needed.html

Are you talking about it strictly here in the USA, even though the USA is funding part of ITER?

Yes I was speaking to NIF funding specifically. NIF is already underfunded and facing huge cuts.

I'm aware we fund ITER as well, which I support wholeheartedly.

As for the project details, yes it has been pushed back and I'm certain more delays will occur, it's a massive undertaking. BUT this is the kind of massive undertaking I support funding for instead of wasted subsidies to manufacture tech that needs more research to be viable. (solar) Don't get me wrong, I think we need to diversify for sure. I'm all about research money being spread around, I just think MANUFACTURING subsidies are a massive waste. Short sighted bullshit political cronyistic waste. (and don't anyone try to use this thread to assign blame to a specific group here, everyone on both sides of the aisle is guilty of this bullshit and has been for years)