Re: Fusion Reactors

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 12:49:47 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "War and oil in the UK papers (long)"

    george murphy wrote:

    >
    > But there is no guarantee that this is possible. Of
    >course controlled
    > fusion is possible - the sun does it all the time. But short of building a
    > star, it may be that plasma instabilities and all the other problems that
    > beset controlled fusion research will mean that fusion as a source of power
    > for everyday use just isn't viable.

    Snip

    >
    > Implications:
    > 1. The parts of the space-time universe accessible to us are
    > characterized by finitude. There will only be finite energy resources, our
    > life spans will always be finite, and we are limited to a finite part of
    > space.
    > 2. Appropriate use of technology is part of the vocation which God
    > gives to humanity, but if we think we're going to use technology to build the
    > Kingdom of God, we're going to be disappointed.

    It is indeed a profound question as to what the Lord plans for the
    human race over
    a long period of time. We can be certain that we can accomplish only
    those things
    which He permits. The basic issues are far more than oil or electricity.

    1.) There are too many people in the world for the world's natural resources to
    allow us to continue for very much longer in many respects
    .
    2.) Some people think that civilization is not really bringing forth "good" and
    that a return to the cultures of the past may not be a bad thing. Glenn Morton
    claims that we will revert to the middle ages -- but stepping back
    to the 1800's
    is a more realistic limit.

    3.) The US has dumped more money into the "Big Dig" in Boston than would be
    required for development of a fusion reactor. If it were a national
    goal and the US
    did try, then we could get to find out if it were possible.

    Glenn Morton Writes :

    > Think of the things for which petroleum or natural gas is the base.
    > Airplane travel, Fertilizers(made from petroleum and natural gas) and
    > insecticides(made from petroleum) for crops, plastics, distribution of food
    > and raw material.
    >

    But nuclear fusion cannot be used in these applications all that
    fusion would do is
    offload electrical power generation from consuming it's portions of oil.

    > Hydrocarbons make 42% of the world's electricity.
    >

    According to the official USA site
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.htm ,
    most of the electricity generated in the US is by coal, followed by nuclear,
    followed by natural gas, followed by water and then by petroleum with petroleum
    being a very small fraction of the total. Nuclear fission (100+
    plants in the US)
    produce 7 times as much electricity as petroleum does. Coal plus
    nuclear plus water
    plus "other" make up 82% while natural gas and petroleum are the remaining 18%.

    Also the site http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/nuclear.htm
    shows that nuclear
    (fission) is growing without the need for fusion. Perhaps these are
    the reasons for
    a lack of passion for fusion in the US.

    The reason that nuclear power is not more extensive in the US is
    political. Fusion
    or fission is unlikely to make much difference to those opposed to
    nuclear. It is
    so bad that the medical profession uses the term MRI instead of NMRI
    because of the
    fearful word "Nuclear" (See
    http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/mri/chap-1/chap-1.htm ).

    Or so it all seems to me.

    Walt

    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    ===================================

    --------------FB41A427845676347BAE5F9D
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
    <html>
    &nbsp;
    <p>george murphy wrote:
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But there is no guarantee
    that this is possible.&nbsp; Of course controlled
    <br>fusion is possible - the sun does it all the time.&nbsp; But short
    of building a
    <br>star, it may be that plasma instabilities and all the other problems
    that
    <br>beset controlled fusion research will mean that fusion as a source
    of power
    <br>for everyday use just isn't viable.</blockquote>
    Snip
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Implications:
    <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp; The parts
    of the space-time universe accessible to us are
    <br>characterized by finitude.&nbsp; There will only be finite energy
    resources,
    our
    <br>life spans will always be finite, and we are limited to a finite part
    of
    <br>space.
    <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; Appropriate
    use of technology is part of the vocation which God
    <br>gives to humanity, but if we think we're going to use technology to
    build the
    <br>Kingdom of God, we're going to be disappointed.</blockquote>
    It is indeed a profound question as to what the Lord plans for the human
    race over a long period of time. We can be certain that we can accomplish
    only those things which He permits. The basic issues are far more than
    oil or electricity.
    <p>1.) There are too many people in the world for the world's natural resources
    to allow us to continue for very much longer in many respects
    <br>.
    <br>2.) Some people think that civilization is not really bringing forth
    "good" and that a return to the cultures of the past may not be a bad thing.
    Glenn Morton claims that we will revert to the middle ages&nbsp; -- but
    stepping back to the 1800's is a more realistic limit.
    <p>3.) The US has dumped more money into the "Big Dig" in Boston than would
    be required for development of a fusion reactor. If it were a national
    goal and the US did try, then we could get to find out if it were possible.
    <p>Glenn Morton Writes :
    <br>&nbsp;
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <pre>Think of the things for which petroleum or natural gas is the base.
    Airplane travel, Fertilizers(made from petroleum and natural gas) and
    insecticides(made from petroleum) for crops, plastics, distribution of food
    and raw material.</pre>
    </blockquote>

    <p><br>But nuclear fusion cannot be used in these applications all that
    fusion would do is offload electrical power generation from consuming it's
    portions of oil.
    <br>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <pre>Hydrocarbons make 42% of the world's electricity.</pre>
    </blockquote>

    <p><br>According to the official USA site <A
    HREF="http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.htm">http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.htm>
    ,
    <br>most of the electricity generated in the US is by coal, followed by
    nuclear, followed by natural gas, followed by water and then by petroleum
    with petroleum being a very small fraction of the total. Nuclear fission
    (100+ plants in the US) produce 7 times as much electricity as petroleum
    does. Coal plus nuclear plus water plus "other" make up 82% while natural
    gas and petroleum are the remaining 18%.&nbsp;
    <p>Also the site <A
    HREF="
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/nuclear.htm">http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/nuclear.htm>
    shows
    that nuclear (fission) is growing without the need for fusion. Perhaps
    these are the reasons for a lack of passion for fusion in the US.
    <p>The reason that nuclear power is not more extensive in the US is political.
    Fusion or fission is unlikely to make much difference to those opposed
    to nuclear. It is so bad that the medical profession uses the term MRI
    instead of NMRI because of the fearful word "Nuclear" (See <A
    HREF="
    http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/mri/chap-1/chap-1.htm">http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/mri/chap-1/chap-1.htm>
    ).
    <p>Or so it all seems to me.
    <br>&nbsp;
    <p>Walt
    <br>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;
    <br>&nbsp;
    <p>===================================
    <br>Walt Hicks &lt;
    wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    <p>In any consistent theory, there must
    <br>exist true but not provable statements.
    <br>(Godel's Theorem)
    <p>You can only find the truth with logic
    <br>If you have already found the truth
    <br>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    <br>===================================
    <br>&nbsp;</html>

    --------------FB41A427845676347BAE5F9D--



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 15:30:06 EDT