171–180 of 240 posts
2040s? 20+ years from now!?! Too fuckin slow!! For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.
And yet quite a few Musk promises perpetually planned in the coming years will probably end up with that kind of timeframe too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a gram of deuterium, per e=mc^2, we get ~10^12J Deuterium is not antimatter, where they entire mass of the substance is converted to energy. In nuclear reactions only a very small percentage of matter (~1%) is converted to energy.
So by your estimate (~1%), a gram of deuterium can provide power equivalent to a year of intense sunshine?
per square meter.
Both are fair small quantities.
From the Wikipedia, D+T fusion leads to 17.6MeV, while their total energy is around 4.5GeV, so 1% is overstating it a few times.
Ok, say I've got a new design for a fusion reactor, but it takes me 5 years to convince anyone that it's worth investigating. Fusion power has been set back 5 years. Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please! http://www.DDPROfusion.com
I can’t evaluate your design but I can evaluate your messaging. You need to do something to distinguish yourself from cranks and scammers, like write it up in a paper and get it published - and stop referring to yourself in plural.
This isn't LENR with some mystic explanation requiring new physics. This is hot, thermal fusion contained by a novel, but very simple to understand set of fields.
I've talked to many, physicists and am open to criticism about the design. If I don't know the answer to a question I admit it.
Since it's such a new device, there hasn't been any rigorous analysis of it yet, so there is nothing to publish. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Ok, say I've got a new design for a fusion reactor, but it takes me 5 years to convince anyone that it's worth investigating. Fusion power has been set back 5 years. Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please! http://www.DDPROfusion.com
>Someone please help me evaluate my design. Have you submitted your research for peer review, and if not, why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been helping with messaging for somebody looking for demonstration funding for an experimentally proven clean oil recovery technology and it makes me feel hopeless seeing there are so many people struggling to demonstrate potentially game changing technologies, often because people investing or allocating money have little technical competence. for those curious: http://www.envirotechdme.com If I could offer you…
But does this person own all of the intellectual property?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the US value from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... vs #2 (Switzerland) is $US800 000 000 000 for all US residents in extra spending.
I'm confused by these data. It's common knowledge that the US spends much more per capita on Healthcare, however the commonly offered explanation for this is that the private healthcare system in the US is less efficient than the public systems in Europe. But the graph in the provided link shows that US costs are split evenly between private spending and public spending. This is confusing because the private system i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fusion is not going to solve the sea level rise problem. You can see this by comparing it to fission. Fission fuels is not expensive on a kWh base, so cheaper fuel is not really a big advantage. Fusion plants produce radioactive waste too (perhaps less?), so you don't save yourself from that headache. Which isn't actually that big of a problem either, even if the costs are probably underestimated for fission plants.…
Wouldn't the major differentiator be the safety standards? You can't have a runaway reaction, because you need energy input to the magnet field to get more energy out. Instead of creating the right environment to get a chain reaction started if your control rods end up in the wrong place. Drop the magnet field and it all collapses. Even if you lose control of it with the magnet field on the quantity is limited, tokam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most fossil-based electric generation is not oil; it's either natural gas (reasonably clean, though it does produce a lot of CO₂), or coal (terrible on many counts). I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.
At the end of 2016 there were 50,000 coal miners in the US.[1] Their average annual pay is $29K.[2] We could give each of them one million dollars, invested and paying out 3% annually, and the $50B it costs would be a drop in the bucket compared to the economic benefit of eliminating those carbon emissions. In fact, it would even be cheaper than the healthcare costs of pollution from coal plants, which amounts to $18…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fission is a solved engineering and science problem though and we’re still blocking it to let the sea levels rise. Point being, nobody actually cares about climate change enough to make hard decisions so a Manhattan style project is highly unlikely.
Is there a way to make people care? Personally, I think, for United States it does make perfect sense to redirect, say, half of the military budget onto solving real homeland security issues: climate change, sustainability, ecology, pandemics. There might be enough budget there to address climate change [1]. It'd be a risk to spend less on military, but considering that the United States has nuclear weapons and allie…