Switch it off: Eskom

Wikipedia said:
The same manufacturer (Lockheed) admits that the design of this smaller reactor is still at a very early stage, and to date no prototype has been built, although, according to the researchers behind this project, all the physics involved has already been proved. No technical detail of the new design has been published or revealed, bringing some skepticism about the real feasibility of such a reactor.
Click to expand...
So I won't waste my money on the solar kit then? :)
 
Packer said:
The way I see it is that the Eskom idiots are already looking at FISSION nuclear generation (from Russia). Fusion is a lot safer and will not cause the same damage when the inevitable failures occur and the ‘damage crews’ are blundering around incompetently. It has the promise of being much cleaner, safer, smaller and cheaper.

As well, it’s simply a source of heat so dirty fossil fuel sources of heat can be discarded and substituted for fusion – use the same boilers and infrastructure of existing power stations. No difference to the consumer except your electricity bill goes down.
Click to expand...

Fusion is still highly experimental and it will still be a long time till it sees any kind of commercial use
 
xumwun said:
Fusion is still highly experimental and it will still be a long time till it sees any kind of commercial use
Click to expand...

I have watched fusion videos. Lockheed claims 5 years to a ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype and 10 years to commercial production. I would shorten these timescales slightly. Fusion power is a **VERY** big deal. Lots of countries will be working to duplicate Lockheeds accomplishments. According to Lockheed, 12MW fusion power generator is as big as a shipping container (it fits on a truck).

Up till now the leading designs for controlled fusion research use the tokamak design or the inertial (laser) confinement of a plasma. These are very expensive and big (size of a building). Two countries are collaborating on a tokamak fusion effort at the moment (Russia and France?). Lockheed has brought the expense and size down so radically that it is feasible to have your own in your back yard
 
Packer said:
I have watched fusion videos. Lockheed claims 5 years to a ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype and 10 years to commercial production. I would shorten these timescales slightly. Fusion power is a **VERY** big deal. Lots of countries will be working to duplicate Lockheeds accomplishments. According to Lockheed, 12MW fusion power generator is as big as a shipping container (it fits on a truck).

Up till now the leading designs for controlled fusion research use the tokamak design or the inertial (laser) confinement of a plasma. These are very expensive and big (size of a building). Two countries are collaborating on a tokamak fusion effort at the moment (Russia and France?). Lockheed has brought the expense and size down so radically that it is feasible to have your own in your back yard
Click to expand...

Scientists have been claiming to have achieved stable fusion for most of the last century, but it never materializes, at least not for more than a few seconds. What makes this any different?
 
Packer said:
I have watched fusion videos. Lockheed claims 5 years to a ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype and 10 years to commercial production. I would shorten these timescales slightly. Fusion power is a **VERY** big deal. Lots of countries will be working to duplicate Lockheeds accomplishments. According to Lockheed, 12MW fusion power generator is as big as a shipping container (it fits on a truck).

Up till now the leading designs for controlled fusion research use the tokamak design or the inertial (laser) confinement of a plasma. These are very expensive and big (size of a building). Two countries are collaborating on a tokamak fusion effort at the moment (Russia and France?). Lockheed has brought the expense and size down so radically that it is feasible to have your own in your back yard
Click to expand...
erm, have you followed any of the research on fusion in the last 60 years? Regardless of how confident the researchers are (and the Lockheed okes are not that confident), it will still be a question of does power out exceed power in...
 
garp said:
Scientists have been claiming to have achieved stable fusion for most of the last century, but it never materializes, at least not for more than a few seconds. What makes this any different?
Click to expand...

erm, have you followed any of the research on fusion in the last 60 years? Regardless of how confident the researchers are (and the Lockheed okes are not that confident), it will still be a question of does power out exceed power in...
Click to expand...

Power out does indeed exceed power in (by a fat margin). Lockheed is very confident (100%). Lockheed is a big company with a reputation to protect. This is not like the ‘cold fusion’ claims a few years ago by single scientists. There are technical committees and teams to vet any announcements. This is not a shifty single obsessed scientist making these claims. It is an articulate team leader and technicians, who have gone to the effort of making PR recordings with their equipment in the background, with no backing-and-filling regarding claims. The Lockheed ‘Skunk Works’ have a pretty good reputation to protect. They are unlikely to make erroneous or untested claims. It’s all very clear; 5 years to a prototype (for investors – it’s working under lab conditions), and 10 years to commercial production. I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Have you noticed the drop in oil prices (rumours of fusion power perhaps?)? With the European winter approaching oil prices should be rising! (Significant wriggling of eyebrows).

Do you work for ‘Big Oil’? You must be wetting yourselves in terror.
 
Packer said:
Have you noticed the drop in oil prices (rumours of fusion power perhaps?)? With the European winter approaching oil prices should be rising! (Significant wriggling of eyebrows).

Do you work for ‘Big Oil’? You must be wetting yourselves in terror.
Click to expand...

The oil prices are dropping simply because the supply exceed the demand:

China and EU's growth are very bad and therefore no demand from that side and as EU goes greener, its consumption actually declines (the consumption is the same than in 2003 and less than in the 90's).

A lot of Asian countries have cut the subsidies on petrol and diesel which leads also to a lower consumption because of the higher cost for the population.

On the other side, Libya is back to production faster than expected (experts expected 200 000 barrels/day this year and they were at 810 000 in September), Saudi Arabia likes crushing its ennemies (especially Iran) by sustaining a high production which means a lower price for countries more dependant on oil production than them (Iran, Venezuela) and to piss off the Kuweitis.

And the big one is that US reduced its imports from OPEC by 50% since 2008 while US shale oil production grew to 4mbpd, shale oil and fracking cost more than conventional so by maintaining a high production and forcing the price down, OPEC countries hope that US will import again from them.

Simply supply and demand matter, no conspiracy or fusion news behind the drop.
 
f2wohf said:
The oil prices are dropping simply because the supply exceed the demand:

China and EU's growth are very bad and therefore no demand from that side and as EU goes greener, its consumption actually declines (the consumption is the same than in 2003 and less than in the 90's).

A lot of Asian countries have cut the subsidies on petrol and diesel which leads also to a lower consumption because of the higher cost for the population.

On the other side, Libya is back to production faster than expected (experts expected 200 000 barrels/day this year and they were at 810 000 in September), Saudi Arabia likes crushing its ennemies (especially Iran) by sustaining a high production which means a lower price for countries more dependant on oil production than them (Iran, Venezuela) and to piss off the Kuweitis.

And the big one is that US reduced its imports from OPEC by 50% since 2008 while US shale oil production grew to 4mbpd, shale oil and fracking cost more than conventional so by maintaining a high production and forcing the price down, OPEC countries hope that US will import again from them.

Simply supply and demand matter, no conspiracy or fusion news behind the drop.
Click to expand...

I’m sure fusion power must have some impact on the price of oil. A google search on ‘lockheed fusion power’ returns 49 000 results (google is your friend).

Lockheed’s ‘Skunk Works’ announcement of practical fusion power (cheap, clean and unlimited energy) is bound to influence the price of dirty, polluting and expensive oil.
 
Packer said:
I’m sure fusion power must have some impact on the price of oil. A google search on ‘lockheed fusion power’ returns 49 000 results (google is your friend).

Lockheed’s ‘Skunk Works’ announcement of practical fusion power (cheap, clean and unlimited energy) is bound to influence the price of dirty, polluting and expensive oil.
Click to expand...
It probably will, when, you know, it actually exists.
 
Packer said:
I’m sure fusion power must have some impact on the price of oil. A google search on ‘lockheed fusion power’ returns 49 000 results (google is your friend).

Lockheed’s ‘Skunk Works’ announcement of practical fusion power (cheap, clean and unlimited energy) is bound to influence the price of dirty, polluting and expensive oil.
Click to expand...

The fall has not started when the fusion was announced: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil-brent.aspx?timeframe=1y

And anyway, why would the prices of the oil today change for something that will appear in the best case scenario in 10 years ? It will have an impact the day it will exist.
 
Packer said:
It does exist albeit in laboratory conditions.
Click to expand...
Man-made fusion reactions exist that generate more energy than is required to sustain them?

Please, tell us more. If that was true it would be the biggest news of the century. Even the small steps made by Lawrenceville Plasma Fusion have been huge news and they're nowhere close to break-even.

Edit: Contained reactions of course, bombs don't count.
 
Last edited:
TJ99 said:
Man-made fusion reactions exist that generate more energy than is required to sustain them?

Please, tell us more. If that was true it would be the biggest news of the century. Even the small steps made by Lawrenceville Plasma Fusion have been huge news and they're nowhere close to break-even.
Edit: Contained reactions of course, bombs don't count.
Click to expand...
Kevin Bacon :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X