DBH106@PSUVM.BITNET (03/26/89)
Bravo! Bravo!! The researchers at the University of Utah should be congratulated for their breakthrough. Does this mean the environmentalists will have to find another line of work, with all the possible ways that a clean power source could be used to alleviate the pollution problem? CONGRATULATIONS UU! Awaiting further developments, Dan Harter DBH106@PSUVM.BITNET Penn State University DBH10
kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) (03/28/89)
The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what if fusion turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't foresee radioactive waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Second, what if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen.
siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) (03/29/89)
In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > >The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the >Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what if fusion >turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't foresee radioactive >waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches >anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Second, what >if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine >a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. Wow. Some people really love to pour cold water on things before they even get off the ground. Here we're discussing a method that has not even been well documented yet. We don't know if it's economically feasible or even theoretically sound. To go from here to H-bombs in one step does take a lot of imagination. While I agree with the need for caution in looking at any new process or technique, I believe that something as important as room-temperature fusion should first be studied for its merits as an energy source. As for H-bombs, note that many do-it-yourself guides have been written for producing fission bombs already. Fortunately for mankind, few people combine both genocidal instincts and the intelligence required to make such a bomb. Even the worst terrorist groups have not resorted to bomb production. There's no reason to think they're going to now. ------- SIDDARTH SUBRAMANIAN siddarth@cs.utexas.edu "$#$#^&^*())*&&^hghg@44*&^##[][]" - R2D2
scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (03/29/89)
Miroslav Kocic writes: |The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the |Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what if fusion |turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't foresee radioactive |waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, How on earth do you come to this conclusion? |and, if history teaches |anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Second, what |if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine |a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. I'm sure you can... -- .............................................................................. Scott C. Jensen scj@mecc.MN.ORG
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (03/30/89)
In article <77762DBH106@PSUVM> DBH106@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Bravo! Bravo!! The researchers at the University of Utah should be >congratulated for their breakthrough. Does this mean the environmentalists >will have to find another line of work, with all the possible ways that >a clean power source could be used to alleviate the pollution problem? I dare say that a lot of them will attack this just as strongly as they have attacked fission. After all, the neutron emmissions will cause the containment to slowly become radioactive, so there will still be some hazardous waste to deal with (albeit orders of magnitude less than other power sources). Nuclear and radioactive are extremely emotionally laden words with great camera appeal. In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works) to utility use only for two reasons. First, there will be political pressure to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the power grid. Second, the US government tries to restrict access to heavy water, one of the reasons that heavy water reactors (which cannot melt down) are illegal for commercial (even utility) use in the US (they are standard issue in Canada). -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu_cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien =============================================================================
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > >The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the >Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what if fusion >turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't foresee radioactive >waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches >anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Second, what >if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine >a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. 1) The problems with fission WERE forseen at this stage with fission. In fact, one of the two original designs submitted to the government when it requested proposals for fission power plants could not melt down (similar to most US university reactors). The US govt made a decision that meltdowns were unlikely enough that they were not an issue, and required all utilities to use light water reactors instead. When the utilities objected (utilities are, after all, extremely conservative) the US govt assumed all liabilities from a catastrophic meltdown. Of course, they recently decided that was unfair and capped what the govt will pay ... In addition, radioactive waste was considered a problem immediately. Again, utilities were unwilling to come to the table until the US govt assumed all responsibility for waste disposal. Of course, the govt did nothing ... 2) History does not teach us that everything has a proportional price, it teaches us that people will use something until its price is as much as the benefit. Before cars, there were serious concerns that horse waste (manure) was destroying public health and would destroy cities as viable entities. Cars pushed transportation down to the middle and lower classes and saved cities until the price got to the break-even point. 3) You cannot make an H-bomb with catalized fusion of the type described. That is as silly as saying you can make an atom bomb from radioactive watch dials. -- ============================================================================= A path is a terrible thing to waste ... decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu_cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien =============================================================================
dan@salt.uucp (Dan Williams) (03/30/89)
from (Miroslav Kocic) > The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity > of the Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what > if fusion turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't > foresee radioactive waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this > stage, and, if history teaches anything, it teaches that every benefit > has a proportional price. Second, what if cold fusion becomes the > crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine a thousand fanatics in > 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. We don't even know if a chemical H-bomb is a feasable idea with this technology. I think it may be a little premature to start talking about the sky falling. Any way the word is out and at this point there is probably no way you can shut this discovery down. Once people kown that a thing is doable then they will find a way to do it. If the price for the technology is too high then it won't be used. There will be a price. Nothing comes for free. In an interview I heard, one of the researchers was talking about a period of twenty years while they look into the possiblities of this discovery, like scaling up the size, investigating changes, enviromental impact, and anything else their fertile little brains can come up with. I think twenty years is a little pesimistic on their part since there will be a lot of presure to speed up development. But on the plus side you can bet that there will be not a little money thrown their way. I think this will tell you that they are approaching this discovery with all appropriate caution. There will be enough people looking at this to enumerate any problems we can think of. If we can't think of a problem that may manefest itself in the future then there is no way we could have known and we will deal with it when it comes. Now if only this is for real then these postings have some meaning. _______________________________________________________ | fusion is a reality | | Dan Williams uunet!salt!dan | | MCDONNELL DOUGLAS Denver CO | | Any opinions expressed by me are not the | | opinions of McDonnell Douglas. |up.
johna@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > >The discussion in this newsgroup has so far been about the authenticity of the >Utah breakthrough, but I have two different concerns. First, what if fusion >turns out to create problems we don't foresee? We didn't foresee radioactive >waste or meltdowns back when fission was at this stage, and, if history teaches >anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Second, what >if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy production? I can imagine >a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.
cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) (03/30/89)
In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes: >>[quotation deleted] >With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be >talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect. Not necessarily. Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of land into mirrors. Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal. I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount of energy we use. In other words, we could compensate for all the energy we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space. The greenhouse effect probably traps much more heat than would be produced by any fusion we could use. Worrying about a "furnace effect" from fusion is almost as groundless as worrying about one from solar energy. (That came up in sci.nanotech a while ago, and I gave the same answer except, "Imagine how cheap it would be, with nanotechnology, to...") Chris Phoenix cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (03/30/89)
In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: }power sources). Nuclear and radioactive are extremely emotionally laden }words with great camera appeal. Yeah, that's why Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is now called Magnetic Resonance Imaging. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
miket@blic.BLI.COM (Mike Tossy) (03/31/89)
>> >>I'm not sure that distributed energy production has anything intrinsically >>going for it that centralized doesn't - basically the centralization is >>a response to economics just like centralized food production (they call >>them farms, meat packers, grain co-ops, etc.), centralized news media (I >>suppose we COULD all do our own investigative reporting), centralized >>traffic control (again - we could all get 4X4's and take off cross-country), >Ok Bob, think for a second. Energy production is not analogous to >telecommunications OR food production. The most important factor is >the distribution loss (either I2 x R or thermal) that result from >trying to produce energy in one location and move it to another. >Producing energy locally would make us a much less energy intensive >nation. The only disadvantage to local energy production is that >utilities don't make as much money. :-) Seems to me that the distribution loss is not "the most important factor". There are others. As with today's fossil fuel plants, the cold fusion plants may turn out to be more efficent at larger sizes. The cost of the operations staff (unless you believe these cells can operated without staffing) could make some centralization cost effective. Even if they can operate unmanned then perhaps maintainance might still make for less expensive centralized operation (it maybe cheaper to ship "cheap fusion power" over an existing power grid than to move maintainance personnel from house to house). Again depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand. (My house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power at night. Today with centralized power production we can share the installed power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.) Other arguments are possible of course. An assembly line might produce standard units at a low enough cost as to make decentralization possible. Or perhaps something in between, perhaps neighborhood power stations? You can even envision that "advanced countries" like the U.S. would adopt a centralized approach because of our existing power grid, while "developing countries" might go for a distributed approach and avoid the capital investment of building a power grid. (Look at railways, very few developing countries find them cost effective to build, but most countries that developed during the rail age find them cost effective to maintain.) As always it is going to get down to economics (plus other social considerations). Unfortunately for those environmentalists who like to snipe at utilities the truth is that utilities do perform a socally useful function and that usefulness may very well continue even if cold fusion works. Final point: being "much less energy intensive nation" is not a "goodness" in isolation. There is nothing morally superior about using less energy, per say. The problem of energy use comes from the side effects that our current energy production techniques. Would you believe that using less energy was good if all our energy was produced with alternative methods like solar? Reducing the cost of energy has been traditionally how societies have increased the value of human labor, and I think that is a moral goodness. I'm glad I live in a society of "mechanical slaves" instead of human ones. --Mike Tossy (No I don't work for a Utility.)
maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) (03/31/89)
In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > > In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works) > to utility use only for two reasons. First, there will be political pressure > to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would > be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the > power grid. Be the first on your block with your own fusion reactor!!! What a great idea, we can all have our table top fusion reactor which will create some steam which will drive the turbines which are connected to a generator -)-). Yep, this has to be much cheaper than buying electric from those mean old utility companies. Just buy the wife a lead jacket when she does the laundry in the basement in case those nasty radioactive stuff happens to leak. Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system, $5,000 sounds realistic. How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. What about the radioactive waste, I guess we could water the lawn with it. This is reality. Mark Armstrong
kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) (03/31/89)
In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: > Path: pasteur!ames!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!csli!cphoenix > From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) > Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space,sci.environment,misc.headlines,sci.misc > Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported > Message-ID: <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU> > Date: 30 Mar 89 09:30:26 GMT > References: <18213@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <3451@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <77762DBH106@PSUVM> <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> > Sender: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) > Reply-To: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) > Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. > Lines: 22 > Xref: pasteur sci.research:876 sci.space:10590 sci.environment:731 misc.headlines:12080 sci.misc:3720 > > In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes: > > Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of > land into mirrors. Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it > smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal. Not to flame, but this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've read in this group. In addition to totally destroying part of the environment, it simply will not work for two reasons: 1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or water in the atmosphere to hold the heat. Reflecting it during the day would not significantly increase amount of heat which is radiated over time. 2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected sunlight would get trapped on the way back up and end up warming the atmosphere anyway. Finally, unlimited power does not imply cheap power. Cold fusion aside, everything that I've heard about fusion implies that it will be very expensive. I haven't heard anyone who would really know claim that cold fusion will be cheap. How much does palladium cost? How long will it last in in a fusion environment? I hope that if you are ever in a position to make decisions which will affect the envorinment, you will give more thought about the ramifications of your position. Chuck Kring UC Berkeley CAD Group kring@ic.Berkeley.EDU
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/31/89)
In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: >In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works) >to utility use only for two reasons. First, there will be political pressure >to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would >be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the >power grid. This I agree with whole-heartedly. But the cat is now out of the bag, as it were, and they'll NEVER stuff it back in should this technology pan out -- especially if it can be done with other, more common metals! I wish the government good luck in trying to stop people from utilizing this technology -- on just what grounds could they possibly manage to pull THAT one off? >Second, the US government tries to restrict access to heavy >water, one of the reasons that heavy water reactors (which cannot melt >down) are illegal for commercial (even utility) use in the US (they are >standard issue in Canada). Why is this so? What in the dickens is so wonderful or terrifying about heavy water (outside of this obvious application)? Heck, it's present in SEAWATER -- no, not in high quantities, but it's there. Nearly anyone who has the money and equipment should be able to extract it from the sea; I can't understand why they would not want it available..... perhaps I've missed something important here. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (03/31/89)
In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM>, johna@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes: > > With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be > talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect. The greenhouse effect is not due to the release of energy from burning fossil fuels. It is due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide (and other gases) in the atmosphere which affects the retention of solar radiation. Heating the planet as direct effect of power generation would take an enormously greater per capita consumption of energy for the whole planet than the present per capita use in the USA. In other words, the use of fusion power as a source of energy is less of a problem from the point of view of the greenhouse effect than any other energy generation scheme, with the exception of fission power. I include solar energy here because solar collectors tend to locally decrease the albedo of the Earth. An example of a real problem with cold fusion (as reported in the press, I make no claims for its reality) would be its tendency to irradiate its container vessel with neutrons (producing some quantity of low level radioactive waste) and release tritium (a nasty isotope of hydrogen with a tendency to get absorbed into body tissues and a half life short enough to give a healthy dose of radiation per unit time). The first may less of an issue with cold fusion than hot if the claim of a low neutron yield holds up. The second requires some care (although the short half life might make waste disposal a manageable problem). I have no idea, in practical terms, how much it will cost to deal with these issues, but if you want to speculate about problems with cold fusion they make a good starting point. Thermonuclear fusion has lots of problems as previously discussed here and elsewhere. I note that given sufficiently cheap energy it is possible to overcome most pollution problems associated with modern industry. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?
andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) (03/31/89)
In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes: > Not to flame, but this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've read in this > group. > [...] > How much does palladium cost? How long will it last in in a fusion > environment? > I hope that if you are ever in a position to make decisions which will affect > the envorinment, you will give more thought about the ramifications of your > position. > > Chuck Kring > UC Berkeley CAD Group > kring@ic.Berkeley.EDU Leaving the issue of mirrors aside... If you had bothered to inform yourself from the mails on this topic, you would know the answers to these questions. Yes to flame, but in the pot-and-kettle sense. I hope that if you are ever in a position to make decisions which will affect the environment, you will give more thought to the answers to your questions. ======= Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip
michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) (03/31/89)
In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> kocic@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > >[...] if history teaches >anything, it teaches that every benefit has a proportional price. Actually, history teaches no such thing. Benefits and prices of any given discovery or invention don't correlate. Those with prices up to their benefits tend to be developed and used (unless something cheaper does the job as well or better). Those with excessive prices are discarded. This creates the illusion of proportional cost. Once this illusion is set in your mind, everything new with improved price/ performance makes you think "there's got to be a catch", and sends you on a search to find the catch. If you can't accept the lack of a catch, you can never end your search, and can never go beyond what had been done before. This is not to say such a search is folly. Many things DO have catches, and these need to be discovered. But be prepared to acknowledge real wonders now and then.
128a-3cl@web-2h.berkeley.edu (Anon </>) (03/31/89)
In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes: >In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: >> In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes: >> >> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of >> land into mirrors. Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it >> smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal. > >Not to flame, but this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've read in this >group. Skipping a bit... > 2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected > sunlight would get trapped on the way back up and end up warming the > atmosphere anyway. Not to flame :) , but this is not strictly true. The greenhouse effect requires sunlight to be absorbed by something, and the energy to be reemitted in frequencies which are absorbed more efficiently by the atmosphere. A mirror, or a region with a high albedo (such as a snow-field) reflects sunlight rather than absorbing/reemitting it. This can have a net cooling effect, and there is speculation that this is one mechanism which maintains the cool temperatures in an ice age. --MYC
watson@shinobu.sgi.com (David Watson) (03/31/89)
In article <1008@blic.BLI.COM> miket@blic.BLI.COM (Mike Tossy) writes:
[...] depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build
less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would
be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand. (My
house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power
at night. Today with centralized power production we can share the
installed power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.)
This implies something that deserves explicit mention: there is nothing
I know of that makes a "grid" incompatible with decentralizing energy
production. In at least some places, individuals with windmills sell
their surplus power back to a utility. If each household made enough
power on the average, couldn't we still use the "grid" just to balance the
load? What if utilities stopped producing and became brokers?
-D.ard@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Akash Deshpande(0000)) (03/31/89)
In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes: >In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: >> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of >> land into mirrors. > > 1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or > 2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected and spacecrafts and airplanes will have a real problem. Gives a new meaning to mirage, though. And isn't there a plane called mirage, tying all these together? -Akash Akash Deshpande ATT Paradyne uunet!pdn!ard Mail stop LG-129 (813) 530-8307 o Largo, Florida 34649-2826 Like certain orifices, every one has opinions. I haven't seen my employer's!
psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (04/01/89)
<"Would you like me to summon Data so he could offer a few dozen synonyms?"> In article <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, kocic@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Miroslav Kocic) writes: > . . . what if cold fusion becomes the crack-cocaine of energy > production? I can imagine a thousand fanatics in 750 terrorist > cells making an H-bomb in their kitchen. Seems to me that rec.arts.sf-lovers is the "right" group to discuss the social implications of cheap, simple fusion. It's certainly the right group for my response to the above, taken from Larry Niven's story, "ARM" (from THE LONG ARM OF GIL HAMILTON, 1976, p. 118 of my paperback copy; the story first appeared in 1975): Monitoring of technology is necessary enough, but may have happened too late. There are enough fusion power plants and fusion rocket motors and fusion seawater distilleries around to let any madman or group thereof blow up the Earth or any selected part of it. In Niven's future history, the risk is worth it. I hope it is in ours! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. (If you have opinions on discussing fusion in the SF group, send me e-mail; I'll post a summary to the various groups.)
fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (04/01/89)
In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: | In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes: | >>[quotation deleted] | >With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be | >talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect. | Not necessarily. | Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of | land into mirrors. Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it | smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal. | I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on | the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount | of energy we use. In other words, we could compensate for all the energy | we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with | mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space. The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up. Richt? Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that energy. Or is this too low tech? -- Phil Hughes -- FYL -- 8315 Lk City Wy NE -- Suite 207 -- Seattle, WA 98115 {uw-beaver!tikal,uunet!pilchuck}!ssc!fylz!fyl
cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) (04/03/89)
In article <291@fylz.UUCP> fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: >| In other words, we could compensate for all the energy >| we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with >| mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space. > >The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to >supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount >of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up. Richt? > >Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built >the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that >energy. Or is this too low tech? > This is a lot harder to do. For one thing, for a collection system the mirrors have to track the sun, and reflect all the energy to one point. With a reflective system they just have to get it anywhere above the horizon. A collection system may not put the energy where we want it, and will require storage facilities. Assuming fusion reactors are easy enough to build to be useful at all, it will be a lot easier to put a reactor where we want the power and the simple mirrors where there's a lot of sun and unused land, than to try to build and use a solar power plant. In response to some earlier questions: The greenhouse effect would not reflect the light back down to earth. It reflects heat generated when light is absorbed by the earth. If light hits mirrors, it will be broadcast as light instead of heat. This is the crucial difference. Obviously, there would be environmental problems with coating a lot of the earth with mirrors. But I don't see how they could be worse than those caused by our present fossil-fuel system. We probably wouldn't need to coat all that much to make the difference--almost certainly less land area than would be covered by water if the ice caps melted. I'm not saying that this would necessarily be a good idea to do, just that it would be a good idea to consider. If I actually propose doing it, then you can flame me for destroying the environment. Chris Phoenix cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (04/03/89)
In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU> cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) writes: >Not necessarily. >Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of >land into mirrors. Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it >smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal. How about just painting all roofs in all our cities white? Sounds a lot cheaper, and should work almost as well. If you are going to melt deserts, you probably will : 1) generate a *lot* more heat than you reflect 2) piss off a *lot* of environmentalists 3) kill off a *lot* of wildlife 4) change permanently a *lot* of weather patterns 5) blind a *lot* of airline pilots 6...infinity) your own imagination can fill in the rest What a dumb idea -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up!
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/04/89)
In article <1052@elmgate.UUCP> maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes: }... Just buy the wife a lead jacket when she does the laundry in the }basement in case those nasty radioactive stuff happens to leak. First, there's nothing radioactive to leak. The working fluids are all quite safe. Only the shielding will become radioactive, if there's significant neutron emission. Second, why put one in the basement? I'd expect mine to be buried a ways down under my back yard. }Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity }instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system, }$5,000 sounds realistic. ... That's about what I cost it out to. I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy independent. }... How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. ... A quart of heavy water has enough energy to power my house for the rest of my life and beyond. The only moving parts are in the generator (probably a stirling cycle engine. Steam turbines aren't efficient enough at that scale). Under current law, the utilities are required to buy any excess power I can generate and put on the grid. I'll bet I can break even on maintenance just doing that. }... What about }the radioactive waste, I guess we could water the lawn with it. This is }reality. What radioactive waste? The inside of some of the shielding may get a little hot, assuming neutron emission is a problem, but it's several feet of solid lead and reinforced concrete, buried under ground. The working fluids pose no hazard. If (worst case) an earthquake breaks the whole thing open I'll have a nasty, expensive clean up job (for which I'll carry insurance), but the general environment won't be damaged. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) (04/04/89)
In article <4182@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1052@elmgate.UUCP> maa@elmgate.UUCP (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes: > [...] > }Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity > }instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system, > }$5,000 sounds realistic. ... > > That's about what I cost it out to. I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy > independent. > > }... How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. ... > > A quart of heavy water has enough energy to power my house for the rest of > my life and beyond. The only moving parts are in the generator (probably > a stirling cycle engine. Steam turbines aren't efficient enough at that > scale). Under current law, the utilities are required to buy any excess > power I can generate and put on the grid. I'll bet I can break even on > maintenance just doing that. *** Note *** Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for periodic calibration inspections by the utility company. So if there is any merit to the giant 'hill of salt' speculation that we could all have fusion generators in our backyard, be prepared to add an additional $1500 to your overhead costs plus $100 to your annual cost. Richard Frost E-mail: sdsu!frost@ucsd.edu - a scientist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing! (Ziman)
jimiii@mips.COM (Jim Warford) (04/05/89)
In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes: > >Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate >YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a >synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for >periodic calibration inspections by the utility company. > I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance just in case your equipment malfunctions and wreaks havoc on the electric companies equipment. --jimiii@mips.com