Government Not Funding Research

[JLawson]

I mean, i guess some people might not want other forms being pursued because economies of scale might diminish, but it's weird how many people only want their tech to proliferate. I don't think there's a reason for a fusion man to give two squats about a wind man as long the both of them are making progress.

I want something that works. Something that can maintain a civilization that's become completely dependent on 24/7/365 electricity, and that uses a LOT of it. It could be giant mutant hamsters running frantically in really large wheels attached to turbines for all I care - but two things that are VITAL are constant availability and a whoppin' big lot of gigawatt availability.

Windpower's not in that league, and it's not likely to get there. Call me picky, but I'm just not impressed with something that doesn't generate electricity at least 90% of the time its needed.

[Helius]

I mean, i guess some people might not want other forms being pursued because economies of scale might diminish, but it's weird how many people only want their tech to proliferate. I don't think there's a reason for a fusion man to give two squats about a wind man as long the both of them are making progress.

I want something that works. Something that can maintain a civilization that's become completely dependent on 24/7/365 electricity, and that uses a LOT of it. It could be giant mutant hamsters running frantically in really large wheels attached to turbines for all I care - but two things that are VITAL are constant availability and a whoppin' big lot of gigawatt availability.

Windpower's not in that league, and it's not likely to get there. Call me picky, but I'm just not impressed with something that doesn't generate electricity at least 90% of the time its needed.

You can have either energy justification for paternalistic socialist freespending left wing Gubberment, OR you can have energy independence. Take your pick. You can't have both. Windmills: They way to paternalism and an endless supply of unsolved energy problems.

[Professor Science]

And I see I've been ignored as all my critics act like if wind power is present at all, all other forms power generation are punishable by death or something comparably ludicrous.

[MSimon]

And I see I've been ignored as all my critics act like if wind power is present at all, all other forms power generation are punishable by death or something comparably ludicrous.

Wind power would be wonderful if it either cost less than coal or it was as reliable as coal.

Since it is neither it has drawbacks.

[JLawson]

You can have either energy justification for paternalistic socialist freespending left wing Gubberment, OR you can have energy independence. Take your pick. You can't have both. Windmills: They way to paternalism and an endless supply of unsolved energy problems.

And there you hit the nail on the head. Windmills sound like a good idea, until you look at the actuality instead of the fantasy. For a farm, or a couple of houses who don't mind maintaining batteries or even up to a small town that doesn't mind maintaining a warehouse full of batteries - it's not a bad idea. Add in some energy-intensive industry, and suddenly it's a lot less feasible.

A lot of things that sound good on a small scale don't ramp up that well, and windpower is one of them, in my opinion. You have maintenance issues, battery life and replacement and hazmat issues - and those are manageable at a small scale. At a large town/medium city scale, it becomes unmanageable.

As MSimon said, if it cost less or was as reliable as coal, it'd be a contender. But it isn't, and it's not. That doesn't mean it can't be, given sufficient technological advances and enough unobtanium - but for the foreseeable future? Nope, it ain't there.

[vankirkc]

And I see I've been ignored as all my critics act like if wind power is present at all, all other forms power generation are punishable by death or something comparably ludicrous.

Wind power would be wonderful if it either cost less than coal or it was as reliable as coal.

Since it is neither it has drawbacks.

Here's the rub though. If there's no global warming, as you are so keen to point out, why would we need to consider anything other than coal? The only significant obstacle to coal power generation is CO2 production.

[MSimon]

And I see I've been ignored as all my critics act like if wind power is present at all, all other forms power generation are punishable by death or something comparably ludicrous.

Wind power would be wonderful if it either cost less than coal or it was as reliable as coal.

Since it is neither it has drawbacks.

Here's the rub though. If there's no global warming, as you are so keen to point out, why would we need to consider anything other than coal? The only significant obstacle to coal power generation is CO2 production.

Eventually you run out of coal. Maybe not for 100 years, maybe not for 1,000. But it has a short time horizon. Nuclear might go for 300 to 3,000 years. Fusion could go for millions.

[KitemanSA]

Here's the rub though. If there's no global warming, as you are so keen to point out, why would we need to consider anything other than coal? The only significant obstacle to coal power generation is CO2 production.

Coal was disfavored way before AGW became the rallying cry. The SO2, the HS, the ash, the smoke, the Uranium, the strip-mines... Unless it turns out we NEED the CO2 to stop us from going into a new Ice Age, I would want coal replaced by a cleaner technology anyway.

Besides, BFRs could be much cheaper than coal. That is good too.

[djolds1]

Eventually you run out of coal. Maybe not for 100 years, maybe not for 1,000. But it has a short time horizon. Nuclear might go for 300 to 3,000 years. Fusion could go for millions.

Using breeder reactors, fission should be able to produce power for several billion years.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/prog ... r-faq.html

[vankirkc]

Wind power would be wonderful if it either cost less than coal or it was as reliable as coal.

Since it is neither it has drawbacks.

Here's the rub though. If there's no global warming, as you are so keen to point out, why would we need to consider anything other than coal? The only significant obstacle to coal power generation is CO2 production.

Eventually you run out of coal. Maybe not for 100 years, maybe not for 1,000. But it has a short time horizon. Nuclear might go for 300 to 3,000 years. Fusion could go for millions.

Yes but 100 to 1000 years from now does not a pressing problem make. Why spend money on it now, in the middle of a financial meltdown, if it's not going to be really needed for 900 more years?

I think a better argument, if you don't believe in AGW, is that fossil fuels are sources of other beneficial chemical compounds that are non-trivial to produce from other sources (e.g. plastics, nitrates, etc).

[MSimon]

Why spend money on it now, in the middle of a financial meltdown, if it's not going to be really needed for 900 more years?

Because it gives people comfort to think something is being done. Which is useful.

And in any case starting and stopping fundamental research based on economic conditions is short sighted.

You are correct if the timeline is 1,000 years. If it is 100 we had better get cracking. Because it takes 100 years to change a big system - and that is 100 years from the time a solution is found. Of course if the gains are high enough (electric lights) it can be done in about 1/2 or 3/4s of a century.

[cpg123]

Yes but 100 to 1000 years from now does not a pressing problem make. Why spend money on it now, in the middle of a financial meltdown, if it's not going to be really needed for 900 more years?

Where should I start?

Imagine that you can use 1000 times more energy than you do today without worrying about environmental impact or cost. What would you do with that energy? Well, some might say there is no need for that much energy, but that reminds me of Bill Gates' infamous quote, "640K ought to be enough for anybody." It's possible that we will not, "need" this energy source for 100 years, but we will most definitely "need" it before 1000 years. The Uranium supply will only last 200 years at current consumption (which is still a small percentage of total power usage). Coal will last 155 years or so at current consumption levels. Natural gas is also in the 100 or so year range (didn't take the time to find the data on this one, but I seem to remember it being around 100 years). Oil much less than that. If we run out of Oil, we'll have to start tapping more into coal and nuclear which will cause them to run out faster, also if the undeveloped nations start demanding more energy, this will change current consumption levels and cause the supplies of all these resources to dwindle. Also note that just because we have 155 years of Coal power doesn't mean that the price will stay stable. If demand goes up, we will all be paying more for it. Also, the amount needed to fund this project are extremely small, but the rewards if it does work out are almost unimaginable. Even if it were only used by the Navy to replace the fission based nuclear reactors on boats/subs, I think that's a good investment. Clearly there are many more uses than that. In my opinion, this is a good use of tax payer money.