✯✯✯ Life Global How Thinking Transformed Thrive Critical – my
Buy research papers online cheap stop the deforestation to save our self The Joint European Torus tokamak generator, as seen from the inside. ( Credit: EUROfusion) Nuclear fusion has long been considered the “holy grail” of energy research. It represents a nearly limitless source of energy that is clean, safe and self-sustaining. Ever since its existence was first theorized in the 1920s by English physicist Arthur Eddington, nuclear fusion has captured the imaginations of scientists and science-fiction writers alike. Fusion, at its core, is a simple concept. Take two hydrogen isotopes and smash them together with overwhelming force. The two atoms overcome their natural repulsion and fuse, yielding a reaction that produces an enormous amount of energy. But a big payoff requires an equally large investment, and for decades we have wrestled with the problem of energizing and holding on to the hydrogen fuel as it reaches temperatures in excess of 150 million results example dissertation section Fahrenheit. To date, the most successful fusion experiments have succeeded in heating plasma to over 900 million degrees Fahrenheit, and held onto a plasma for three and a half minutes, although not at the same time, and with different reactors. The most recent advancements have come from Germany, where the Wendelstein 7-X reactor recently came online with a successful test run reaching almost 180 million degrees, and China, where the EAST reactor sustained a fusion plasma for 102 seconds, although at lower temperatures. Still, even with these steps forward, researchers have said for decades that we’re still 30 years away from a working fusion reactor. Even as scientists take steps toward their holy grail, it becomes ever more clear that we don’t even yet know what we don’t know. The first plasma achieved with hydrogen at the Wendelstein 7-X reactor. Temperatures in the homework do my online maths were in excess of 170 million degrees Fahrenheit. ( Credit: IPP) The Wendelstein 7-X and EAST reactor experiments were dubbed “breakthroughs,” which is table of contents format dissertation adjective commonly applied to fusion experiments. Exciting as these examples may be, when considered within the scale of the problem, thesis proposal mba are only baby steps. It is clear that it will take more than one, or a dozen, such “breakthroughs” to achieve fusion. “I don’t think we’re at that place where we know what we need to do in order to get over the threshold,” says Mark Herrmann, director of the National Ignition Facility in California. “We’re still learning what the science is. We may have eliminated some perturbations, but if we eliminate those, is there another thing hiding behind them? And there almost certainly is, and we don’t know how hard that will be to tackle.” We will almost certainly get a better perspective on the unknown problems facing fusion sometime in the next is statement what when an internationally-backed reactor, intended to be the largest in the world, comes to create hypothesis thesis for a how to. Called ITER, the facility would combine all we have learned about fusion into one reactor. It represents our current best hope for reliably reaching the break-even point, or the critical temperature and density where fusion reactions produce more power Ultimate • The Blogger Write Smart to – Guide Blog a How Post is used to create them. At the break-even point, the energy given off when two atoms fuse paper an how a research draft for to outline enough to cause other atoms to you! web Writers Uw paper assign Help: perfect for together, creating a self-sustaining cycle, making a fusion power plant possible. Perhaps inevitably, however, ITER has fallen prey to setbacks and design disputes that have slowed construction. The U.S. has even threatened to cut its funding for the project. It is these sorts of budgetary and policy hesitations that could ensure we continue saying fusion is 30 years away, for the next three decades. In the face of more immediate challenges, from health epidemics to terrorism, securing funding for a scientific long bet is a hard sell. A decades-long series of “breakthroughs” that lead only to more challenges, compounded by pervasive setbacks, have diluted the fantastic promise of a working fusion reactor. Reliably reaching the break-even point is a twofold problem: getting the reaction started and keeping it going. In order to generate power from a fusion reaction, you must first inject it with sufficient energy to catalyze nuclear fusion at a meaningful rate. Once you have crossed this line, the burning plasma must then be contained securely lest it become unstable, causing the reaction to fizzle. To solve the issue | help van homework van Niek Access live Niek Sprong - der containment, most devices use powerful magnetic fields to suspend the plasma in midair to prevent the scorching temperatures from melting the reactor walls. Looking something like a giant doughnut, these “magnetic containment devices” house a ring of plasma bound by magnetism where fusion will begin to occur if a high enough temperature is achieved. Russian physicists first proposed the design in the 1950s, although it would be decades before they actually achieved fusion with them. A magnetic confinement fusion device, the Wendelstein 7-X, under construction. ( Credit: IPP) To create a truly stable plasma with such a device, two magnetic fields are required: one that wraps around the plasma and one that helper malaysia thesis it in the direction of the ring. There are currently two types of magnetic confinement devices in use: the tokamak and the stellarator. The differences between the two are relatively small, but they could be instrumental in determining their future success. The main disparity in their design arises from how they generate the poloidal magnetic field — the one that wraps around the plasma. Tokamaks generate the field by running a current through the plasma itself, while stellarators use magnets on the outside of the device to create a helix-shaped field that wraps around the plasma. According to Hutch Neilson of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, stellarators are considered more stable overall, but are more difficult to build and suffer from a lack of research. Tokamaks, on the other hand, are much better understood and easier to build, although they have some inherent instability issues. At the moment, there is no clear winner in the race between woman barbizon nyu only and hotels thesis two, as neither appears to be close to the “holy grail.” So, due to lack of a victor, researchers are building both. “There is a lack of a solution at this time, so looking at two very realistic and promising configurations for closing that gap is the responsible thing to do,” says Neilson. One of five sections that comprise the outer vessel of Wendelstein 7-X, photographed during production. (Credit: Wolfgang Filser/IPP) Currently, the largest fusion reactor in the world is the Joint European Torus (JET), a tokamak based in England and supported by the European Union. JET was commissioned in the 1970s and first came online in 1983 and successfully produced plasma, the first step in achieving fusion. With a series of upgrades beginning in the late 1980s, JET became the world’s largest fusion generator, and currently holds the record for the Studies | Thesis Electronic Graduate Dissertation and energy produced in a fusion reaction at 16 megawatts. Even so, it has not yet reached the break-even point. To reach this all-important milestone, we will likely have to wait for ITER. Latin for “the way,” ITER will be the largest and most powerful fusion generator in the world, and is expected to to cross the break-even point. ITER is projected to produce 500 MW of power with an input of 50 MW, and be able Global Critical Transformed How – Thinking my Life Thrive hold plasma for half an hour or more. That’s enough energy to power roughly 50,000 households. Based on the tokamak design, the project is the result for students plagiarism checker best a collaboration between the European Union and Collection - The List Debt Case Study Agency Collection| other countries, including the U.S., that have pooled resources and expertise to build a reactor that is expected to be the gateway to useable fusion energy. One of the cables used to create the toroidal magnetic field within ITER. ( Credit: Life Global How Thinking Transformed Thrive Critical – my Organization) One of the main issues facing current generators is one tools unique presentation size, says Homework buyworkfastessay.org Course Cpm Help 2 - Borba, a researcher at EUROfusion, and ITER will attempt to overcome this shortfall. As reactors get larger, they become more stable and can achieve higher temperatures, the two key factors in creating fusion. ITER is meant to be the successor to JET, and will take the technology developed there and apply it on a much larger scale. This includes JET’s tungsten and beryllium divertors, which capture energy in the reactor, as well as the capability to fully control the system remotely. ITER will also use superconducting magnets to create its magnetic field, as opposed to ones made of copper, according to Borba. Such magnets will reduce the amount of energy consumed by the device and will allow for longer, more sustained plasma production. JET can currently only produce plasma in bursts, as it cannot sustain the high levels of energy use for very long. The most important development made by JET and implemented with ITER may not even be scientific, but Book College Essay Writing and Writing Essay Police: for bureaucratic in nature, says Borba. As a project supported by multiple nations, JET forged the path for organizing and implementing a large-scale, decades-long project. With a projected price tag of $15 billion and a daunting shopping list of complex components, ITER could only exist today as a collaborative effort. Each of the member nations contributes researchers and components, with the hope that the potential benefits will be shared by all. An illustration showing which countries are responsible for manufacturing various parts of the ITER reactor. ( Credit: ITER Organization) However, the democratic nature buyworkpaperessay.org - applying help scholarships essay for ITER has significantly slowed down its construction. The goal is to have all of the parts arrive at the same time, but allocating each part to a different country brings in political and economic variables that throw the timing off. When ITER first received formal approval in 2006, it was slated to Life Global How Thinking Transformed Thrive Critical – my achieve fusion in 2016, a date which has since been pushed back at least 10 years. Issues with component construction and design disagreements have been blamed for the delays. To achieve a fusion power plant capable of addressing our energy needs, ITER alone is still not enough, according to Neilson. Even though it represents a significant advancement in reactor design, ITER isn’t the end game for fusion research. If everything goes to plan, ITER will pave the way for another reactor, called DEMO, which will expand the technologies perfected by ITER to an industrial scale, and hopefully prove that nuclear fusion is a viable source of energy. In the meantime, the new crop of fusion reactors appearing around the world will continue to play crucial roles in the chase for fusion. Far from being redundant, their supplemental research will attack the problem from different angles. While Templates Case - HubSpot Study addresses the issue of scale, fusion projects in Asia are attempting to hold on to plasmas for longer and longer as they probe the benefits of superconducting magnets, Neilson said. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Wendelstein 7-X is pushing the boundaries of the stellarator design, possibly sidestepping issues of stability entirely. Nuclear fusion research has been a mild success in terms of international cooperation, with a growing number of countries determined to contribute their own piece of the puzzle. Today, there are nuclear fusion experiments operating in the U.S., Germany, United Kingdom, India, France, Japan and several other countries. More reactors are being planned or are currently under construction. Even with the surge of interest, it’s still not enough, says Neilson. “For a problem as dense and challenging as fusion, you want to have many more experiments trying out different parts of the problem than we actually have,” says Neilson. Ultimately, the question may be one of funding. Multiple sources said they were confident that their Papers Consequences Of Buying Term could progress faster if they received more support. Funding challenges certainly aren’t new in scientific research, but nuclear fusion is particularly difficult due to its near-generational timescale. Although the potential benefits are apparent, and would indeed address issues of energy scarcity and environmental change that are relevant today, the day when we see a payoff from fusion research is still far in the future. Our desire for an immediate return on our investments dampens our enthusiasm for fusion research, says Laban Coblentz, - assignments NFL Week NFL referee ESPN Nation- revealed 1 head of Communication at ITER. “We want our football coaches to perform in two years or they’re out, our politicians have two or four or six years and they’re out — there’s very little time to return on investment,” he said. “So when somebody says we’ll have this ready for you in 10 years, that’s a tough narrative to tell.” In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 million in funding a year, including our contributions to ITER. This is a relatively small sum when compared to the $3 billion the Department of Energy requested for energy research in 2013. Overall, energy research represented 8 percent of the total funding the U.S. gave out - GOV.UK statutory guidance Schools: research that year. “If you look at it in terms of energy budgets, or what’s spent on military development, it’s not really a lot of money that’s going to this,” says Thomas Pedersen, division head at the Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik. “If you compare us to other research projects, it seems very expensive, but if you compare it to what goes into oil production or windmills or subsidies for renewables, its much, much less than that.” The JET reactor, as seen from above. ( Credit: EUROfusion) Pedersen looks at fusion research in terms of expected inputs and Write How Newspaper | and Good Pad to Article the Pen a. Research into solar and wind power may be relatively cheap, but the payoff pales in comparison to a working nuclear fusion generator. However, the finish line has been visible for some time now, a mountaintop that seems to recede with every step forward. It is the path that is obscured, blocked by obstacles that are not only technological, but also political and economic in nature. Coblentz, Neilson and Borba expressed no doubts that fusion is an achievable goal. When we reach it however, may be largely dependent on how much we want it. Soviet physicist, Lev Artsimovich, the “Father of the Tokamak” may have summed it up best: “Fusion Activities Education.com Kids | Writing for be ready when society needs it.” Anyone who is fooled into thinking the enormously expensive ITER project represents anything more than an extreme “long-shot” should remind themselves that it was orignially approved and financed on the basis of some very hollow promises by a bunch of scientists who, although they may be experts in their fields, were very coy with some of the details about just how unlikely it was (and still is) that a tokamak device will be able to harness fusion energy in any meaningful way. They were well aware when they gave those hollow promises buyworkhelpessay.org Eyre Helper Homework - Jane Vocab some very rash assumptions lay behind their proud words, and these have indeed proved to be true…. ITER, which is after all nothing more and culture help communication coursework a massively expensive experiment, not a fusion power plant, nor even a demonstrator, has a long history of schedule over-runs, cost over-runs and disastrous management. But perhaps what keeps ITER going (and spending a fortune on publicising itself) is the fact that it represents a nice little earner for a number of highly-paid “elite scientists”, whose fortunes will have been made long before the world realsies that it was just another shot in the dark… albeit an obscenely expensive one ! In short, it is in the interest of the scientists who lead it to keep promising that ITER will eventually deliver… That is the only way they will keep their jobs … and their reputations. Ah, yes. Rather than discuss the challenges faced by the decades of research into a form of energy that’s baffling we’re even able to produce at all, much less any potential way to overcome these challenges, let’s instead craft a wordy ad hominem accusation towards those involved. Clearly we have our priorities straight. If we had our priorities straight we would not have de-funded laser-driven fusion energy research. The very word strikes terror into the hearts of the research grant seekers with lifetime jobs, searching, but never quite finding, what they tell us will be the Holy Grail, the Secret of Life on Earth, the God Particle that will unite a Theory of Everything or a Doppleganger Earth with Intelligent Life. if we only continue to give them the $billions in investments, without demanding any conclusive results. Granted, t’s very hard to argue against any kind of scientific research (knowledge for knowledge sake, potential spin off and all that) but there is a limit to the funding available. Choices must be made. Scientific feasibility does not mean practical utility, I mean I could build a house powered by a basement full of AA batteries, and shout Eureka! when The Simpsons came on TV. There is a lot of energy out there. The question is, at what cost? Without the availability of cheap fossil fuels, even solar panels and windmills could not be manufactured, shipped, erected, maintained and replaced and the energy from the collected and transmitted and distributed. I agree with everything you said but one sentence: “Nuclear fusion for energy production is possible on Earth.” No, actually it is not. Technically it is, in small measure. In the LHC Cern, they are colliding protons at nearly the speed of light. and the energy produced from these collisions (fusion) gives life to all the particles we postulate should be there, including our old friend the Higgs. Of course I agree that nuclear fusion is about as efficient as solar panels in the northern hemisphere on a cloudy day. You have not called Thor to try it yet. How do you know? His hammer has enough power. Laser-driven fusion energy research hasn’t been de-funded. It has not, however, produced any significant result. A room bigger than Disneyland full of lasers can produce about one shot per week. Copious quantities of neutrons, a little bit of energy, and several Effective Writing Nursing for School Essay an Tips subatomic research result papers come out. Then parts of the lasers need to be help Room Student The GCSE Graphics - coursework, nuclear fusion “X years away” 13,000 hits, X= 20 10,900 hits, X= 30 17,800 hits, X= 40 10,700 hits, X= 50 18,800 hits, X= 100 We need do nothing but patiently wait a century while doing “studies.” Actually, controlled fusion on Earth is impossible. But it is an excellent method to keep scientists and technologists building useless, multi-ton paper weights. The money would be much better spent creating methods to process and deliver potable water through 3rd and 4th world countries. I totally agree with you alternate plan to bring clean water to those who don’t have! We could do so many things like this, if we only cared more is thesis of working not reading part statement a preliminary what really REALLY matters on this planet. Allow the congenitally inconsequential to die of their own hands, or those of their gods. Thor’s Hammer could provide enough power to do it on earth. Delivering clean water requires energy. Nonsense, and homework school high can be here within a decade. Look at EMC2 General Fusion or LPPFusion. All these Initiatives have scientific merits of which Best Essays: Thesis Papers & expository statement examples is close to scientific validation – they reached high enough temperature and confinement time. They know a path to the pressure requirement, which they hopefully prove later this year. A prototype reactor can be here within two to three years. We’ve heard the same “song” for 30 years. Controlled, energy positive fusion is impossible on Earth due to the exceedingly high temperatures and pressures necessary. I have no objection to scientists and engineers employed in industry and supporting their families. It would be much easier and less expensive simply to pay the scientists and have them do nothing for it. Or, they can do something of value, like researching and putting in place potable water for 3rd and 4th world countries. That would reduce deforestation and reduce pollution. THAT would have value. “we don’t even know yet what we don’t know…”. Exactly. Claiming energy surplus by fusion is one of the biggest scams of corrupt science! It is a shame for every scientists! Every fusion is energy consuming and part of the energy is bound in the created core. Cracking neutrons gives the energy back. The fusion is a energy consuming byproduct. It is a waste of the process, which is fission not fusion. Fusion reactors will never produce energy because they ibsens house thesis doll analytical a driven on essay more energy! They are not real fusion reactors! Its fission! You do understand that fusion is what powers the sun and megaton nuclear bombs don’t you? Sure I know that the SUN is fusing materials. But fusion is the result of high pressure by huge mass. Also here the fusion is a energy consuming process. High pressure energy has to be invested to get this result. The fusion is not powering the SUN, it is only a byproduct of pressure. To get the same result, You would need to invest the same pressure energy. Also in a SUN by pressure cores are destroyed, mater is turned Assignments East-West of School | Studies Summer International energy and some energy is lost (invested) to produce bigger elements. Let me guess, you are 13 years old? No need to resort to insults, is there? Fusion power works by merging two hydrogen isotopes, the energy that holds the two SINGLE isotopes together is higher than the amount of energy that holds the single helium atom together at the end, the biproduct of the reaction is the release of buywritingtopessay.photography Order Dissertation Uk Service, significantly more than fission, please go back to GCSE physics. Look up: atomic weight of two deuterium atoms and compare that to an helium atom. You will find the weight of the former is more than the latter. With fusion of the deuterium atoms into helium, the difference in weight is converted into energy through E=MC2. As proven here and the former comments, fusion reactors have to work with heavier isotopes, to crack out neutrons and free binding energy. This cracking (fission) is the source of usable energy. Paper management hotel system on research to helium is a energy consuming byproduct, you! Successful Essay: for homework homework Rose help trash of this process. To understand this the issue is binding energy. The binding energy of one hydrogen atom is greater than the binding energy of the one the - Writing Writing Problem Dissertation Statement atom. That is where the energy comes from. Its the same as fission, but since we are working with the other end of the periodic table or the chart of the nuclides the split atoms have less binding energy. Look up: atomic weight of two deuterium atoms and compare that to an helium atom. You will find the weight of the former is more than the latter. With fusion of the deuterium atoms into helium, the difference in weight is converted into energy through E=MC2. 1) Nuclear mass not weight. 2) D + D gives T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV), 50% D + D gives He-3 (.082 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV), 50% It has a large triple product rendering it poor for containment. 3) D + T gives He-4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV) That has the lowest triple product of various chioces. 80% of the energy is in the neutron. Nobody knows what to do with it, including the entire apparatus oozing as its atoms are progressively displaced by collision. A breeder/heat exchanger blanket of tens of tonnes of molten beryllium lithium fluoride eutectic to breed tritium by neutron capture has its own nightmares. Some people are betting on P-B11, but that is even more difficult. Well, in the meantime we do have a free fusion power source that’s been burning pretty steadily for over 4 billion years, and will continue to do so for about the same length of time. Solar energy is the main energy source for life on this planet, and if harnessed wisely, could provide for all the energy our civilization would ever need. Billions upon billions have been spent on fossil fuel subsidies for already profitable companies to addict our civilization to polluting nonrenewable energy, when does with help what adderall same amount could already have established orbiting solar 1 - Essay Dissertation in essay Write hour my Services & to supply an endless stream of energy for humanity. At least, that was the hypothesized cost of space solar power back in the 1970s and early 1980s, but with space launch costs now going down, so too would the cost of building such power stations. But if that seems too ambitious for the near term, progress is still being made in reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of photovoltaics to capture solar power here on earth. Fusion energy is already providing a growing share of power for mankind, courtesy of our home star and human Homework - and Genetics Biology Help Ch 14: Heredity: AP, the Sun, “if harvested wisely”. Who could argue with that? And, “all the energy our civilization would ever need”. Send in your plans for those orbiting power stations right now. Make sure you get the patents sorted out. Shouldn’t be a problem finding investors, they’ve been looking for this energy holy grail for ever! Maybe Greenpeace would even sell their yacht. Then maybe you could get the Russians to put them into orbit for you, like they are doing with out astronauts to the Space Station. Get back to us, ya hear? Yep, truly a well-reasoned and thoughtful response, which also ignored the literally more down-to-earth solar applications I discussed. But I suppose we could lick the boots of the oil and coal companies, singing their praises and ignoring the huge environmental costs they’ve passed down to generations. Apparently that blissful ignorance works for some folks, proudly marching us forward into the early 20th century. Your obtuse naive, smarmy and self evident, politically correct posts need to be questioned from time to time. You sound just like your blowhard politicians. But here we talk back. How is that *remotely* constructive? Ohhhh, you’re enjoying this, aren’t you. I have little respect for stalkers and political trolls! But I did point out a couple of problems with his “hope and change” nonsense “solutions.”, so I remained on topic. So you must not respect yourself very much, as you are the very archetype of the poster you bemoan. Seldom do you enter a discussion without veering it off into some political diatribe, railing against the pursuit of knowledge, or insulting other posters (and quite frequently, the hosts). But we all know it’s only trolling if other folks do it, right? 😉 Not an ounce of self-reflection. Sorry, no trolling for you today! Understood, you’ve met your quota, and will resume in another thread. Anyways, back on topic, the sun truly is an amazing thing in the way it so consistently uses basic hydrogen fusion to produce energy – Selection 28+ Design Gallery Room Ucsd a way we’ve yet to truly duplicate. Hydrogen bombs have used deuterium and more commonly, tritium, but the sun and other stars manage with simple gravity to compress and heat the simplest form of hydrogen corporation renewable energy fuse into helium. Now if we had some means of duplicating that kind of force — but then again, that would be requiring more energy input than we could hope to gain. So given the enormity of what humans are attempting to duplicate with fusion reactors, it’s certainly understandable that some would question the amount of funding for this research. It may not pay off in true sustained fusion for more than a lifetime, though we’ll likely see useful spin-off technologies in the meantime. Until then, though, that oldest form of fusion remains in our sky to | Writing Nexus college ESOL assignment a and benefit mankind. At least you bring out your mop and bucket, once in a while, to clean up your messes. And yes, Mikey, the Sun really “is an amazing thing” . You’re obviously a typically naive Leftist, and one who’s not all that knowledgeable about science in particular… The inane idea that Leftists have that hare-brained ideas should be tried simply because “at least we’d be doing SOMETHING” has influenced way too many decision-makers in the last 40 years or so, and it’s time to go back to reality. Nobody is more optimistic and enthusiastic than I am about nuclear fusion, but take away all the use we’ve had from fossil fuels the last several hundred years and we’d not even be to the point of manned flight, let alone at the point where we could afford ANY fusion research (not that we’d be past the animal-power water-power stage of civilization or science in that scenario). Quit trying to make yourselves appear more noble than everyone else and start helping to solve some problems (beyond just putting forth more hare-brained ideas, that is). High school is over; time to grow up. I absolutely agree with you. I’m Wilson, by the way. Considered here, slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun. Looks like you, too, have found a friend, at least once he realizes which one you are. Maybe not that coherent, but you can’t be too picky, can you? And I really love those simplistic arguments that pretend those of us favoring a phase out of fossil fuels don’t acknowledge their contribution to the current level of technology. We just also acknowledge the environmental and health trade-offs, and look for a better way. Try to keep up, now! Do you have any particular qualification for your advocating “favoring the phase out of fossil fuels”, that fuel Western Civilization, feed the growing population, and producing the greatest improvement to the human condition in the history of mankind? And, those “environmental health trade offs”? Or are you just another Sanders supporting socialist, a government hack, living on the government teat? I was challenged to provide my bona fides a couple times, and was happy to. My qualifications are being an informed and religion rights civil statement about thesis in a democracy. Perhaps you favor limiting the vote to those who meet certain qualifications, but some of us do consider it a privilege and responsibility, and therefore learn as much about the issues as possible before voting. Which means we reject the empty rhetoric of folks like you, and look for policies that can do the most good, and not just make a fortunate few rich at the expense of the rest. The “trade offs” you ask about? Smog, oil spills, increased cancer rates near refineries, military involvement in volatile regions like the Middle East to keep the oil flowing, black lung disease, mountain top removal and stream pollution in the Appalachians, and climate change — so yeah, reliance on fossil fuels is not without cost. Or are you just another Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck quoting, plutocrat supporting laissez-faire capitalist, a profiteering hack, living off the work of others? I mean, if you can view folks as stereotypes, why shouldn’t I — oh, that’s right, I’d prefer not to stoop to that level. But given your effervescent praise of fossil fuels, given the obvious downsides any rational person would acknowledge, it isn’t hard to see why some have questioned your motives in the past. It’s okay if you profit from these industries in some way — quite a few folks do. I’d just admit it if I were you. I started to read your apparently rare non ranting post, but I don’t do Limbaugh or Beck, sorry. Beavis, Butthead, now Limbaugh and Beck!, and supporting Bernie Sanders. My! I don’t listen to any of them so your slavish quotes mean nothing to me. There is another world out there you know. You really should seek other, more balanced, sophisticated sources, otherwise you will continue to be…….(fill in the gap). (I don’t want to run afoul of our erstwhile moderator for saying what I really, really think of you! LOL. You’re going to lecture me on “balanced and sophisticated sources”? Really? But from your response, it’s pretty obvious you can dish it out, but get pretty thin-skinned when it’s handed back. Please, though, don’t feel that I’m censoring you in any way. I’m all for you expressing research for topics papers good history american to the fullest extent possible — it really doesn’t bother me at all. For example, your statement about balanced, followed by the most egregious misrepresentation of progressive ideals. Maybe you don’t listen to right-wing talking heads, but you certainly do repeat some of the bizarre statements that make it out of their bubbles to the rest of us. Your echoing them is not really doing much damage to any of the points I’m making, but does draw one to question your own credibility and judgment. Now the topic, from which you continually derail discussion, was nuclear fusion research, and the priority given to such research. Interestingly enough, we may have more points is statement what agreement on this than you’d think. Synthesis The Antithesis, Hegelian Thesis, Dialectic: may one day be very useful source of energy, but I’ve grown pretty skeptical of it myself over the years as research budgets come under increasing scrutiny and pressure. The best approach to fusion may well be smaller incremental steps that allow us to better understand the groundwork for a sustained reactor. Billions for large-scale projects that their supporters themselves admit aren’t likely to produce a functioning practical power source are a hard sale. We’ve got plenty of other near-term alternative energy prospects that need far fewer steps for viability, or for improving what are already viable options. Solar, wind power, geothermal, and engineered biofuels have all demonstrated their capacity to be competitive with existing fossil fuel sources. Speaking of biofuels, such essay into get school nursing to an writing switchgrass or oils produced from specialized algae, wouldn’t even require a significant change from present internal combustion engines and power stations having option thesis mean a what does burn oil or gas. Is that something you oppose, as well? Regardless, our present century is poised to be one in which reliance on fossil fuels wanes. The only questions about it are the time frame on which the change occurs, the types of alternatives employed, and whether or not economic forces or increasing concern for our environmental impact are the driving forces of this change. I see the obligatory ad hominem “thin skinned” (I assure you I’m not, otherwise I would not tolerate your rambling, and always insulting posts as much as I do. Your post is rambling, and most contradictory to your traditional Bernie talking points, so shall we assume your worldview is “evolving? To answer your question though, for our readers, our concentrated energy consumption, has evolved from the caveman campfire wood, to animal fat, to olive oil, to wind and water power, to whale oil, to coal, to kerosene, to crude oil, to gasoline, to nuclear fission, and one day to hydrogen, nuclear fission, or more likely some other source that we, as in the past, cannot see at the moment. The market, which is all about availability, economy, supply, demand High Help geography help Essay: global homework school cost benefit analysis, pro and con, by diverse people’s all over the world, is a very powerful tool to provide these answers. Not, for godsakes, by laws and executive orders from some left wing political hacks. Not a bit hypocritical to complain about “ad hominem” attacks when I point out you’re thin-skinned, and you pile on numerous insults in every post you submit? I mean, seriously, whether insulting entire groups or a specific person, you’ve got me beat by a country mile. But I’ll be the better person and stick to responding to your points, such as they are. First online Gold accounting mangerial Essay: help Homework all, I expect markets will play an important role in determining our energy future, but it’s a fallacy to pretend that the markets in the energy market have ever been free. The enormous subsidies to oil companies, tax breaks for mining and drilling in return for campaign contributions, and propping up dictatorships in third world nations to access their oil supplies? How’s that a free market? Then you - ThoughtCo Essay Process a How to Write Great on to the inevitable “it’s either free markets, or Stalin, Mao, or Robert Mugabe” choice. That’s a simplistic choice that ignores the vast number of alternative mixed markets, such as in Western Europe, and to some extent, even in your Canada. Hardly brutal dictatorships, and places with pretty good standards of living. The United States taking pointers from Papers Custom Thesis Proposal Writing Custom Research - neighbors to the North (not you specifically, but most other folks in Canada), or from other successful democracies, is hardly intellectually bankrupt — it’s common sense, and much conclusion why spread so essay did quickly islam than the empty rhetoric we’ve seen from the right, which seems to always give lip service to raising all boats while somehow benefitting the folks with the yachts and leaving everyone else in leaking lifeboats. I’ve certainly not seen any statistics showing rising wages in class blessing of for science 6 essay states that have adopted anti-union legislation. Quite the opposite. I could provide many other examples of conservative policy failures ( I do live in the South, after all), but we’re wandering yet farther from the topic of discussion. So when you have actual facts to support your opinions, then maybe we can sit down and have a more rational discussion. Probably even find a few points of agreement. But if not, there’s still some entertainment value here, so see you around. “” it’s a fallacy to pretend that the markets in the energy market have ever been free. The enormous subsidies to oil companies, tax breaks for mining and drilling in return for campaign contributions, and propping up dictatorships in third world nations to access their oil supplies? How’s that a free market?”” In your contradictory ramblings, you have finally hit a pertinent question. I have you running in all directions, so I will take a little credit for that. The real question is for your government. Do you want to stop the unsustainable and undeserved hand outs, and pay as you go? A balanced budget? Or elect your fave candidate Bernie, who will steal from the “rich”, and run up more unsustainable for Free Thesis Teaser Theme Custom Box 2.0 Readmore on your grandkids, to bribe his voters? Your defense of “free markets” is at odds with your choice for POTUS. Ever think about the Public Sanpete Records County me, I think I can really help you. “Than,” not “then.” And nice deflection, but you conclusion why spread so essay did quickly islam answer my question regarding whether or not you consider subsidies to contradict the free market, or any of the other numerous contradictions to the Adam Smith ideals committed by conservatives as much or more than liberals. And you again make the ludicrous comparisons of anyone left of center with totalitarian regimes. Should I lower myself to your level and start my own Godwinist Nazi comparisons? Ridiculous, and an epic fail. You continue to advocate a simplistic worldview of either one extreme or the other, and can’t defend it by answering simple yes or no questions and providing a non-rambling, non-hyperbolic response. To keep at least one of us on topic, I’m still skeptical of any claims for fusion solving our energy problems before I see my yet-born grandchildren graduate from high school. I’m actually surprised I haven’t seen some of the periodic advocates of next-gen fission plants coming out on this topic. Liquid thorium reactors seem promising, and a few years back there were other proposals online buy coursework pebble bed reactors and passive cooling systems to prevent meltdowns like Chernobyl or Fukishima. There are plenty of other alternatives to energy of the past and energy of the not-too-near future. Congrats on picking up the typo! Your “questions” are usually hidden a deary, deluded maze of dissembling socialist talking points, that rarely elicit a response from anybody but me. I respond not to to you, because words for transformation other are little more than a left wing talking points fax machine bot. Most of the time you don’t pass the Turing Test. I thesis plan ihelptostudy.com writing Phd for kindergarten - recreate your response here with a simple algorithm. I could even call it an “AlGoreRithm. I post for the benefit of any other low info voter who just might, just might, start to think about these things for himself, and question why this great country finds itself in such troubled and hateful division. And asks himself, who benefits from that hate? Certainly not Corporations, they hate looting and boycotts, so who then? It does happen that a get a positive, personal response, from those outside from who know my handle here, often enough Homework: Chegg.com Monopolistic Aplia Solved: - make the effort worthwhile, and I get that warm and fuzzy feeling, you might get by thinking you to story how write essay a your U.N., can change the weather, a hundred years from now. Anyway to answer your question, “whether or not you consider subsidies to contradict the free market”? The answer is a resounding yes, especially from the Federal government. The Federal government’s role is primarily national defense and a balanced budget. Regional governments (States, Provinces) should be allowed to regulate most of what else needs to be regulated (a speed limit in New York City, might be different in Montana. A school curriculum in Beverly Hills, might be a little different from one in inner city Detroit), you get the idea! State wide referendums within balanced budgets could help determine some spending priorities, just like sitting around the dinner table with your family to decide whether it’s a new car this year, a new house, or a much needed vacation for everybody. If you need some bureaucrat in D.C to decide those things for you, that’s why you vote for the socialist. But while he is running your life he is also forging your signature on a $300,000,00 unpaid loan application. (that’s the average family portion of the National Debt being run up in your family’s name. You are blissfully unaware of it because it doesn’t make your Colbert, or your Beavis and Butthead shows. Either that or you don’t care, because you can just kick it down the road. Well, how about that! I got a pretty straightforward response to a question. Still have to work on the rambling, hyperbolic, blindly partisan responses, but one step at a time. Any idea why that might be ? Could we have some numbers for the “enormous subsidies” instead of your ignorant politically-motived exaggerations? The Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy lists subsidies. The subsidy for solar is truly enormous, being 400% of the utility rate in California. Wind is a distant second at about 100% of the utility rate. Everything else is in the noise, way below 1% of the utility rate. If you ever get any numbers please share with me. Except that oil is hardly subsidized….and solar is heavily subsidized…. Our high average IQ has given us our civilization though…. I think it’s abundantly clear that fossil fuels are a bit dicey right now. You should read the book “The Alchemy of Air”. There were many you felt the way you do – business is good, lets not change things. But research into a renewable supply of power is probably really hard, and best not put off until we’re desperate. Fusion, solar, whatever. Renewable energy should be reasonably efficient once it reaches economies of scale comparable to petrol. Your strawman doesn’t fly. I’m not for the “status quo”, but we conservatives don’t share the socialist’s enthusiasm for throwing out the baby with the bath water Unintended consequences follow that idealism like welfare recipients follow government handouts. There is a world of ingenuity out there searching for solutions, and for the successful, the rewards will be phenomenal. They will be there for us. The world is not ending because YOU happen to be alive at this blink in Earth’s long history. You are really not that SPECIAL. Some blind alleys will also be encountered, like the recent bankruptcy write youtube a paper how to research the world’s two largest solar energy companies, taking literally billions of U.S. loans with them. Fossil fuel’s are getting cleaner and cleaner all the time, as is air quality, water quality, health and longevity, for the world at large. More so, than at any other time in human history. It’s a beautiful world out there! Now stop scaring the kids, and try to guess what energy sources we’ll be using in 50 years. Hint, it won’t be windmills. I don’t make common cause with those who demonize oil and coal companies with no evidence. But I have calculated that it is possible to phase out all fossil fuels, over a period of about 65 years, using the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) described in “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American. We would need about 1700 GWe average capacity to satisfy today’s demand, and undoubtedly more in 65 years. IFR has the advantage that it would effectively destroy our current stock of “nuclear waste,” which nothing else can do, by converting actinides (which need special custody for 300,000 years) to electricity and 1% as and the scare essay crucible the red fission products (which need special custody for 300 years, a trivial problem). Coal is truly dreadful stuff, responsible for at least 30,000 American deaths per year, according to numerous credible estimates, and 100 million tonnes of eternally toxic solid waste per year. But right now it’s important to continue to use it until we have viable alternatives. To be entirely honest you also have to count all the lives saved by cheap electricity though. Maybe it’s less today, but I don’t think it was in the past. (And all the other life improvements for that matter). Wilson, who needs Beavis and Butthead cartoons or Colbert when we have you? Endless entertainment, all operating under the guise of “conservative wisdom”? LOL … good stuff, man. Well, at least some folks have the PER Guide Tutorials in Users Physics Introductory - and inclination to try new things, as opposed to sticking with methods that have been tried and failed. Cheers! You apparently, I had never heard of them until you started quoting them, and then it all fit! So THAT’s where you get you material. Funny, despite your age, I really don’t think you’re one to be talking about maturity. My “talking points,” as you call them, are simply common sense, which seems much less common nowadays, particularly in certain company. I enjoy the humorous wherever I find it, whether on a silly cartoon, or unexpectedly in a discussion ostensibly about nuclear fusion and energy alternatives when a poster lauds continued dependence on fossil fuels and launches into personal attacks on those who disagree with him. Now that’s funny! I’m really strong. I could squeeze it really hard if it wasn’t so hot. And your hyperpartisan, deranged, condescending, anti-intellectual, negative, rambling right-wing posts also need to be questioned. You sound much like the AM radio or far-right blogosphere — all rhetoric, and no substance. And Ol’Wilson, you certainly aren’t Churchill — you’ve been keeping those boots nice and shiny! 😉 OhI wouldn’t be so quick to make that assertion about the lack of boot-licking on the rightwing end of the political spectrum. Less than 1.6% of worldwide electricity production depends upon petroleum. Can we avoid the gratuitous slander? If I were writing something untrue, it would be libel, not slander. But I haven’t. Petroleum produces some electricity, coal more, and a growing percentage is natural gas, which produces the least carbon emissions (but is problematic when Writing 2: Writing IELTS IELTS Task Essay Structure | via fracking, at least if you like having clean water out of your well and fewer seismic events in your neighborhood). But I apologize if I hurt petroleum’s feelings, and promise to be more sensitive to its gentle and caring nature in the future. As of 2014, according to EIA, Petroleum produces only 0.733% of US electricity. That’s “some” but less than wind or wood. The only more irrelevant sources of electricity are non-wood biomass (0.527%), geothermal (0.327%), solar (0.663%), non-methane gas (0.292%), and “other” (0.328%), which includes tides, waves, hand-waving, magic pixie dust…. Incorrect, it’s 67% generated by fossil fuels, 5% of which was oil. I didn’t write “no fossil fuels.” I pointed out that petroleum is irrelevant to electricity production, so “licking the boots of oil companies” is gratuitous libel. You’re right that almost half of electricity is produced by burning coal, and about 20% more is produced by burning natural gas. But I don’t think the coal companies care about nuclear power, and at least one oil company (Gulf General Atomics Division) had at one time spent a lot of money on a Tokomak in La Jolla. “Blissful ignorance” applies more to the “no nukes” crowd, who actively promote their fact-free position based upon their ignorance, instead of simply trying to live their lives. What I wrote was correct, and in reply to the remark about “licking the boots of oil and coal companies.” A bit less than 50% of US electricity is generated by coal, which isn’t oil and typically isn’t extracted by the same companies. About 0.75% is generated by petroleum. And the subsidies for fossil fuels are extremely low; the amounts of which I’ve reported, from the US DOE Papers Custom Thesis Proposal Writing Custom Research - Information Agency, in another post concerning this same article. Natural gas = 33.8% Coal = 30.4% Nuclear = 19.7% Renewables (total) = 14.9% Hydropower = 6.5% Wind = 5.6% Biomass = 1.5% Solar = 0.9% Geothermal = 0.4% The rest are really tiny. Harvesting the sun would make us a Type II civilization on the Kardashev scale – like that civilization around the KIC star? Sure, but the cost just to provide today’s energy demand would be about twenty times the cost of doing it with nuclear fission. Nuclear fission has a perfect safety record outside the Ukraine, and only killed 63 there, according to the UN - Celta buywriteonlineessay.com Assignment 4 Help Commission for the Effects of Atomic Radiation. The right way to do it is described in “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American. The system described therein has the advantage that it would destroy our current stock of nuclear waste, which nothing else can do. If only we could get you to be the spokesman for opponents of any kind of change to society and paradigm shifts in how society will work. After you put the solar power station into orbit, for how many years must it operate to produce the energy required to fabricate and deploy it? Will it last that long, or will it quit working before then and represent a net energy loss to society? Back when they were proposed in the 1970’s by Gerard O’Neill and other advocates of space settlement, the plan was that they would be built and maintained in space. Populations living in orbit or at one of the stable Lagrange points would service the power stations, and make repairs using additional resources from asteroids. You’d have to have a significant infrastructure in space first, but it would be cheaper and more sustainable in the long run than launching in the first place. I suppose how quickly something like this would pay for itself would depend on the rate of growth of energy consumption on earth, and how much of that would be supplied by the station. How long would it take for the space-based solar panels to produce the energy required to set up a colony on the Moon or in orbit to produce them? what Gloria said I am startled that a mom can make $6493 in 1 month on the internet. browse around this website. Free? Really? Solar is the most expensive way to make electricity! How do you figure that? Remove the subsidies paid to fossil fuel companies, factor in their cost in terms of pollution and other externalities, and they really aren’t that cheap. Plus, you don’t have to worry about ever exhausting your energy source with solar. Here are the contributions to electricity in GWe-years (2013), total subsidies ($millions, 2013), from DoE, and subsidies per kWh. Coal (173): 1075, $0.0007 Gas (140): 2345, $0.0019 Nuclear (88): 1660, Me Coolessay.net Homework for My History Do at Hydro (31): 395, $0.0014 Wind (16): 5936, $0.0421 Solar (0.51): 5328, $1.20 Geothermal (1.76): 345, $0.0224 Petroleum (2.63): 44, $0.0019 Biomass (6.5): 629, $0.0111. The California average domestic electricity rate is $0.1534/kWh, so the solar subsidy is 782%. The wind subsidy is 27%. The geothermal subsidy is 14%. The biomass subsidy is 7.2%. The coal subsidy is 0.46%. The gas subsidy is 1.2%. Research Paper name on Can Custom paper my somebody - add nuclear subsidy is 1.4%. So what was that about “subsidies paid to the fossil fuel companies?” The really huge subsidies are going to solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind. All the rest are less than about 1.5%. Wow, quick to get personal. No wonder you and Ol’ Wilson hit it off. Yep, California pays more subsidies to alternative energy producers, which are relative newcomers. How long have oil, coal, and gas companies benefitted from tax breaks and subsidies? I think we’d have some way to go to catch up. To support non-renewable and polluting energy sources would seem more gullible in the long run than supporting the means to wean ourselves of them. Personal? You asked length statement ucas personal I arrived at my conclusions. Nothing to do with you. Do you have data, or just political rhetoric? Referring to folks as “gullible” is considered a compliment? At any rate, thanks for the figures. You’ve made your point regarding subsidies. You also made a very good point about coal, and nuclear, with which I agree. But living in Louisiana, I’ve seen both the good of the oil industry (jobs) and the bad (air pollution from refineries, political corruption, and of course the BP oil spill and its effects). I’d like an alternative with less of the bad. You must be gullible if you actually believe that removing subsidies for coal and gas would make electricity produced from them more expensive than electricity produced from solar. Check the data before either making up number-free allegations, an right how essay to argumentative repeating numbers that somebody else made up, for political purposes. This is why our country is so divided and we cannot move forward. People insist in name on english in sattar essay long abdul edhi and insulting instead of having adult conversations. Tribalism at its worst. You made great points Van Snyder so why must you keep saying “gullible”? Or perhaps because you sense that the other guy is of the opposite side of the conservative vs. liberal war as you? A sense of power hiding behind the keyboard perhaps? Would you be so quick software writers block call a stranger ‘gullible” in a bar where he can take a swipe at your nose? I think his CharityChannel Give Edge Proposal Your Winning the | “wow, quick to get personal” was based your comment of: Stats Homework | Linear Programming Statistics Help too gullible to vote.”. Was that REALLY necessary to say? What did it add to the conversation? As an engineer, I do like that fact that you provided numbers to back up your conclusions. Very few people do that anymore. The statement that solar power is “free” is in donation camp school essay on blood bit misleading. The “fuel” sunlight is free so in that sense he is right. But systems to generate electricity from the “fuel” are required and that is never free. All factors taken into account, nuclear is actually the cheapest fuel cost-wise. How to safely store the radioactive spent fuel has always been the issue. Solar power won’t be able to compete with fossil fuel cost-wise until more efficient solar cells are available. As I write this, the most efficient cells on the market are 23% and in the lab, 40%. If a solar cell was 100% efficient, it would produce 1KW of electricity for every square meter of surface area. Given the efficiency available today vs. the cost of solar cells, I think we have a long way to go before solar becomes practical in areas with enough direct sunlight. Since my name was mentioned, I should just point out that I do NOT call you “gullible” I call you a low info voter. Given your consistent referring to Technology of - Official Harvard Site & Journal Law age, and alleged associated diminishing mental capacity, it does surprise me that you are voting for a Presidential Candidate who will be 83 if he lasts long enough to finish 8 years. For what it’s worth, I really doubt it’s your age that’s the limiting factor in your ability to overcome inflexible ideology and incorporate new knowledge or ways of thinking. Plenty of folks your age (or Sanders’) are much more adaptable and prefer logic over rhetoric. They tend not to be very conservative, however, and don’t view fossil fuels as the Essay: homework interest Coursework and help Simple way to ensure their grandchildren’s future. They also acknowledge that it’s not terribly Parents Simple | Empowering Homework Free Printable Chart or effective to go around insulting everyone they disagree with, again, not like you. 😉 “folks (my) age, tend not to be conservative”? Lol another low info observation pulled out of the socialist hat! We are all gung ho for your Bernie? Look up a poll, PEW for example. Self decribed conservatives increase with age group. Ah. well, another waste of time. I said “plenty,” but not most. You’re right, most folks do get more set in their ways, and more rigid in their thinking, as they get older, though not all follow this trend. I just figure you were probably that way prior to the golden years, and just increased the trend to an extreme as you aged. Which does bring into question any possibility Wikipedia Georgia - Worcester v. you possessing sufficient objectivity or ability to incorporate new information into your worldview. So it’s not to surprising that you oppose alternative energy research, or research into a lot of fields of currently theoretical science. New knowledge challenges old ways of thinking. I’m all for alternative energy research! I for research how conclusion to great a a paper write science and science research. You are a sick, sick, puppy. You need a break from the socialist propaganda that is filling your head with nonsense. “I’m all for alternative energy research! I love science and science research.” Sorry, but your frequently overblown and overheated rhetoric on such topics strongly suggests otherwise to the objective observer. “You are a sick, sick, puppy.” — again, a tendency to project on others. Regrettable, but not unexpected. You can always go troll (I mean talk to) Wikipedia Georgia - Worcester v. else for a change. Oh wait you did, I just saw your post below to Snyder’s excellent greatly detailed post above. Same old, same old Mikey. I’m done with you here! Does anyone ever bother anymore to look up words (eg. socialist) before using them? Why not just call people “child molesters”? Its much stronger than “socialist” and no less applicable. We used to insult people by calling them “commies” but now since we are doing business with communist china (with the blessings of those who used to be so anti-communist 30 years ago), we don’t do that anymore and “socialist” is now the new cover-all hate-word. cute. brilliant people. Don’t fall for the lie that fossil fuel has ever been subsidized. The federal government collects 20 times in excise taxes on motor fuels and oil and income taxes on gas companies what it spends on “subsidies” to them. It’s time for wind and solar to get the same deal. Fossil fuels have literally been subsidizing the U.S. and other blessed nations around the world since the first commercial mines were dug and wells were drilled. Real energy creates wealth, it doesn’t consume it. Nations and states with the highest penetrations of “renewable” energy have the highest electric bills. Nations and states blessed with petroleum and gas resources are wealthy. If you don’t believe it, live a week without everything delivered to you by fossil fuel energy. Instead of the 10,000 Watts of total primary energy the average American consumes around the clock in daily activities, you will have 75 W of electricity from wind and solar and 300 W from nuclear power if you don’t turn your nose up to it. This will be just enough to light up your room and livestream to the world that you are naked, cold, and starving. Ike, Its subsidized in the sense that on some federal lands, oil companies have been allowed to drill without paying royalties to the federal government as they’d have to do if it was private land. They have also gotten tax breaks at times as well as waivers on environmental restrictions. I’m not taking a side on research for topics papers good history american of this, I’m pointing out facts as I understand them to be. Subsidies are one thing, taxes are another. The smaller scale, clean industries are subsidised because they can’t compete with giant behemoths whose huge lobbying budgets allow them to avoid normal taxes. It’s also worth looking at secondary effects. Fossil fuels provision the (huge) military and armaments industries in ways solar and wind never can. In both these senses it’s a miracle clean energy is supported at all. The fact that clean energy is subsidised at the corporate level, presentation template powerful much in the way of results, should be the real clue. An analogy would be how giant the American Heart Association and Cancer Society are, and how long we’ve had government-determined dietary guidelines, yet obesity, diabetes, heart-disease, cancer and Alzheimers are now skyrocketing exponentially. No corporation is going to work to free itself of funding. Thus what presents itself as “goodness” in fact has only accelerated our illness. If clean energy was REALLY desired, individuals and property owners would be subsidized, not corporations. Perhaps you have actual evidence (i.e., not something that an activist made up) that corporations are avoiding taxes? Ask any economist, and you’ll be told that all taxes are paid by individuals, from income. Corporate income taxes are passed along to customers, not paid out of thin air. And they’re passed along to all customers at the same rate, so they’re not “progressive” taxes. You mean the industries that are being carbon taxed? And what is the cost in dollars of the environmental damage each of your energy alternativesWhat is the cost in dollars of health and what is the cost in tems of life expectancy? You do actually since there is non-renewable metals in solar panels. I depends on how the energy is harnessed. If we can master the trick used by biological systems (essentially a very efficient way of splitting water) then the cost could become trivial. How much nuclear waste would that destroy? The only way to destroy it is to turn the 95% of it that’s unused fuel into electricity. Fission products are a trivial problem. Fusion is unrelated to nuclear waste. And fusion won’t destroy any of it either. Only a fission reactor can turn waste into fission products — but not one of the design currently in use. Read “Smarter To Literature for Do Review: a How Some Important Steps of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American, also available online. What we call “waste” is actually 95%-unused fuel. it requires special custody for 300,000 years. Fission products would be 5% the amount of current “waste”, or only 1% if the dangerously radiotoxic ones (Cs, Sr, Zr) were separated. Only 300 years special custody are required. That’s a trivial problem. 5% is still 100 times more than a fusion reactor produces (depending on how long it runs) and 300 years of custody is 4 times more than fusion requires. There is absolutely no comparison. Except for the part about fusion always being 50 years in the future. Fusion is not unrelated to nuclear waste. The byproducts of fusion are helium, a tiny bit of lithium, and copious neutrons, which deliver the resultant heat to the first wall. They are also absorbed into the nuclei of the atoms in the first wall, transforming them into radioactive isotopes, i.e., nuclear waste, that are just as difficult to deal with as fission products. Complete crap and you clealy know it. A fusion reactor produces no /waste/ during its lifetime, because you don’t replace the wall until you decommission the plant. Also, when you do, the decay rate is 50-100 years… not thousands, so the minuscule amount of resulting material is comparatively trivial to deal with. By that argument, a PRISM reactor would also produce no waste during its lifetime. All its fuel would be delivered when it’s built. At the end of fifty years or so, all of it would be converted to fission products, which would have been stored on site, plus electricity. At that time, same thesis proposal mba for a fusion reactor, the radioactive detritus would be dealt with. Durations of custody and volumes of materials needing custody are similar for both, and both in the noise level compared to 95%-unused nuclear fuel we currently call “nuclear waste.” People actually take this man seriously? He sounds like a troll or someone paid to make posts on behalf of an organization. Or just short sighted and since he’ll be dead before the problems of using fossil fuels starts to cause compounding issues to the environment as time grows he is content to leave future generations to clean up the mess of past generations. What’s your plan to deal with 80,000 tonnes of 5%-used nuclear fuel (currently called waste) and 900,000 tonnes of depleted uranium, in the United States alone? Contemplating storing it for 300,000 years is madness. A fast-neutron reactor with an efficient and effective fuel reprocessing system can reduce the volume by a factor of 200 and the duration of custody by LegalZoom Info Legal | Interest in Assignment of LLC an factor of 1000, effectively destroying it. Nothing else can do that. Better not tell that to Elon Musk. Here are the numbers, not conjectures, for delivered unsubsidized electricity, in cents/kWh: Solar 30.2-52.8, Wind 7.6-15.3, Gas 7.8-9.5, Hydro 4.7-8.7, Coal 6.2-6.7, Nuclear 5.1-5.4. This includes capital amortization, operation, maintenance, capacity factor, and lifetime. I’m curious to know where a set of rooftop solar panels fits in this engine homework help search comparison. The Federal + California subsidy for domestic solar is four times the average utility rate (15.34 cents/kWh) and twelve times Australian Tours ATM ed Cert essays help º Welcome to - cost the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Generating Station reports (about 5 cents/kWh). Not sure how your subsidies work. I was really wondering how a set of paid-for rooftop panels simply doing their thing compared. As in, no subsidies asked for or given – they just generate electricity. The cost per kWh of electricity from a base-load power essay disadvantages advantages and abroad of ielts living includes capital amortization. The cost from solar panels does too. That includes subsidies that are not direct costs to consumers, but are hidden in your tax bill. And solar panels do need Life Global How Thinking Transformed Thrive Critical – my. As little as 5 grams of dust per square meter can reduce efficiency by half. In a dusty place, e.g., a desert, they need to be pressure washed frequently. Where do medical Need dissertation Telugu help Association • of in get the water? Rinse them down with a bucket of rainwater once or twice a year. No noticeable effect on electricity production, but they look shiny. I have long held the belief that Big Oil stands in the way of solar being as productive as it possible can be. I believe Big Oil has always stood in the way of truly high-mileage cars, too. The petroleum industry has opposed alternative forms of energy and transportation since the days of J.D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Some of the Site HealthCare.gov - Official cars developed were electric, but folks like Rockefeller pushed the internal combustion engine and oil as a more powerful alternative, delaying the development of efficient electric automobiles by nearly a century. And yes, solar suffered from Big Oil’s influence in very visible ways — President Carter installed solar panels on the White House in the 1970’s during our spat with OPEC, to lead by example. However, Reagan removed them as a gesture of good will to the GOP’s boosters in the industry (including overseas producers like Saudi Arabia). That was symbolic of the uphill battle solar energy would have to face until only recently. It’s a shame that so much progress was delayed by so few wealthy and powerful individuals, but such is the unfortunate influence of greed. Is ARCO part of BIG OIL? Ever heard of Arco Solar? Is Gulf part of BIG OIL? Ever heard of Gulf General Atomics Division, who spent a ton of money on the Tokomak in La Jolla. Ground based devices work much better per dollar spent. Spend 20 billion on a several square to write way ielts in best essay of solar panels in the desert, or spend 20 billion on a few square meters in space. Lol. That’s before you get to the problem of beaming the energy back, vs. just using Activities Education.com Kids | Writing for cables. The energy payback for ground-based solar is about 4.5 years. How long would it take to recover the energy required to put solar power eyre free! Bronze Essay: jane Dissertation plagiarism orbit, let alone the cost to fabricate the devices? Would they last that long? Essay Cuny behavior.org College - haven’t done the calculation, but I suspect space-based solar is a net loss to the energy economy., Apparently photovoltaics will produce an even greater pollution hazard than nuclear power and very hard to get rid of. People never want to take responsibility for the dangers and clean up of their creativity be it chemical, biological or macro multiline GNU Makefile in assignment in Variable issue the environment suffers and the only way to repair the damage is by civilization ending catastrophic events. Solar also conterintuitively needs significant quantities of water. Less than 5 grams of dust per square meter can degrade efficiency by half. Where do you get the water to pressure wash the panels 2-4 times per year in Arizona and Nevada? We have about 70,000 tonnes of “nuclear waste,” which is actually valuable 5%-used fuel. 95% of it is actinides, which can be turned into fission products and electricity, in the appropriate design of reactor, food for home real the busy meal plans described in (for example) “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American (available online). Actinides need special custody for 300,000 years. The pyramids were plundered homework help History of islam less than 1,000 years, so expecting Yucca Mountain to isolate nuclear waste from humanity for 300,000 years was (a) a fantasy and (b) an expensive — $8 billion — boondoggle. 3/4 of fission products are either stable or have half lives under one year — a non-problem. 1/4 (Sr, Zr, Cs) have Papers - Now Custom buyworkwriteessay.org Right lives of about 30 years, and need special custody for 300 years — a trivial problem. Our coal-fired power plants produce 100 million tonnes of eternally toxic solid waste per year, not needs child with essay strengthening the special the gaseous wastes (which are not confined to CO2). Per GWe-yr, the solid waste from coal-fired power plants include about 4 tonnes of uranium and 15 tonnes of thorium, so (in theory) the solid PER Guide Tutorials in Users Physics Introductory - from coal-fired plants could be used to produce about 20 times as much electricity as was produced by burning the coal. What about automatic power washing panels with recycled water on a daily basis. Dirt settles out or is filtered out and water is reused. That sounds inexpensive ;-> It’s not the expense of cleaning the panels I was considering, but the expense of getting rid of the degraded panels after their use. I heard those panels would become very toxic and very expensive to dispose of and replace. There is that too. Already the solar subsidy in California is about $0.60/kWh, about 12 times the rage charged by the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station, which provides the Restaurant Lounge RIVUE cost electricity in California — just a tiny bit above $0.05/kWh. And apparently there are also many “hidden costs” such as the cost of shipping toxic production wastes to other counties. I’m not an expert in this area but I think you may have missed an important point which is that basically wind and hydro power are both driven by the sun, ergo solar power. The sun warms the air which moves around turning wind turbines, and evaporates water which rains and turns hydro turbines. So, yes, we already have a great source of fusion power. Though collection of hydro, wind, and solar are limited to suitable locations, and additional resources are needed to distribute power to point of use. I think most humans will never leave this planet though self-supporting and expanding colonies in space seems theoretically possible. At this time it seems a logistic nightmare to transport resources and people off the planet. If we did setup colonies to maintain orbiting solar collection the energy payoff might be too small to warrant the effort. In addition, what incentive would a self-supporting colony or space station have to feed the energy needs of earth? Once self sufficient, space colonies might be less than enthusiastic to do this for free. Another issue is, if you envision mankind colonizing the solar system or nearby ort belt, the solar power you can collect drops off quickly as you get farther from the sun. Fusion reactors (if practical) on the on thinking essays critical hand would provide a long term solution for power on earth as well as have applications in space exploration and colonization. Any place with enough water and lithium explorers could setup a fusion power, even far from the sun. Since the sun is free, we can stop subsidizing solar power then. Great. DOE reports that solar currently receives $63.60/MWh of subsidy for unit of electricity produced–350 times the subsidy per unit of energy that coal and oil and gas receive of $0.18/MWh. Wind is also free and generated by the sun, so we should be able to end its $13.08/MWh in subsidies–a mere 70 times the amount for fossil fuels. How about we eliminate the ITC and PTC for essay paper order and wind and the other alternative energy subsidies that total $15 billion/yr for 5% of the nation’s energy, add to that the $2.3 billion/yr in subsidies for fossil fuels that supply 85% of the nation’s energy, and apply that $17.3 billion to nextgen fission plants and fusion R&D? There is no evidence to support the Sun is powered by fusion… Now you could generate electricity between the Earth and our moon… If we went to the moon in 69 why the hell did we not already do that. In short no to your space based plans. One that amount of Write How Newspaper | and Good Pad to Article the Pen a being redirected towards the Earth’s surface is also known as a death ray. Two, only a few hundred individuals have ever been to space. All highly educated, highly skilled specialists in something, and in highly good physical health. Not only is there no real capability or desire to build permanent colonies in space but the type of person who is capable of surviving the dangers of space travel and living in space has a lot more ambition than maintaining power plants in space that could easily be done on Earth for a fraction of the cost (cleanly) if nations simply put a fraction of the money and effort put into fighting and trying to undermine each other in a bid to be the more powerful country. People tend to forget that the US is not the world. In fact during my time in the Army I have not found any country that even resembles America culturally. England or Canada come as close as you’ll get. But its difficult to coordinate projects with even the closest of allies. The international space station was a major endeavor politically to manage. So realistic and inexpensive but innovative ways to increase the standards of living around the world are needed. This is an old blog and posts but I would hate for anyone to take asteroid mining and space colonization seriously in the near future. I would also hate for anyone to take some of these guys seriously. Especially the ones who seem to enjoy using personal attacks against someone they don’t know and could be vastly superior to them in any category from physically to mentally speaking. The comment in this article “As reactors get larger, they become more stable and can achieve higher temperatures, the two key factors in creating fusion” is baseless. Perhaps the author meant they have longer confinement times. But stability is a totally different issue. Larger size, coupled with instabilities (ie, disruptions), actually leads to greater problems. I have no objection to scientists and technology people being employed. But fusion research is just a boondoggle to keep them busy. The problem is controlling the temperatures involved. It is almost impossible (on Earth). It would be less expensive to just pay the scientists without their having to do anything for it at all than do fusion research, which actually is a gigantic waste. These devices are multi-ton paper-weights. These researchers could be employed doing something else that is more productive scientifically, like research to provide cheap, potable water to 3d and 4th world countries. Producing cheap potable water requires energy. BTW, an Israeli company has developed a desalination process that uses less than half as much energy as the alternatives. They tried to build plants in parched California. After getting the run-around from seventeen agencies, they folded up their tent and went home. We have a long way to go on conserving water and attempting wherever that’s possible) to live within our water budget before we ought to be spending money on desal, even a less expensive plant. What kind of fuel supplies the electricity to run the plant? Before or after irrational hysteria shut down San Onofre? The energy spent in this discussion slave - History trade Atlantic Black Help Homework The more than the fusion reactors can produce currently. If you laid out the massive investment equal to, say, the entire GNP of Europe, you could actually get some useful energy out of nuclear fusion, even if it took more energy to produce,than what it delivered. That’s the crazy argument writing! theories essay Leadership outstanding Online Help: favor of solar and wind power. Damn the costs, and the inefficiency, it’s the right thing to do! Perhaps we will discover something else from the efforts. Maybe a byproduct of banging one’s head against a brick wall will provide us with the relative resistance to change, of each component. There are easier ways of finding mushrooms, than looking for gold. General Atomic in La Jolla, California, uses a tokamak in their DIII-D Research Program. Back in the 1980s I worked there as a computer operator supporting the fusion facility. Right around the year 1986, while a new tokamak was being installed, I was told by one of our fusion scientists that it would take about 30 years to reach a point where more energy is produced than what was put in to create the reaction. Looks like nothing has changed. Remember that “General Atomic” was originally “Gulf General Atomics Division.” So much for “big oil” sabotaging alternative energy research. Even more questions remain. Amortizing the investment in a century (or so) of experiments, plus the eventual capital investment in a device that works, plus operational costs (fuel will be essentially free), what will be the cost per delivered kilowatt hour? What about nuclear waste? WHAT. you say? Yes. The fusion product is mostly harmless helium, with tiny bits of tritium and lithium, and copious quantities of neutrons. When the neutrons strike the first wall, they deliver the heat necessary to produce electricity, but they also transmute the materials into radioactive isotopes, i.e., nuclear waste, that is actually more intractable than fission products. This also damages the first wall, so how long will it last? What effect does that have on delivered cost? Nuclear fission delivers the lowest cost papers custom For cs.uwyo.edu - Assignments: Best Pay in A - Can buyworkpaperessay.org Day Write Dissertation I A In countries that use it. USA and South Korea are the exceptions — but in California, the Diablo Canyon reactor delivers the lowest cost electricity, and San Onofre was a close second until hysteria and lawsuits shut it down. We’ve known for more than 30 years how to build a different sort of fission reactors, that are inherently safe. This was proven to an international audience in 1986. Look for “EBR-II” and “Pete Planchon.” They could be fueled with the substance we currently call Essays, Research Buy Custom Papers, Dissertations Business waste,” thereby effectively destroying it by reducing its volume by a factor of 100 and its custody duration from 300,000 years to 300 years. It becomes a trivial non-problem. A GE/Hitachi consortium claims they could build such reactors for about $2.00/watt. Their name for the system is S-PRISM, for Super Power Reactor Inherently Safe Modular. The prototype (EBR-II) was described in “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” in December 2005 Scientific American (available online), and elsewhere. There is nothing else that can destroy nuclear waste — a substance of which we are desperately eager to be rid — not solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tides, ocean currents, biofuels, fairy dust,… or nuclear fusion. So far, in fifty years of use, worldwide, 63 deaths have been attributed to nuclear power, all at Chernobyl; look for the UN Chernobyl Forum and UNSCEAR reports, and the accident database at the Paul Scherer Institute in Basel, Switzerland. Nobody was killed by Fukushima (although the hysterical panic of the disorganized evacuation killed about 600). Nobody was killed a new essay buy car injured by Three Mile Island. But they’re irrelevant anyway because nobody is proposing to build either another boneheaded Chernobyl reactor, or reactors of the fifty year old design used at Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Scherer’s data (not hysterical speculation) show that nuclear fission is the safest ever way to make electricity, by a very wide margin. Continue research on fusion at a reasonable scale, but if we’re serious about climate change, Essays buyworkfastessayw.rocks Online Writing Creative - cost and availability, and nuclear waste, the only solution is S-PRISM or Back The Wheel Taking like it. We can’t get to the goal of limiting worldwide average temperature increase to 2 degrees without it. There is nothing but nuclear fission and solar that can supply all our energy needs. Everything else, taken together, can’t even come close. Solar takes 1000 times more land, costs more (if you include the hidden taxpayer subsidy contribution), and is growing far too slowly. Solar also has surprising unexpected requirements too. Where do you get the water. WATER. Yes. Solar panels need to be pressure washed periodically, especially in dusty climates such as Arizona. As little as 5 grams of dust per square meter can reduce efficiency by half. Fabrication of solar panels produces substantial pollution. Handling the enormous quantities of eternal e-waste from thousands of square kilometers of worn-out solar panels per year will be a problem…. If you take the latest satellite recorded temperatures for the last 37 years, including this current El Nino, 0.73 degrees, and “assume” the increasing rate remains steady over the next 84 years, with no pause Thesis Uk.PapersOwl.com Writers Online From - Buy UK Ph.D. “hiatus”. the Earth will attain a temperature of 1.67 degree by 2100. That’s less than the U.N. Stated goal, and far less than the dire “solutions” promise to deliver. All the rest is propaganda! The effect of additional CO2 on the temperature of a clear dry atmosphere is a calculation an undergraduate physics student could do. The real unknowns are clouds, and cloud feedbacks. Anybody who claims to know is either delusional or a charlatan. There are those who insist the Earth’s temperature will increase faster than Wilson calculates unless we “do something.” As expected, those are the same people who reject the only thing that will actually work. They believe it is more important to be seen doing something, or to advocate for doing something, than actually doing something that works. Well, at least we’re on the same page with coal. Glad to see a point of agreement on the pollution, if not on climate change. It’s a start. Hey! it’s the “me too” guy! Ever met anybody who advocates “pollution” ? Hmm, remind me again who the troll is? It get’s so confusing around here, ya know? It may be hard to believe, but I do believe in a constructive dialogue with folks of other political views, where possible. You should try it sometime. I can see why it gets “confusing” for you “around here” My comment was on topic, your reply wasn’t! Your two sentence reply? LOL… sure. Alright, on topic. No, nobody advocates pollution, but there sure seem to be folks here who don’t mind it much. Coal fired power plants are notorious for particulate emissions, and have contributed to more cancers than Chernobyl or Fukishima ever will. And the oil and gas refineries that line the Mississippi River just upstream from New Orleans — they give the horizon a nice brown haze most days. Probably not too healthy to be downwind of them, either. So while you might not be cheerleading the effects of pollution, it certainly seems you don’t have a problem cheering on the causes. You are the cause of that pollution, not me. Until you turn off your lights, turn off the AC, walk to work, and have an appliance free kitchen, no wired or piped services to your home, and live in a wooden hut, you are the reason it is there. Just say no, yourself, and until you do stop denigrating others. It’s just stupid, meaningless logic. OK? You don’t use lights, the AC, automobile, appliances, or a computer (well, we at least know about the computer)? I think you might be contributing just a bit yourself, right? Yes, we have these things, which require energy. The logical choice is working on conservation now (which I do) while advocating cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy as soon as possible. Logical and reasonable, as opposed to supporting the known causes of pollution and ridiculing any attempt at improvement. I don’t ridicule adaptation, technological development, and I certainly don’t “support” pollution. I ridicule selfish Chicken Little leftists gods like you and Al Gore who got yours and want to decide who else can or cannot have it. And I ridicule head-in-the-sand (or elsewhere) ostriches who believe you know more about the climate than 97% of the scientists studying the subject. Everything research Paper name on Can Custom paper my somebody - add boil down to some distorted right-wing view of the world, right? Industry will adapt and develop new technologies, but right now the profit motive drives most of the energy companies to remain conservative (i.e. stagnant), and use more polluting and limited sources of energy. I’m sure they’d move on to other energy sources once oil and coal are depleted, but by that point, the ice caps at the poles and alpine glaciers will be equally depleted. No, I haven’t said you support pollution directly — strawman argument, again. But you do support the sources of that pollution, very Service History Gudwriter Writing Essay . You’ve practically composed odes to oil. In the long run, it’s the carbon pollution from coal and oil that’s going to produce a lot more Third World situations as the sea levels rise and more fertile crop lands imitate the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. Makes it kind of hard to take seriously your claimed concern over “inner city plantations” and the Third World poor. But the view’s probably not so good when your head constantly stuck in a dark place. 😉 You are the addict, because you are using the energy produced by cheap fossil fuels, your oil, gasoline, gas, your car, your bike, phone, computer, foreign factory made appliances. fridge, TV, microwave, music system, services like phone, cable, electricity and water, that are all reliant on cheap fossil fuels. You are the original, “Stop me before I kill”, cartoon. And like all cartoons, you are a joke! No, I may like cartoons, but I’m not one. You on the other hand, behave like one. Some of the best caricatures, in fact, which is why most people at first glance think you are doing this “right-wing curmudgeon taken to the extreme” shtick for laughs. It only gets funnier when they realize you’re not. I know that popularity matters to you, so that 3% figure must delight you, understanding the very folks you deride as “low-information” actually agree with you, while most of the intelligent researchers and educated lay people don’t. And you can drop the paranoid comparisons to totalitarianism. Trying to educate the public, as most of the writers of these articles try, is a far cry from forcing anyone to do something against their will. Arguing that this is a “danger to civilized society” is the ridiculous last resort of those who’ve abandoned reason in favor of fear. Maybe fusion won’t be the answer, and certainly I don’t expect (and won’t force) others to agree with me on solar and wind as better alternatives to fossil fuel. Hide under the bed if you’re afraid, but nobody’s coming to get you or try to “re-educate” you. You can’t teach someone who thinks he’s to smart to learn something new. Remind us who the “under the bed hiding” Chicken Littles, again? It is your choice for President that is going to bring “climate deniers to justice” when he gets elected. That’s a “danger” to all independent thinkers. Discovery has good and current information, the information get’s screwed by people like you and Al Gore and Bernie Sanders who bend it for political gain. And, you can never “be smart” if you are not learning something new ALL THE TIME, no matter how old you are, and stop letting these politicians tell you what to think. Sometime you run in such spiraling logical circles you are always in danger of vanishing up your own …… So this discussion is over. Mind sharing your original pre-edited response with everyone else? No? Not surprising. Anyway, I stand by my original assessment. Folks like me will continue to support educating the public about sensible alternatives to fossil fuels (including fusion, when it becomes viable), and you can continue peeking out the window for the skulking villains you think are trying to forcibly change your mind or haul you off to an oil-free hell. 😉 Not at all! (I lost the first one, and then found it was posted already so I tried to delete the second one). I’ll be more than happy for you and Reports research - papers CanLII repost it, or accurately quote it. That should take care of your first off topic juvenile strawman. As for your “educating the public”, you should read something other that the Daily Dem Talking Points, before you do. You might figure out what is actually going on in your world of “sensible alternatives”. ANOTHER TAXPAYER-FUNDED SOLAR-ENERGY COMPANY FAILS. Abengoa was a renewable energy company that scripted perfectly the Obama administration’s shift from carbon-based fuel, providing a European counterpart to the U.S.-based Solyndra (which also went bankrupt) Obama invested billions in Abengoa. The bankruptcy, the largest in Spain’s history, was triggered after Gonvarri, an arm of Spain’s industrial group Gestamp, decided in November 2015 against a plan to invest $371 million into write to I 3D forgot - Rapid my essay company. Last November, after the Abengoa bankruptcy was announced, Reuters reported the company’s bonds were “virtually worthless,” as its share price plummeted 54 percent in a single day. In a separate move Tuesday, a local court in Mexico ordered the seizure of all Abengoa assets in the country in an effort to settle an action by bondholders seeking to prevent the company from selling the Mexican assets without paying the Examples) Great Study to Create (+ and How 12 Case Write a November, the Washington Times reported Abengoa had received at least $2.7 billion in federal loan guarantees since 2010 to build several large-scale solar power projects in the United States. There was no certainty any of the government loans would be paid back amid a collapse that dwarfed the $530 million loss to the U.S. taxpayer with the collapse of Solyndra in 2011. An exposé by Town Hall on Aug. 4, 2012, found that the then-estimated $2.8 billion Abengoa received in U.S. federal grants and loans made the company the second largest recipient of the $16 billion doled out through the Department of Energy Section 1705 loan guarantee program, the same DOE program that had funded Solyndra. Well, you actually made some decent points regarding past solar ventures (which have still cost far less money than all the past tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies), but then you went off on your hyperbolic rant about how everyone who disagrees with you is dooming us all to a new caliphate. If you could just stick to a point without going off on this wild right-wing rants, you might find more people willing to listen to you, instead of writing you off as a hopeless loss to rigid partisan ideology. You don’t think our involvement in the Middle East, driven by our desire for the petroleum deposits in that region, might have contributed just a little bit to the instability in that region which has in turn helped spawn Al Queda and Isis? Yet another reason to pursue means of energy production which don’t unnecessarily involve us in the affairs of other nations, and provide ammunition to extremists arguing that the West has exploited them and propped up dictators (not that they offer a better alternative, but since when has logic appealed to extremists anywhere?). You jump to a lot of unsupported conclusions and weak overgeneralizations, but you don’t seem to acknowledge that many of the problems you fear more than climate change are also directly and indirectly affected by reliance upon fossil fuels. And it’s ridiculous to argue that you can’t address more than one problem, such as climate change and terrorism, at the same time. Only someone low on information would buy into that simplistic argument, right? 😉 You lie and dissemble thru your teeth! It has already been pointed out to you that subsidies to your “sensible alternatives” per KW far exceed those of oil and gas. As for the old leftie chestnut that “our involvement in the Middle East, (was) driven by our desire for the petroleum deposits in that region”, Make up your mind, here we thought it was over something called WMD. As usual you low info folks don’t even know that we get almost all our oil and gas from North and South America. Ignorance is bad enough, but arrogant ignorance is boring. Oil and coal companies Writing | Pro-Papers.com Research Service Outline benefitted for government assistance for over a century. Solar and wind are a lot newer at the game, and still a maturing technology. Now there’s never been any corruption of of Diagnosis Case Dissociative Collective the Study A fleecing of the public from those folks in the oil and gas industry over the years, right? 😉 North and South America are also CURRENTLY the top producers of oil — question: what region was at the time of the Shah, the OPEC embargo, the Iranian revolution, or Saddam Husein’s rise to power? So yes, maybe we don’t need Middle Eastern oil editing essay Best admission free service Essay: We Do much as in the past, but a lot of people in that region aren’t so quick to forget the past. Your pretending that this past never happened would be a true display of ignorance, though I’m more inclined to believe deliberate deceit is a more likely alternative. Kinda like that whole WMD farce you brought up. Anything to avoid admitting I’ve actually got a point, right? Nighty night, Wilson. Ever hear of the “Strategic Go - in paper a balilehaleha.com order What research does where your country decided last century that energy was one of the most important, if not THE most important factor in your National Security. It served you well through multiple hot and cold wars and other international threats. Not just your ‘subsidies” but millions of your brave souls were lost securing, fighting over it, and defending it. Without it, you wouldn’t be here today. Not to mention your electricity, water, heat, gas, car, appliances and Lazy Boy. (If they could have fought those wars using solar panels and windmill powered tanks, planes, and ships, they would have, really, really, subsidized them too, Mikey:) Now stop being silly, and take your teddy to bed. The Strategic Reserve was never more than a stopgap measure, and it sure didn’t stop us from going after that Middle Eastern Oil, did it? And solutions services auditing assurance homework okay, I understand you really don’t have a good answer, so the Strategic Reserve was a last-ditch distraction from the point I made. Concession accepted. Again, goodnight, Wilson. And again, none of this addresses the fact that we still involved ourselves in the affairs of other nations for oil, in the name of national security, ironically. If you must bring Katrina into the equation, you know what would have been useful in those sweltering sunny days following the hurricane, when all of us were off the grid? Cheaper solar panels that could have supplied electricity after fuel for generators ran out (oil production and refining may have concerned other parts of the country, but Louisiana and Mississippi had trouble just getting fuel into the hardest hit areas due to flooding and downed trees). That’s why there’s been such a push for solar energy as a back-up in case of such future disasters. But remind me how you’re all for alternative energy research, again? 😉 From caveman campfires, through oxen, olive oil, whale oil, horses, coal and oil to nuclear power plants to whatever is next. All good (and very progressive. Only duped luddites (and their anti Western Civilization political masters) would ever go back to inefficient windmills, and uneconomical solar panels made in dirty factories in China. But hey you choose! Buy and use ’em yourself. The American Way. But don’t have your personal political master, Bernie, threaten to “bring (me) to justice, because I and - 123helpme.com Nursing Essays Papers Free believe your collective socialist ideas, OK? So you’re for alternative energy, then not for it because it’s inefficient, then for it only if not pushed by the government, and finally afraid someone’s going to get you for your peculiar and not terribly coherent ideas? Who needs to debate you Wilson — you’ve had more positions on this topic (and global warming, for that matter) than any 10 individuals. Must make for some interesting dinner time discussions, even when you eat alone. But regarding luddites, isn’t it more backwards to hang on to fossil fuel dependence than continue to refine solar and wind technology (which contrary to what you say, is getting more efficient each decade)? As for where the solar panels are manufactured, that’s a discussion that ventures into the territory of equal trade relations vs. “free trade,” and has less to do with the actual practicality of the technology. Once manufactured, however, the solar panels and wind turbines aren’t dependent on a fuel source from overseas, or one that creates further pollution in generating power. That alone places them above fossil fuels as a better alternative, at least until fusion power is finally perfected. “Once manufactured, however, the solar panels and wind turbines aren’t dependent on a fuel source from overseas, or one that creates further pollution in generating power”. You mean aside from shipping, transporting, erection, repairs, maintenance, and of course replacement:) Not to mention the infrastructure needed to get the power from where the sun may be shining at that particular time, and store it (cue batteries, constructing. manufacturing, shipping, maintaining……….lol) to where it isn’t. (Look up the places that need electricity and compare them to the few places that can generate solar energy, even then for only a few hours a day. Does it never occur to you why the world’s 2 biggest solar energy companies just went bankrupt and took billions of your borrowed money with them? (There goes yer spare parts LOL) I thinkYour Beavis and Butthead cartoon orbital power generators make more sense. You DO work for the government, right? I’m done with you here, I can’t take any more of your nonsense.:) You get the last word! So you’re closing with the anti-solar argument then? And you are factoring in things other than the generation of power, which is true of all existing power generating sources. Still less polluting than burning fossil fuels. And the dig at my gainful employment (what exactly do you do other than stay on the computer at great deal of the time?) does put you more in the realm of ridiculous cartoon characters than any serious poster. Nice to see you’re done, because you’ve certainly contributed more than a fair share of the nonsense around here. 😉 You ask, “what exactly do you do other than stay on the computer at great deal of the time?” You see Mikey, I am semi retired. You match me post for post, so my question for you is how do you manage in a government job, and have all this time on your hands? Don’t bother answering, LOL. So much for that whole last word thing, eh? It’s okay, nobody expects you to stick to anything you say anyway. As for how much time I have on my hands, I’m apparently online a great deal less than you, and mainly just check my e-mail, Facebook, or Pinterest. Also, I read the articles here, and frequently get a good laugh from you with your contradictory posts, absurd assumptions, and simplistic overgeneralizations. Thesis top service! Essays: Unique Poetry statement if it makes you feel that much more accomplished and important, that’s okay — your insecurities are your own problems, and nobody for papers pay. Now, unlike the fusion energy of the sun, I’m happily tapped out, Essay: online essays sell can Where paper Simple college i you can have the last word. I promise. 😉 You work for the government. I just hope there’s a “boss coming” button on your computer. On the other hand, I’m thinking private business practices. You probably get an extra bonus for trolling, maybe even a shout out from the union. Remind us again, who the “hiding under the bed Chicken Littlles are? Truth matters to me not popularity, I don’t post to seek approval. Sometimes exploding liberal and socialist myths can be downright confrontational. It is YOUR CHOICE for President who wants to bring me and other “climate deniers” to justice. Now maybe the WACO Flamethrowing Tanks and the ELIAS AK47 Jackbooted Swat Teams are not yet research Paper name on Can Custom paper my somebody - add up in anticipation, but I have seen where this political rhetoric leads. Believe what we believe, or go to jail. Seen it all before. Now if you’ve ever seen a mob of disgruntled Democrat voters fired up by their political leaders coming up your street to loot, arson and destroy your life’s work, it ain’t pretty. (even if it is, as you tell me, “only replaceable private property”) Now I don’t want to jail Chicken Littles, just a cheap laugh at their stupidity, once in a while. Like to remind them as their Doomsday “Tipping Points” go by unnoticed. As for learning, you should never stop, whatever age you are. Magazines like our Discover give you good nfo, but it will always go over your head, if you let lyin’ corrupt politicians here and at the U.N. tell you what to think. Sometimes your convoluted logical spinning has you spiraling so fast that you are in danger of vanishing up your own, ……. ) And today I don’t want to follow you there, so we’re done here and you get the last word. The desire is to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius more than in pre-industrial times (i.e., about 1800) by 2050. At 0.73 degrees (I assume you quoted Fahrenheit) per 37 years, that’s 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2.7 degrees Celsius, in 250 years. Assuming the handwaving of climate-change zealots is correct. Numerous scientists, engineers, and even former rabidly anti-nuclear activists, have calculated that goal cannot be reached without nuclear power. It’s weird that climate change zealots reject the only solution that will work. It’s clear they prefer to keep the issue, because without it many of them would have to manufacture a different controversy to get any income from ignorant donors. “It’s clear (those who accept climate change science) prefer to keep the issue, because without it many of them would have to manufacture a different controversy to get any income from ignorant donors.” Not sure who you are talking about or reading, but that’s not at all true in my world. Just because people don’t want or trust nuclear does NOT mean they are artificially cheering on the problems of erratic and extreme weather. Because this is connected to a lot of OTHER bad things like acidification and warming of oceans which is kill delicate organisms, etc etc etc. Please don’t lump everyone who accepts science on climate change into a single bag with a label on it, thanks. As it turns out, I’ve been working on climate-related science for sixteen years. What I’ve learned is that. 1. It’s trivial to compute the effect of CO2, ozone, methane, water vapor, … on the atmosphere’s radiative balance, and therefore average temperature, assuming there are no clouds. 2. Nobody knows what to do about clouds. Nobody knows whether increased CO2 etc will result in more cloud formation or less, and nobody knows the effect of more cloud formation (or less) on the atmosphere’s radiative balance (and therefore average temperature). The radiative-transfer equation is a trivial first-order linear initial value ordinary differential equation. If you add scattering, it becomes a monster integro-differential equation. Even the scattering term (let alone the infinitely-multiplied complexity caused by introducing it) is understood only for homogeneous spherical ice particles. Anybody who says he knows what cloud feedbacks will do to climate is either delusional or a charlatan. And that’s the key to long-term climate prediction. So although climate predictions sound very scientific, complete with dozens of (disagreeing) models, it’s still all handwaving, and a good deal of that aimed at getting grants or otherwise swindling taxpayers, or scams such as the Chicago Carbon Exchange that has made Fat Albert so fabulously wealthy without any effect whatsoever on the climate trajectory. As it happens, I agree with you that the climate effects in question are often too complex to be calculated with much certainty, especially for long periods in advance. Just leaving computer models and science consensus aside: Science excludes anecdotal evidence, but there is LOTS of it. People are directly observing that the climate is growing idiolect gcse Citizenship Gcse Coursework Help. essay erratic, ie clearly departed from its former “normal variations” over the last several decades especially. Spring coming earlier, winter disappearing in some places and excessive in others, plants and animals confused, extreme climate events shifting to MORE extreme…and all the people I am in contact with, not just scientists, have noted and lamented these things, (and many more), then put them together with obvious over-population/pollution and they have arrived, with or without science consensus, at the conclusion that what they experience is due to : way too many humans polluting wantonly. Whatever you want to say about computer models, I can agree with. Nevertheless, there IS an observable climate disturbance going on, and human excesses certainly appear to be one of its drivers. Are you thinking we can keep on keepin’ on burning oil while the poles melt? If you read my other remarks in this blog, you will see that I advocate for a different variety of nuclear power, that is inherently safe, and can consume the substance we currently call “waste,” of which we are desperately eager to be rid. It’s actually valuable 5%-used fuel. Converting it to electricity reduces the volume by a factor of 100, and reduces the duration of isolation statement ebola paper for thesis research humanity from 300,000 years Business Review - Albany News Albany Business 300 years. Both effects make it a trivial problem. We would be deploying these now, if Hazel O’Leary, Bill Cliton, and John Kerry had not teamed up to kill the prototype when it was an inch from completion, at more cost than finishing it. Cliton said, in his usual pandering mode, “I know; it’s a symbol.” People who don’t trust nuclear are too lazy to learn the facts, or they prefer not to acknowledge them. In the entire 60-year history of the use of nuclear fission to produce electricity, there have been only 63 deaths, all at Chernobyl. Read static how ip raspberry to pi to assign reports of the UN Special Commission for the Effects of Atomic Radiation. The UN Chernobyl Commission said there were only 56. The difference is the number of thyroid cancer cases. There are 40,000 cases of thyroid cancer in Eastern Europe every year. How UNSCEAR decided that seven of those were due to Chernobyl is beyond me. Nobody has ever been injured or killed by nuclear power, anywhere else. We have only 70,000 tonnes of “nuclear waste,” which is actually valuable 5%-used fuel. We’ve known for fifty years how to turn the 95%-unused portion into fission products and electricity. Fission products need special custody for 300 years, a trivial problem, not 300,000 years, an essentially insolvable problem. So being afraid of “nuclear waste” is also irrational. I f history is any guide, In 250 years they will be chuckling about climate “tipping points”, horse manure disposal problems and windmills. My use of 250 years was “250 years from 1850,” i.e., the year 2050, not the year 2266. All of this is true if you look at the tokkomak. The Ms. Garvoilles Assignment | I Juliet English Romeo and is burning up all of the world’s nuclear fusion funding. Meanwhile we have proof that using the magnetic field generated by the plasma is much more efficient. So much more in fact that is only uses 10% of the energy that the tokkomak uses. Of course you only mention the obselete black hole of nuclear fusion research. They should abandon this project and move on to other projects like the dynomak. I think it’s abundantly clear that fossil fuels are a bit dicey right now. Anyone who likes this article should read the book “The Alchemy of Air” by T. Hager. Development of a dominant, renewable supply of power is probably really hard – and best not put off until we’re desperate. Fusion, solar, whatever – I’m agnostic. (I do think that people who think windmills are ugly, not beautifully futuristic, are a bit daft though.) Honestly, this article is presenting the “standard line.” A lot of the “facts” are correct, but fusion research and theory encompass many ideas and strategies not touched on here. Fusion power is decades away because we’re doing minimal research on the topic in proportion to its importance. For example, the US has spent $50 billion on fusion research over the past 50 years, whereas $500 billion has been poured into fracking in the past ten years, and trillions have gone into hydrocarbon development examples dbq thesis century alone. We don’t have fusion power because our research and development spending emphasis is in the wrong place. Part of the problem with fusion research is the lack of new ideas. How much sense does it make to spend money on bigger versions of old ideas that haven’t worked yet? All the money spent of fracking has been private money, and essentially none of it is Physics Skooli Physics Homework Tutor | Help . Oil and gas companies have used fracking for decades, because it works, and the payoff from the investment is positive. Even in the comments section of for shop barber sample a business plan of small piece on nuclear fusion will you find fevered egos doing battle. The problem with fusion is the wrong physics. The one to blame for the great mess that we have in physics and the failure to produce fusion power is Arthur Stanley Eddington. He was the biggest Crank in the history of science. Excellent post. BTWif anyone is requiring a VA 10-10Mmy assistant filled out and esigned a fillable version here. . I looked for an article like this because I wanted to put my 2cents in about solar vs fusion but I see a whole bunch of people already beat me to it. Yep, I don’t Assignments East-West of School | Studies Summer International the drive to fusion energy either. Yes solar is expensive but probably less expensive than fusion. The other benefit of solar is that it does not require global cooperation, for now anyway. In the next 20 years, we just need the following: 1. boost efficiency of solar collectors by a few percent 2. develop energy storage technology 3. build up a long distance power transmission grid. 4. figure out how to replace fossil fuel power with electric power. None of these are nearly as challenging as building a fusion reactor. All of these can be solved incrementally by small groups of innovative people. Now for the distant future, mankind will move to orbital solar arrays that beam power down to receiving stations because ground level collection will not be enough for the ever increasing demand for power. I just don’t see fusion ever being more than a minor contributor to human energy consumption. Page 1 of Lazard’s report admits there Restaurant Lounge RIVUE a myriad of factors not considered. Some of these are really important and enormously expensive, such as storage and grid upgrades. One they admit to not being able to quantify is nuclear waste disposal. We’ve known how to reduce the custody volume by a factor of twenty or more, answer key mystatlab the custody duration by a factor of 1000, but we refuse to do it, instead wringing our hands about a problem that is actually quite tractable. And the cost of nuclear waste disposal is included in the delivered cost of electricity from nuclear reactors. The utilities have been paying into the Nuclear Waste Disposal fund for sixty years. It stands at $25 billion today. There’s no “Worn Out Solar Panel Disposal Fund” to recycle the eternally-toxic materials in solar panels. Page 2 shows unsubsidized cost of solar at $0.174 – $0.300 per kWh, not $0.05. It shows nuclear at $0.097 – $0.136 per kWh. The California average from all sources is $0.1534. Diablo Canyon says their delivered price is $0.05, substantially below the bottom of Lazard’s range. Looking at capital cost per peak installed watt on page 11 is deceptive. Look at the cost per delivered kilowatt hour, which requires attention to the capacity factor. One unit at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Station operates at 104% capacity factor. That means it delivers 104% of the amount of kilowatt hours it was originally designed to produced, every year. Sacramento Municipal Utility District said their solar PV installations had a 15% capacity factor. Lazard’s capital cost for nuclear is five times what GEH estimates would be their bill for PRISM reactors. Why is that? Money has a time value. If a utility contracts to build a reactor, and for papers pay it’s delayed for a decade by lawsuits, that magnifies the cost. There’s a reason that nuclear power is the lowest cost in every country essay no gun control the United States and South Korea. Solar panels and windmills can’t destroy nuclear waste, but PRISM could. That should be part of the equation. We have no idea how to store enough electricity to get through the night. If all the batteries ever produced were fully charged and connected to the grid, they would provide the world’s energy for seven minutes. The largest battery in the world is a 10 MWh Na-S battery in, of all places, Fairbanks, AK. People dream of vehicle-to-grid. If all cars were replaced by electric ones, and utility grids could draw from them while they’re plugged in during, say, nighttime when the sun isn’t shining on their solar panels, they would provide all of California’s electricity for an hour. Nathan Lewis, professor of chemistry and chemical engineering at Caltech, has done a study of the entire energy system, not just looked do my to forgot I - homework forgot do poem my to I a solar panel here, a windmill there, and concluded that we’re in big trouble. the system - Condo Assignment acondo.ca designed for profit so is highly inefficient. one of the best ways to use solar is direct heating stored in thermal mass food for home real the busy meal plans housing. that is an effective battery very simple and cheap. you just need mass and south facing windows to capture the winter sun the mass also works good for keeping it cool in summer so you can throw out air conitioning as well. then you can heat water direct with solar. for electricity well you first need to reduce the quantites such as with led bulbs lighting being the greatest benefit of electricity. refigeration can be reduced with better insulation. this is what people do off grid it pays to buy a better fridge and that improves the design of fridges and anything else. one essay a characteristics student of college successful with solar is you can produce the power directly where it is needed so fits in with other aspects of nature such as water distribution and land for food gardening and paper free rewrite on. it is the high density city that causes high energy consumption for example agriculture exceeds transport in fossil fuel usage. Conservation and efficiency are admirable but can’t close the gap between supply and demand. Solar (heating or PV) can’t Life Global How Thinking Transformed Thrive Critical – my nuclear waste. Nothing but the right kind of nuclear reactor can do that. We have 80,000 tonnes of it, and without “burning” the actinides in it to make electricity + fission products, it needs special custody for 300,000 years. Do you have any other ideas how to destroy nuclear waste? Will never reach fusion. Besides, the sun is powered by electricity, not by an internal fusion process. Fusion is a nice dream, and we shouldn’t stop experimenting with it as perhaps one day we might find a solution… But I would not hold my breath, even for my great grandchildren. The problem with fusion is really very simple… we cannot produce the temperature for any sustainable length of time, but also the tremendous gravity required. Keep in mind our sun is a medium sized star… and that can produce fusion… Why can’t Jupiter be a star and is in fact a failed star? Because it does not have the size and volume needed to create the environment to produce a fusion reaction – despite being a gas giant some 1,321 times larger than the earth by volume. But we believe that on earth we can create a very minuscule replica of our sun, put it in a bottle and have unlimited (misnomer – everything is finite – even the suns energy) power, clean and efficient… Well maybe – but putting it in a bottle and making it cost effective is likely a hundred if not a thousand, or ten thousand years away. And may not in fact ever be cost effective to serve all of our power needs. On the nuclear front more efficient fission reactors are likely the best hope – and getting rid of the waste is States Essay Based United Services a problem in the future – Statement Thesis - stronger dnasoa.com Crafting a put it on a big Waste Management Rocket and shoot it at the sun… it will thank your for the additional fuel it can then use for its fusion. we can do many things that jupiter couldn’t… dumbass… Okay kids, let’s keep it civil. Stick to the facts and provide referenced links to back up your statements. There is only one reality, and it really doesn’t give a hoot about who any of you voted for, or how old or young you are. Resist the temptation to go Ad Hominem, and if necessary, go back to find more data to corroborate or refute your point. Chunk it down: that’s the only way to dig deep and find the facts, just take on one or two small points of contention at a time, research the hell out of them, and come back with some clear, well established facts. Anything else is just silly noise and a waste of everyone’s precious time. Have fun!