| Pages:
1
2 |
pollyokeefe
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 29-1-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Nuclear Energy Still Relevant?
I'm not sure if this is the right place, particularly for a beginner post. But through literature and theatre, I have become fascinated by nuclear
energy -in particular - Leo Szilard and Marie Curie (in addition to Einstein). Nuclear energy seems like a smart alternative energy to investigate
that the world should be looking at, but with Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters it doesn't seem like people would even consider it as a
large-scale energy alternative. Wind and solar power don't seem to have any traction to work on a large scale. Are there other alternatives? By the
time fossil fuels completely run out, will we have any alternative in place?
I'm sorry if this isn't the most coherent/logical question or if it's posted in the wrong place. I'm new at all of this science-y stuff.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
Bert
|
Thread Moved
29-1-2015 at 16:28 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Definitely still relevant. Check the energy production statistics for the impressive amount of global and national energy (in different countries)
that is provided by nuclear reaction. In my opinion, it is clearly already a large scale energy production method, and an alternative to pure fossil
fuels.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World...
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3
As far as predictive extrapolations, not only do I shy away from them as a general rule, I am unqualified in the field to do so even if the desire
existed.
|
|
|
diddi
National Hazard
Posts: 723
Registered: 23-9-2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorescent
|
|
at the risk of engaging in what could rapidly turn into a political argument, my position is that nuclear fuels would be a very useful stopgap
technology in the transition to mankind living within its sustainable energy usage boundaries.
quite simply, in a couple of hundred years we have raped the planet of carbon fuels that took millions of years to form, resulting in the climate
issues with which we now live. We need to work a lot smarter to become totally reliant on renewable energies at a global level.
the reason IMHO the nuclear technology and other (wind etc) have lost traction is due to the greedy oil/coal industry that see their days numbered.
they recoil against alternative technologies with vehemence and hold huge political clout. if oil/coal companies had to be accountable for the
pollution that the use of fossil fuels produces, they would all be broke.
we should have been working toward high efficiency solar/renewable energy resources with much greater vigour than we have, but it is easier to say
that it is too expensive than to set in place a long term plan. even if it takes 50-100 years to develop properly, the R&D time lag could be
covered very well by nuclear fuels which immediately reduce the use of fossil fuels remaining.
the argument people offer that nuclear is too dangerous, is certainly valid but when one looks at the most recent accident at fukushima daiichi, one
has to admit that it was an incident waiting to happen. in 20/20 hindsight, what government in their right mind would allow the construction of a
nuclear power plant on a fault zone and then allow it to stand for more than 40 years without substantial upgrades in construction technologies and
proper maintenance. this accident was not the fault of nuclear power; it was an example of gross incompetence, which 1000s of people are paying for
now.
if a tiny proportion of profits from the oil sector was directed to nuclear reactor research we would have an excellent transition technology whilst
we work on renewable energies. ultimately, whatever fuel we dig up and exploit will run out. imagine mankind in a few of hundred years... researchers
are developing some incredible materials from a rare resource called oil. the materials dubbed "plastic" prove very useful and researchers lament the
scarcity of this resource. flicking through some ancient repositories of knowledge stored on paper, they discover that the resource so valuable was
once abundant, but that it had been burnt!
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Yes, of course it is. Unfortunately people are terrified of it.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6229
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
Not only is it relevant, it is potentially, if done properly, one of the cleanest and safest options available. There are some ifs though.
As I understand it, modern reactor designs are far superior to what was built years ago.
They are capital intensive and require a certain political will to get them off the ground.
The general public does not understand nuclear power and mostly the political will and hence finance is not there.
|
|
|
plante1999
International Hazard
Posts: 1936
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as a hatter
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by diddi  | | exploit will run out. imagine mankind in a few of hundred years... researchers are developing some incredible materials from a rare resource called
oil. the materials dubbed "plastic" prove very useful and researchers lament the scarcity of this resource. flicking through some ancient repositories
of knowledge stored on paper, they discover that the resource so valuable was once abundant, but that it had been burnt! |
You know you can easily make oil using biomass, although not relevant now, in this dystopia you are talking about, scientist would certainly have
started making oil out of biomass.
I find such "apocalyptic" thoughts a bit stupid. Carbon is very damn common on earth surface and there is plenty of solar energy to reduce it to an
usable state.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
So true. Too bad students no longer listen to old dead people before paying so much money to be brainwashed with mindless hysteria and fear.
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out." Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
(1471-1530)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Not only is it relevant, until someone gets fusion working (Lockheed?) it's the only globally viable CO2-neutral energy source. There simply isn't any
other technologies available today that can replace oil and coal, none. And modern breeder designs can not only produce far more energy with far less
waste than the currently used designs, it can even use todays stockpile of waste and weapons-grade Pu putting that madness into good use.
Accidents? Most were due to poorly designed reactors. Remember that these were based on the very first designs made for naval vessels, many safety
features had to be bolted on as the design was inherently unsafe by todays standard and ill suited for the upscaling. Neither the Chernobyl nor
Fukushima incidents could have happened in a modern design like the Integral Fast Reactor: "Back in 1986, we actually gave a small [20 MWe] prototype
advanced fast reactor a couple of chances to melt down. It politely refused both times".
The fact is that fission has been judged on the merits of the crudest of all designs, a design intended as a small stepping stone to better and safer
reactors. And as the consensus of global warming grows I've noticed (wishful thinking perhaps) a slight change in attitudes. Still to early to tell,
but we could see a new dawn for nuclear energy in the future.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1 | ...
They are capital intensive and require a certain political will to get them off the ground.
The general public does not understand nuclear power and mostly the political will and hence finance is not there. |
Bingo!
The capital cost of nuclear plants is what is holding them back.
It is a straight-up bottom line investment decision. When building a new power plant there is always a fossil fuel alternative to nuclear power, coal
or natural gas. Nuclear power always loses with either one, since the payback time (and thus risk) is greater. Against natural gas in the U.S., even
coal loses, when the cost of a "clean" coal plant is considered.
To overcome this obstacle special favors have to be granted to nuclear power - special subsidized financing, a government mandate, penalties for
carbon release, it has to be something.
France, China and South Korea provide these types of support, which is why all of them are building new plants, and have a higher proportion of their
national energy mix from nuclear power.
In addition, the most cost effective way of meeting power demands is to lower them. New technology to increase energy efficiency is almost always
hugely more cost-effective than building new power plants, so this also competes with building new power plants of whatever type.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
True, as long as you don't fall for the environmentalists pipe dream of reducing total global energy consumption.
There are very real limits to energy efficiency, and as long as the "net" energy consumption continues to rise the total power consumption will also
increase. And since there is a direct link between energy consumption and quality of life I predict no decrease in growth for the foreseeable future.
As for nuclear energy I don't think it needs any special favors. All you have to do is to calculates ALL the costs of energy production, anything from
human lives lost during mining to the effect it has on climate.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | Not only is it relevant, until someone gets fusion working (Lockheed?) it's the only globally viable CO2-neutral energy source. There simply isn't any
other technologies available today that can replace oil and coal, none. And modern breeder designs can not only produce far more energy with far less
waste than the currently used designs, it can even use todays stockpile of waste and weapons-grade Pu putting that madness into good use.
|
Commercial fusion power is not coming within the working life of any human now alive.
The Lockheed 'project' has no credibility (this sort of press release fusion technology comes along every few years).
There is only one known fusion technology that we have reasonable confidence can be turned into an actual power plant (the tokamak system used in
ITER). The earliest an actual commercial scale plant might begin operating is 2050 or so, but it won't be built because it would be the most expensive
form of electricity in the world, unable to compete with any alternative. The capital cost of fusion power dwarfs that of fission power, which already
suffers from excessive capital costs.
Existing* breeder reactor technology is far too expensive**, but it is also unnecessary. There is enough uranium in seawater to provide 10,000 years
of power with current burner reactor technology, at a much lower cost. Technologies to extract uranium from seawater have been field tested that are
already cost-effective enough to support commercial nuclear power.
The waste problem is quite manageable, and the most cost-effective solution is already in widespread, near universal use, if only people would be
willing to admit it.
It is simply to leave spent fuel rods in concrete casks after their initial pool cooling period. This is what most everyone is doing right now, and
there is no compelling technical reason to change it. The casks could be kept on storage sites for centuries, the dry fuel is stable.
*There are theoretical designs for various complex integrated breeding/burning systems that might be cost effective, if they actually work as hoped,
if and when they are developed and built.
**There are several reasons for this. The cost of reprocessing spent fuel is much higher than the cost of enriching natural uranium, and then the fuel
produced is far more costly to handle. With plutonium containing fuel everything is much more expensive. Also note, that the amount of energy
available in nuclear weapon fissile material is trivial from the commercial power point of view.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen |
True, as long as you don't fall for the environmentalists pipe dream of reducing total global energy consumption.
There are very real limits to energy efficiency, and as long as the "net" energy consumption continues to rise the total power consumption will also
increase. And since there is a direct link between energy consumption and quality of life I predict no decrease in growth for the foreseeable future.
|
I agree, total energy usage will go up. But the most efficient wealthy nations are far more efficient than the worst, and so all world energy usage
can track the most efficient nations. Austria is in a cold climate and is a wealthy nation, but uses half of the energy of the U.S. per dollar of
economic output.
| Quote: | | As for nuclear energy I don't think it needs any special favors. All you have to do is to calculates ALL the costs of energy production, anything from
human lives lost during mining to the effect it has on climate. |
Calculating those costs doesn't get a plant built. Those costs are external costs, that a plant owner will ignore, unless forced to take into account
by special legislation and regulation. And of course the plant owners, and fossil fuel suppliers, will lobby in public and private that all those
external costs are bogus, and will have many legislators and pundits taking their money and agreeing. This is the situation that exists right now. Got
any ideas for changing it?
Even if the we leave externalities aside, and look only at the cost of plant operation over its lifetime (this is called the levelized cost of
ownership), and we show that a nuclear powerplant competes well - as it does - this is still not enough to get a plant built because no industry exec
cares about "the cost of plant operation over its lifetime". They will have retired decades before that lifetime ends, and will likely change jobs in
only a few years. Only next year's balance sheet matters. Only governments care about such long term things (if even they do, recent U.S. experience
shows that often they don't).
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
I don't disagree on anything in particular, my point was to show that virtually all objections that have been raised can be solved with current or
proposed designs. The most important benefit of more modern designs is the increased safety. For a sub with it's limited space it makes perfect sense
to fill it with fuel for many years of service, but for a land based power plant it's bordering on insanity. It wasn't chosen because it was an good
solution (especially when upscaled) but rather because it was an available solution. Developing new reactor designs takes a lot of work, so to save
time they chose to use this design for the first power plants.
Everybody expected it to be a short term solution until breeders came online, and that strategic error has tainted the whole field ever since.
|
|
|
roXefeller
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 9-9-2013
Location: 13 Colonies
Member Is Offline
Mood: 220 221 whatever it takes
|
|
I'm thick into a design of a nuclear core at work, to be used here in the US. I'm familiar with the awesomeness. The nuclear energy business is
extremely relevant. It is a field full of technological improvements every year. The sky is the limit for us to make bigger improvements beyond the
already safe operating history here in the US and Europe. But as mentioned, it needs the continued political will of the government and population.
I'd put one in my backyard for sure.
Finance is there, but until permitting bureaucrats stop putting the chains on the door of new facilities ready to go online with a billion already
spent ... if you legislate for it, financiers will come.
My $0.02
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by roXefeller | ...
Finance is there, but until permitting bureaucrats stop putting the chains on the door of new facilities ready to go online with a billion already
spent ... if you legislate for it, financiers will come.
|
When in your estimation have bureaucrats in the U.S. last (or ever) done this? (My answer: see below.)
I hate to lecture someone actually employed in the nuclear power industry on this, but I have followed this issue pretty closely from the hey-day of
nuclear power construction in the late 1960s (I was a precocious kid) down to the present day, and am dismayed by the fixed, hoary, inaccurate notions
nuclear power proponents tend to have (I count myself a proponent BTW).
A short lesson in nuclear power in the U.S.:
The was a big boom in nuclear power construction in the U.S. in the late 1960s and early 1970s at a time of rapidly rising per capita electricity
demand. In this surge of construction the technology was quite young, and so was safety regulation for these plants. During the 1970s safety
regulation tightened, causing costs at plants under construction to rise, but this was a transient phenomenon confined to that one decade.
In the mid 1970s, when a couple of hundred nuclear power units were in various phases of development, electricity demand abruptly stopped growing, and
remained flat for several years, then in the 1980s resumed on a slower trend line.
These two factors, rising costs, and the disappearance of the anticipated demand, led to the financial collapse of 100+ projects, most spectacularly
the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS).
There was one, and only one, power plant that was built, but shuttered without ever going into production - Shoreham on Long Island. The problem with
this plant is that it was started in the 60s without much regard to siting issues. Evacuating most of the island required going past the plant. When
it came time to develop emergency evacuation plans, this was a fatal problem. The plant should never have been built at that site.
After 1980 administration of the NRC was under extremely pro-nuclear administrations for 12 years, yet not a single plant project was started (until
2013, no new projects has started since 1977). It was strictly economics and finance.
Even after the Reagan-Bush years, the U.S. government has remained basically pro-nuclear even under Democratic administrations, with stable regulatory
requirements.
Plant-shuttering anti-nuclear bureaucrats are not holding the nuclear industry in the U.S. back. Shoreham, 30 years ago, was the last occurrence where
that characterization could be made, and that was for a unique siting reason.
Financiers will come right now, if power companies actually want to build new nuclear plants. This is proven by the fact that there are currently five
units under construction. No new legislation on this count required.
But mostly power companies would rather build natural gas plants which cost less, and turn a profit faster. Financiers don't build plants, they only
fund projects that power companies want to build.
(I note a certain cognitive dissonance among many nuclear power supporters who argue that modern advanced plants are much safer than the old ones, and
that disasters like Fukushima involved old plant designs, but seem unwilling to admit that the original safety requirements were inadequate and the
tightening in the 1970s was genuinely necessary.)
[Edited on 31-1-2015 by careysub]
|
|
|
Molecular Manipulations
Hazard to Others
Posts: 447
Registered: 17-12-2014
Location: The Garden of Eden
Member Is Offline
Mood: High on forbidden fruit
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pollyokeefe | | [...]but with Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters it doesn't seem like people would even consider it as a large-scale energy alternative.
|
And the most unfortunate thing is, people seem to think that Chernobyl was an unforeseeable accident, that could happen again at any time.
In fact based on how they ran it, it would be a surprise if none of them exploded.
From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
The catastrophic accident was caused by gross violations of operating rules and regulations. "During preparation and testing of the turbine generator
under run-down conditions using the auxiliary load, personnel disconnected a series of technical protection systems and breached the most important
operational safety provisions for conducting a technical exercise."
|
They were testing the thing while running it, and turned off nearly all of the safety systems.
On the subject of the disconnection of safety systems, Valery Legasov said, in 1987, "It was like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in
flight."
To which I would add, "it's like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight, the autopilot off, the throttle on full-power, flying
straight down with the controls locked."
"What a shock it exploded! I guess airplanes aren't safe anymore."
| Quote: |
The reactor operators disabled safety systems down to the generators, which the test was really about. The main process computer, SKALA, was running
in such a way that the main control computer could not shut down the reactor or even reduce power. Normally the reactor would have started to insert
all of the control rods. The computer would have also started the "Emergency Core Protection System" that introduces 24 control rods into the active
zone within 2.5 seconds, which is still slow by 1986 standards. All control was transferred from the process computer to the human operators.
This view is reflected in numerous publications and also artistic works on the theme of the Chernobyl accident that appeared immediately after the
accident, and for a long time remained dominant in the public consciousness and in popular publications.
|
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Well, and this of course!
[Edited on 1-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]
-The manipulator
We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know. -W. H. Auden
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
I like the small scale nuclear power devices the USSR used, does anyone know what they were called? They absorbed heat emissions by use of
thermocouples, and were used for powering small Siberian bases.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Exactly. This was not an accident caused by inherent dangers with fission, this was gross negligence with a seriously outdated reactor design. IIRC
the plant directors experience was with coal fired plants and regarded this facility as yet another boiler.
Unlike incidents like Windscale caused by limited understanding and experience with the Wigner effect (and a pretty rudimentary reactor design to put
it mildly) the xenon poisoning that occurred at the Chernobyl plant was well understood at the time (but obviously not by the operators).
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Chernobyl was a much older design.
Specifically it was a 1950s design.
Three mile island was also an older design.
Fukushima was also a 1970s design.
After Three mile island, new designs were developed that are
much safer. One such design is the pebble bed reactor.
As for fusion, there is strong evidence that lockheed is on to
something. For one the oil market has basically collapsed.
This may indicate that people with more insight really think
there has been a significant breakthrough.
Another is that they are part of the defense industry not the
energy industry. Their design is intended to power rail guns
which have huge power requirements.
There are also rumors that the Iran negotiations involve the
US transferring fusion technology in exchange for shutting
down their fission program. If this is true, then the fusion
tech must be further along than lockheed lets on.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I doubt international oil markets, predominantly Saudi Arabia as a swing OPEC member are informed of Lockheed's proprietary information. I am under
the impression the Saudis are using their oil to undermine Iran and ISIS/ISIL both at their own whim, and as political leverage with the U.S.
(additionally impacting the ruble). Could you put some context on the rumors you mention?
Plenty of people with more nuclear experience than Lockheed (my respect to McGuire, though some at his alma mater are equally sceptical) lets on are
extremely dubious of what little they have released, and by their own claims, had apparently yet to make functional prototypes or collect data by the
time of their ambitious press release. I suspect they are grant/contract fishing. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531836/does-lockheed-ma...
It doesn't always take congruence with data to make a case for Uncle Sugar's beneficence, and there is a lot to go around. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif2/execsum.asp
Compare with ARPA-E/DOE funding deadlines....
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Fukushima was actually built in the 60's, but the real point is that it and almost every reactor in the world past and current is based on the first
generation designs. The Fukushima plant was already past it's 40 years life expectancy when the accident happened.
The real problem the way I see it is that the opposition to nuclear power made it impossible to build new plants, while our energy dependency makes it
impossible to phase the old ones out.
As macckone said there are better working designs now, like the pebble bed. While not perfect in any way a Chernobyl or Fukushima-style incident is
pretty much impossible.
There is also some debate over the dangers of radiation, specifically the use of the linear no threshold-model (LNT). "Radiation and Reason” by Wade
Allison discusses this, and while his view has also been criticized it is well worth reading. I think that his best argument is the fact that
radiation therapy does not rely on LNT.
As for Lockheeds fusion I don't know what to think. I haven't seen any real data on their proposed design, and if it were any others I'd call it pure
vapor-ware. But when one considers what their Skunk Works department has pulled off in the past I have a hard time calling it BS without more
information. Time will tell I guess.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Chemosynthesis> The amount of oil opec is producing has not
changed. Demand has increased but the price is down. The
economics of supply and demand would tend to indicate
something else is pushing down prices. As the major buyers are
now setting the price, they may know something we don't. What
that something is can be open to question. There is an obvious
decrease in predicted future demand driving the fall in prices.
Does it mean economic collapse or alternative technology taking
off?
Given the timing in relationship to the lockheed announcement, I
am going out on a limb and say they may be on to something.
Although toroidal magnetic confinement has been the focus of most
research, mirror confinement showed a lot of promise before the
defunding in the 80s and 90s. lockheed's design is based on mirror
confinement. If they have a theoretical breakthrough in containment
mirror ratios then the problem is solved if their hypothesis holds up
in the real world.
[Edited on 1-2-2015 by macckone]
|
|
|
roXefeller
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 9-9-2013
Location: 13 Colonies
Member Is Offline
Mood: 220 221 whatever it takes
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by careysub | | Quote: Originally posted by roXefeller | ...
Finance is there, but until permitting bureaucrats stop putting the chains on the door of new facilities ready to go online with a billion already
spent ... if you legislate for it, financiers will come.
|
When in your estimation have bureaucrats in the U.S. last (or ever) done this? (My answer: see below.)
[Edited on 31-1-2015 by careysub] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Construction_and_Opera...
The reason for the combined license was to aid financiers from losing their investments. Prior to this regulation (though a while ago), utilities
would obtain capital and a construction license and finance the construction of a facility. But during the construction anti-nuke organizations would
litigate the company in the court system and prevent issuance of the operating permit after construction was complete. It can be argued that the
litigation was to highlight safety deficiencies in the design that weren't apparent until construction was underway. But it also left open the
possibility of abuse.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
OPEC can lower prices simply by not reducing production, and Saudi Arabia has considerable sway there. In fact, according to this, OPEC oil
production is up and you are mistaken: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102384018
Please feel free to cite where your production numbers are from so I can have the opportunity to criticize my link.
| Quote: | Demand has increased but the price is down. The
economics of supply and demand would tend to indicate
something else is pushing down prices. As the major buyers are
now setting the price, they may know something we don't. |
Oil demand is actually down, and you are not taking into account how options affect demand. When the expected future demand for oil decreases, as
happens when economies slow (China, for example), prices change accordingly.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/ec...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2014/10/14...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-plays-big-role-in-oil...
I am interested in your rumors as previously noted, but I would like some kind of attribution or source rather than speculation. Not trying to be
argumentative, but given the people I've socialized with, I see zero reason to expect proprietary information from Lockheed, with no apparent data, to
impact an international energy market. Other things to account for are substitute goods, or alternative sources such as cheap coal, fracking, etc.
These actually exist now, and my opinion is that they are far more important to "major buyers" whether they are more fond of technical or fundamental
analysts.
And sure, Lockheed could be onto something unbelievable, despite the link I posted earlier where a "professor of nuclear science and engineering at
MIT and one of the principal investigators at the MIT fusion research reactor" (Ian Hutchinson) criticized the cartoon depiction in Lockheed's press
release, and I would expect him to be passingly familiar with reactor designs moreso than the general public, at least more than I with my relatively
sparse coursework in nuclear/radiological physics and chemistry. I'm not one to appeal to authority, but Lockheed has government funding and stock
prices to cater to, whereas I doubt MIT faculty does in quite the same sense. And yeah, Lockheed did actually release it right during a big .gov
funding cycle for applications (I have seen that game many times before), but it is certainly possible I could be overly critical.
'$30 million award “to develop and demonstrate low-cost tools to aid in the development of fusion power.”'
http://defensetech.org/2014/10/16/scientists-skeptical-of-lo...
Defense.org
Given the timing, you say they might be onto something. I say they are cognizant of their funding deadlines, as any good R&D division should be.
Not trying to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious of how you are formulating your position of relative acceptance. I see solid data with a
lot of promise every day, and the vast majority of it never ends up worth public consumption.
[Edited on 1-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
It's important to remember that if Lockheed did have something, they wouldn't be giving it away, so an MIT professor pointing out their press release
doesn't contain plans for a working fusion reactor doesn't mean much.
But yes, funding deadlines indeed.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
