Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Fusion Energy will provide limitless power.

James Logajan · Guest

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote]pochas wrote:

I really don>t understand why hydrogen as a fuel is considered esoteric.
Most spacecraft use it routinely and it doesn>t pollute.
Regards

Not even wrong.
[/quote]
That used to be such a cute saying. Didn>t you get the memo?

[quote]Very few spacecraft use hydrogen and hydrogen is HIGHLY polluting.
[/quote]
After excluding the Space Shuttle, Delta III, Titan IV/, the Ariane, Atlas
1 & 2, Energiya, and Saturn I & V, then it could be said very few space
launch vehicles use hydrogen.[1] Perhaps Don Lancaster is using the term
pedantically?

Since hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, it appears to be
pretty darn polluted universe! Seriously though, it appears to be an open
question whether hydrogen pollutant leaks from a hydrogen economy would be
a danger to the environment.[2]

[1] Here>s some sites (from many to choose) of space launch vehicles:
http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/launch.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/presrep98/appendD.pdf
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count1.htm

[2] http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0387.htm
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001609.html

saict · Guest

Phil Hays <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3FE9C4A5.438D1886@attbi.com>...
[quote]Menwith wrote:

I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.

It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.

The Republican-controlled Congress.
[/quote]
Thank goodness for that. After we decided that ITER was too
expensive, they re-evaluated and decided to do it for half price.
That>s when we got back into it.

Menwith · Guest

The Congress had other vital things on their mind, like passing a budget -
while simutaneously dealing with a President whose first interest
was perpetual campainging and fundraising.
What IS clear is:
with Gore and Clinton no longer threatening a gov>t shutdown,
the long-term projects of science can be dealt with in an adult fashion.

Phil Hays wrote:

[quote]Menwith wrote:

I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.

It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.

The Republican-controlled Congress.

After the climate change, I wonder if "Republican" will be under Godwin>s Law?

--
Phil Hays[/quote]

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FE9337A.EB57CC5C@hill.com...
[quote]I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.
[/quote]
So in your view, when Congressional Republicans zero>d the ITER budget they
did so to make it convenient for Gore.

Snicker.

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

"Phil Hays" <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3FE9C4A5.438D1886@attbi.com...
[quote]It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.
The Republican-controlled Congress.
After the climate change, I wonder if "Republican" will be under Godwin>s
Law?[/quote]

You can bet on that. But it won>t matter much. America will no longer
exist as a coherent nation.

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FEA8051.F958A3C@hill.com...
[quote]The Congress had other vital things on their mind, like passing a budget -
while simutaneously dealing with a President whose first interest
was perpetual campainging and fundraising.
[/quote]
So if you knew that Congress the ITER budget as you now admit, why did you
earlier claim that the Clinton Administration did it?

Menwith · Guest

Gore hated ITER. What about that don>t you get?
If ITER works, Gore>s KP looks unneeded.
Best case legacy for Gore...KP enacted, ITER doesn>t work
Worst case legacy for Gore...ITER works..--> KP looks unnecessary.

M.

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

[quote]"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FEA8051.F958A3C@hill.com...
The Congress had other vital things on their mind, like passing a budget -
while simutaneously dealing with a President whose first interest
was perpetual campainging and fundraising.

So if you knew that Congress the ITER budget as you now admit, why did you
earlier claim that the Clinton Administration did it?[/quote]

Mr. 4X · Guest

Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6d9b222d59538a14426dfd58a2271c85@news.meganetnews.com:

[quote]The notorious net kook known as Amos "Anus" Keppler babbled:

Well lookie what crawled out of the paranormal groups and into the
.sci hierarchy. It>s Anus Keppler, that notorious net kook and
[/quote]
Don>t you mean the sci. hierarchy? :)

[quote]self-professed "witch" who advocates the destruction of
technological society and the death of most of the world>s
population (among a host of other crazy beliefs and desires). What
[/quote]
Could that one be even worse than Twacky?

[quote]are you doing here, Anus? This is a group for people with an
education and a little something going on between their ears. I
added AUK to the headers to make you feel at home, Anus.

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

"saict" <thurberk@cscsw.com> wrote in message
news:7eab6777.0312190952.758397be@posting.google.com...

I>m still an optimist. They will serve a useful function if they
succeed, because it will represent the first fusion containment to
produce more energy than it consumes.

There is one legitimate thread of optimism. It is that the larger
the
torus the easier it will be to confine the plasma. So the scale up
- which
will require larger volumes of plasma will be easier to design and
build in
this regard.

Liquid sodium shielding though I don>t have much hope for, in
terms of
producing a reliable machine. It>s simply too difficult a material
to work
with. Just ask the Japanese Nuclear establishment.

And the risk of building a sun on Earth should definetely be taken
into the account.

What risk? Be specific, kook.

Strangely very few do that.

That>s because anyone with even the slightest knowledge of physics
(that leaves you out) knows that fusion reactors can>t run away.
Only morons from the lunatic-fringe like you oppose fusion technology.

You are just knee-jerk anti anything technological. I see you are
still too big of a hypocrite to actually live according to the
views you espouse and would like to impose on others if you could.
Here you are still using electricity, a computer, the Internet and
living in a modern city.
[/quote]
The Unabomber was at least CONSEQUENT with his 'moral standards'...

[quote]Why don>t you try leading by example,
kook? give it all up and go live in a cave somewhere like the
shit-stupid little troll you are. You>d still me a moron, but at
least you wouldn>t be a hypocritical moron.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There>s a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)
[/quote]

Mr. 4X · Guest

"Notorius [insert your favorite derisive epithet], something-something,
sekret sockpuppeting, (out)obsessing, stalking, murdering, satan
worshipping, Calling Mike and Carl and John too many names until they melt
down and threaten to sue..." <carl.wilson@prodigy.comm> wrote in message
news:39831ea3c0e420c5f1783061edcf9dd2@news.teranews.com:

<snip>

Trying to make the longest online name of the world?

Phil Hays · Guest

saict wrote:
[quote]
Phil Hays <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3FE9C4A5.438D1886@attbi.com>...
Menwith wrote:

I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.

It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.

The Republican-controlled Congress.

Thank goodness for that. After we decided that ITER was too
expensive, they re-evaluated and decided to do it for half price.
That>s when we got back into it.
[/quote]
ITER-lite design (1/3 the power, several experiments removed) was started in
1998. In 1999:

"The Committee (House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water) is
concerned about the recent announcement that the Department has already
proposed to enter into a new agreement to start engineering and design of
a newly-conceived, less costly reactor: "ITER-Lite." The Committee observes
that the proponents of ITER have seized upon only one of the concerns the
Congress has about ITER. The Committee continues to question whether the
tokamak is the most promising technology and whether the current partners
in ITER are willing and able to meet their commitments."

Then the Republican controlled House blocked any work on ITER again.

So the other partners were going to do it without the USA. The only
issue that seem to get the Republicans interested was siting the
reactor in France.

--
Phil Hays

Phil Hays · Guest

Menwith wrote:

[quote]Gore hated ITER.
[/quote]
Gore>s opinion didn>t matter. The Vice President never gets to
vote in the House.

--
Phil Hays

saict · Guest

Phil Hays <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3FEB3C19.71177E7C@attbi.com>...
[quote]saict wrote:

Phil Hays <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3FE9C4A5.438D1886@attbi.com>...
Menwith wrote:

I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.

It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.

The Republican-controlled Congress.

Thank goodness for that. After we decided that ITER was too
expensive, they re-evaluated and decided to do it for half price.
That>s when we got back into it.

ITER-lite design (1/3 the power, several experiments removed) was started in
1998. In 1999:

"The Committee (House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water) is
concerned about the recent announcement that the Department has already
proposed to enter into a new agreement to start engineering and design of
a newly-conceived, less costly reactor: "ITER-Lite." The Committee observes
that the proponents of ITER have seized upon only one of the concerns the
Congress has about ITER. The Committee continues to question whether the
tokamak is the most promising technology and whether the current partners
in ITER are willing and able to meet their commitments."
[/quote]
Who are you quoting?

[quote]Then the Republican controlled House blocked any work on ITER again.

So the other partners were going to do it without the USA.
[/quote]
So they say. They weren>t getting anywhere, and they didn>t have the
funds to do even the reduced experiment without the United States.

[quote]The only
issue that seem to get the Republicans interested was siting the
reactor in France.
[/quote]
That>s a bit dishonest. The Bush Administration decided to support
ITER before they settled on France for the European site.

Phil Hays · Guest

saict wrote:

[quote]Phil Hays <SpamPostmaster@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3FEB3C19.71177E7C@attbi.com>...

"The Committee (House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water) is
concerned about the recent announcement that the Department has already
proposed to enter into a new agreement to start engineering and design of
a newly-conceived, less costly reactor: "ITER-Lite." The Committee observes
that the proponents of ITER have seized upon only one of the concerns the
Congress has about ITER. The Committee continues to question whether the
tokamak is the most promising technology and whether the current partners
in ITER are willing and able to meet their commitments."

Who are you quoting?
[/quote]
http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/budgets/FY99_HRpt_105_581_SC.pdf

Better get the paper trail covered better.

[quote]Then the Republican controlled House blocked any work on ITER again.

So the other partners were going to do it without the USA.

So they say. They weren>t getting anywhere, and they didn>t have the
funds to do even the reduced experiment without the United States.
[/quote]
The USA is contributing less than 10% of costs, and less as the dollar
continues to fall. Somehow I don>t think that the USA contribution is
critical.

[quote]The only
issue that seem to get the Republicans interested was siting the
reactor in France.

That>s a bit dishonest. The Bush Administration decided to support
ITER before they settled on France for the European site.
[/quote]
That>s right, the Bush Administration wanted the Spanish site over the
French site. Failing that, the Japanese site. Failing that,

See Nature 423, 207 (15 May 2003); doi:10.1038/423207a

I>ll be cynical and predict that the Bush Administration will back out
regardless of the final site selection. They are only in it for the
political angles.

--
Phil Hays

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FEADF9F.951A1045@hill.com...
[quote]Gore hated ITER. What about that don>t you get?
[/quote]
We need more than just your hate motivated comments about Gore to believe
you.

For example you could start by providing some evidence, and follow up by
telling us where you learned to read minds.

Then you could tell us how Gore mismanaged the ITER program when he was
not in a management position.

And finally you can tell us why Gore is guilty when the Republican
Controlled congress cancelled funding for the project.

Snicker.

You aren>t very bright are you MenWith?

Nomen Nescio · Guest

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Amos Keppler <fake@email.net> wrote:
<tale of woe snipped>

What else can be expected when population is allowed to increase unchecked?

Instead of dreaming up strategies to make the best of a bad situation, why
not strike at the root of the problem and lower the population, preferably
by mass sterilization?

If that is not possible, then release an engineered virus to cull the herd
to, say, 20 percent of its current size.

As draconian as either of these methods is, our progeny will thank us for
removing the nightmare that they face otherwise.

Think of a United States with 50 million people instead of 250 million! The
need for the irrigation, the dams, everything that is destroying the
environment, would disappear.

Aim for 15 people per square mile; re-jigger the virus for greatly
overpopulated countries like China and India, to make sure they get down to
the 15/sq. mile figure.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy - Hydrogen Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 8 of 9