Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has peaked.

On 26/09/2019 01:56, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-25 7:07 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific
example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled
all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a
time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only
pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it
does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise
that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away.
That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.


ITER is still 6 years away from a proposed startup, If it works!! and if
it stays together!!! And at what cost.

We know the technology is sound as there have been several tokomaks
already built for research purposes. ITER is the first stage of scale-up
to see if we can produce fusion energy stably at a commercial like
scale. It also answers lots of engineering questions around the building
of such a large generator for future commercial development. It's been
frustratingly slow as lots of new engineering problems needed to be solved.

On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine, Remember the LHC incident?

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine,

Significantly damage? probably. Vaporise? nope.

Remember the LHC incident?

Nope

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:48:12 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tiny-1.1121718
|
| This is why we can't have nice things.
|
| Canadians are going to be the last people on Pluto
| at this rate...
|

One wonders if they might have been able to build
a hydroelectric dam *and* the river to go with it for
less money.

Which brings up the one thing that might be scarier
than nuclear war and global warming: dumbass,
technophiliac scientists who don't consider the implications
of what they do, producing things like hybrids of
smallpox and being absurdly confident that there's
no risk.
I remember some kind of documentary on TV years ago
in which they said that the scientists at the Manhattan
Project were not sure they wouldn't blow up the earth
with their first test. But they did it anyway, after warning
the governor of New Mexico to take his family and drive out
of state. Just in case they incinerated NM but didn't blow
up the Earth, the governor would come in handy to manage
the resulting disaster.
The combination of stupidity and arrogance is frightening.
What sci-fi disaster plot might they be working on right now?
Windmills, by contrast, are not "sexy". Just practical.


Well, we don't want to be over-dramatic.

Certainly, in very immature areas of work, our reach
outstretched our grasp. There were the people drinking
radium cough syrup. The people XRaying their feet at
the shoe store. You can thank these people and times,
for the existence of the FDA.

When coal oil extractions were being done a hundred
years ago, people were "sniffing" and especially
"tasting" carcinogens. A number of them died, without
knowing exactly what killed them. What we learned from
this, is a set of rules for Chem 100 students to keep
them safe. That's an example, where some careless technique
with safer materials, was wiped out when actual dangerous
materials were discovered, and nobody knew how to handle them.

For nuclear explosions, there was a theory at one time
that "the atmosphere could catch fire". Now, maybe I
haven't precisely captured the concern there, as the
atmospheric constituents aren't particularly fuel-heavy.
And atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons got to the
50 megaton level, without anything catching fire as predicted.

You can remove the gaseous shell from around the Earth.
You can remove all the water. But it takes a collision
with a relatively large "rock" to do it. The rock would
unleash the equivalent power of *millions* of nuclear
weapons.

On the Large Hadron Collider, a concern was that a Black
Hole might form. But there was also a theory that small
Black Holes "evaporate" in a fraction of a second - they're
not around for very long at all.

Creating fusion inside a small metallic chamber, is a small
cross-section of what happens in the Sun. And if you make
a mistake, all it does is "ruin your gadget" and prevent
you from doing a second run with it. There isn't a risk of
a chain reaction, because the conditions for it are not present.
Even if you had a hundred tons of the fuel used by the
device sitting next to it, the material is neither "compressed"
nor "heated" to the correct temperature for fusion ignition.
This is what makes the technology safe, even in its present
crude state of understanding.

But then there will still be a hell of radioactive scrap, some of
which will have been vapourised.

Hardly. There's very little radioactive waste from fusion even in an
accident. Irradiated components from neutrons have a manageable half-life
and cannot e released into the atmosphere unlike a fission explosion.

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific
example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled
all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at
a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only
pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it
does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise
that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away.
That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are
sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate
more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has
peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine, Remember the LHC incident?

Rene

At this point, I'm not quite sure what fusion can provide. They're
still working the same containment problems they were working
decades ago. I haven't seen any "imagining" where some
individual would say "I think we could build a 100 megawatt
unit if we wanted to try right now". I don't see anyone
proposing such things. Even the fuel choice is somewhat
open-ended. And that's a measure of solving the containment
and energy extraction problems. And achieving a Q suitable
for actually building something. For example, if they pick
a fuel that isn't very plentiful, then that becomes
their *next* problem.

Paul

On 2019-09-26 1:38 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine,

Significantly damage? probably. Vaporise? nope.

Remember the LHC incident?

Nope



Some info on it 2008.

https://home.cern/news/press-release...s-lhc-incident

Rene

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 18:50:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:48:12 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tiny-1.1121718
|
| This is why we can't have nice things.
|
| Canadians are going to be the last people on Pluto
| at this rate...
|

One wonders if they might have been able to build
a hydroelectric dam *and* the river to go with it for
less money.

Which brings up the one thing that might be scarier
than nuclear war and global warming: dumbass,
technophiliac scientists who don't consider the implications
of what they do, producing things like hybrids of
smallpox and being absurdly confident that there's
no risk.
I remember some kind of documentary on TV years ago
in which they said that the scientists at the Manhattan
Project were not sure they wouldn't blow up the earth
with their first test. But they did it anyway, after warning
the governor of New Mexico to take his family and drive out
of state. Just in case they incinerated NM but didn't blow
up the Earth, the governor would come in handy to manage
the resulting disaster.
The combination of stupidity and arrogance is frightening.
What sci-fi disaster plot might they be working on right now?
Windmills, by contrast, are not "sexy". Just practical.


Well, we don't want to be over-dramatic.

Certainly, in very immature areas of work, our reach
outstretched our grasp. There were the people drinking
radium cough syrup. The people XRaying their feet at
the shoe store. You can thank these people and times,
for the existence of the FDA.

When coal oil extractions were being done a hundred
years ago, people were "sniffing" and especially
"tasting" carcinogens. A number of them died, without
knowing exactly what killed them. What we learned from
this, is a set of rules for Chem 100 students to keep
them safe. That's an example, where some careless technique
with safer materials, was wiped out when actual dangerous
materials were discovered, and nobody knew how to handle them.

For nuclear explosions, there was a theory at one time
that "the atmosphere could catch fire". Now, maybe I
haven't precisely captured the concern there, as the
atmospheric constituents aren't particularly fuel-heavy.
And atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons got to the
50 megaton level, without anything catching fire as predicted.

You can remove the gaseous shell from around the Earth.
You can remove all the water. But it takes a collision
with a relatively large "rock" to do it. The rock would
unleash the equivalent power of *millions* of nuclear
weapons.

On the Large Hadron Collider, a concern was that a Black
Hole might form. But there was also a theory that small
Black Holes "evaporate" in a fraction of a second - they're
not around for very long at all.

Creating fusion inside a small metallic chamber, is a small
cross-section of what happens in the Sun. And if you make
a mistake, all it does is "ruin your gadget" and prevent
you from doing a second run with it. There isn't a risk of
a chain reaction, because the conditions for it are not present.
Even if you had a hundred tons of the fuel used by the
device sitting next to it, the material is neither "compressed"
nor "heated" to the correct temperature for fusion ignition.
This is what makes the technology safe, even in its present
crude state of understanding.

But then there will still be a hell of radioactive scrap, some of
which will have been vapourised.

Hardly. There's very little radioactive waste from fusion even in an
accident. Irradiated components from neutrons have a manageable half-life
and cannot e released into the atmosphere unlike a fission explosion.

It depends on the accident.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 18:50:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:48:12 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tiny-1.1121718
|
| This is why we can't have nice things.
|
| Canadians are going to be the last people on Pluto
| at this rate...
|

One wonders if they might have been able to build
a hydroelectric dam *and* the river to go with it for
less money.

Which brings up the one thing that might be scarier
than nuclear war and global warming: dumbass,
technophiliac scientists who don't consider the implications
of what they do, producing things like hybrids of
smallpox and being absurdly confident that there's
no risk.
I remember some kind of documentary on TV years ago
in which they said that the scientists at the Manhattan
Project were not sure they wouldn't blow up the earth
with their first test. But they did it anyway, after warning
the governor of New Mexico to take his family and drive out
of state. Just in case they incinerated NM but didn't blow
up the Earth, the governor would come in handy to manage
the resulting disaster.
The combination of stupidity and arrogance is frightening.
What sci-fi disaster plot might they be working on right now?
Windmills, by contrast, are not "sexy". Just practical.

Well, we don't want to be over-dramatic.

Certainly, in very immature areas of work, our reach
outstretched our grasp. There were the people drinking
radium cough syrup. The people XRaying their feet at
the shoe store. You can thank these people and times,
for the existence of the FDA.

When coal oil extractions were being done a hundred
years ago, people were "sniffing" and especially
"tasting" carcinogens. A number of them died, without
knowing exactly what killed them. What we learned from
this, is a set of rules for Chem 100 students to keep
them safe. That's an example, where some careless technique
with safer materials, was wiped out when actual dangerous
materials were discovered, and nobody knew how to handle them.

For nuclear explosions, there was a theory at one time
that "the atmosphere could catch fire". Now, maybe I
haven't precisely captured the concern there, as the
atmospheric constituents aren't particularly fuel-heavy.
And atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons got to the
50 megaton level, without anything catching fire as predicted.

You can remove the gaseous shell from around the Earth.
You can remove all the water. But it takes a collision
with a relatively large "rock" to do it. The rock would
unleash the equivalent power of *millions* of nuclear
weapons.

On the Large Hadron Collider, a concern was that a Black
Hole might form. But there was also a theory that small
Black Holes "evaporate" in a fraction of a second - they're
not around for very long at all.

Creating fusion inside a small metallic chamber, is a small
cross-section of what happens in the Sun. And if you make
a mistake, all it does is "ruin your gadget" and prevent
you from doing a second run with it. There isn't a risk of
a chain reaction, because the conditions for it are not present.
Even if you had a hundred tons of the fuel used by the
device sitting next to it, the material is neither "compressed"
nor "heated" to the correct temperature for fusion ignition.
This is what makes the technology safe, even in its present
crude state of understanding.

But then there will still be a hell of radioactive scrap, some of
which will have been vapourised.
Hardly. There's very little radioactive waste from fusion even in an
accident. Irradiated components from neutrons have a manageable half-life
and cannot e released into the atmosphere unlike a fission explosion.

It depends on the accident.


What kind of accident we talkin about here ?

Cafeteria catches fire ?

Toilet backs up in the washroom ?

*******

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...7402042225.pdf

"There is no potential for a runaway fusion
reaction; indeed, the problem is making the
fusion reaction proceed adequately at all.

Virtually all hardware problems lead to fusion
shutdown, and there are inherent limits in any
case because of the limited amount of fusion
fuel present and the nature of the fusion reaction.

However, a particular focus of work in
fusion safety is the analysis of various other
potential accidents, such as magnet accidents,
and "consequence calculations" are performed.

For categorization of accidents into
event groupings and estimation of the frequency
of accidents, specific component reliability
data are required."

Presumably these kinds of calculations are related
to "joules" and "how much energy can be released
when bringing the system to a stop".

The last page of that report, has a kind of checklist,
but not every reactor type will have all the items in
the list. Which is why it's premature to start
making up "accidents" when there's no "plant" to
compare to. If there's not even the remotest idea
how large a plant like this would scale to, it's
pretty hard to estimate the risks.

And that checklist (from the IAEA) is already formulated
as if the plant has all the same elements as a fission
plant, which is a way to guarantee one is never built.
If they're claiming "it has all the same fault modes",
why would we ever build one ? It doesn't. For one thing,
there's no TMI. There's no pellets burning their way to
China. That's a major fault mode missing, right there.

Paul

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 1:38 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine,

Significantly damage? probably. Vaporise? nope.

Remember the LHC incident?

Nope



Some info on it 2008.

https://home.cern/news/press-release...s-lhc-incident

Hmm. A helium leak and a superconducting magnet quench. Hardly a "vaporise
" incident, is it?

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-27 12:16 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 1:38 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a
specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be
tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step
at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can
only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because
it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I
recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind
and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors
not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away.
That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with
nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble
reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the
appetite
for fission is low. Particularly in the west. The downsides are
sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can
generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail
safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity
has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine,

Significantly damage? probably. Vaporise? nope.

Remember the LHC incident?

Nope



Some info on it 2008.

https://home.cern/news/press-release...s-lhc-incident


Hmm. A helium leak and a superconducting magnet quench. Hardly a
"vaporise
" incident, is it?


Hardly the same type of machine! Hardly the same expected results.
A tokomak is not a cyclotron is it?
One is running a gas at -473 Deg the other a plasma at a few million Deg.

Rene

OK, I found an article for the carbon beam dump at the LHC.

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...hc-from-itself

If the beam were to go off-track, it would drill a hole in any material
in its path. The beam is collimated, hair thin, and very energetic.
And unlike some industrial lasers that can thump their way through
a number of inches of material, the collimated beam could drill
through many many feet of material.

To "dump" it, they de-focus the beam and diffuse it, then
point it at a 24 foot long 3 foot diameter chunk of graphite. Which
heats up instantly.

"Together the LHC’s magnets store even more energy than the proton beams
do - a whopping 10,000 megajoules, compared to 362 megajoules for the beams."

And the staff aren't allowed to stand in the tunnel while it's running.
Parts of the tunnel are radioactive, and when you see a picture like this,
at a guess the area around this is probably (coincidentally) radioactive
from **** hitting the fan.

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/sit...?itok=hKKksrAJ

*******

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/why-to...y-to-work-out/

"As this phenomenon builds, it is essential to discharge the huge energy
accumulated in the magnet to the exterior of the Tokamak Building." [Clever]

"If a quench in ITER were to cause all of its magnets to go normal,
the magnetic energy released would be over 40 gigajoules,
the equivalent of roughly ten tons of TNT. How fast that
energy is released depends on a number of factors, and
regulators will require design features to minimize external damage."

So that's 4x the LHC magnet energy content.

Paul

On 2019-09-27 7:15 p.m., Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-27 12:16 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 1:38 p.m., Chris wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-26 9:57 a.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Chris

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a
specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be
tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A
step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can
only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because
it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I
recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which
wind and
solar are not.

And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium
reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them
again.

Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years
away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with
nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

Neither are untested. The USA was working on the thorium reactor in
the early 70s but gave it up because it would not produce weapons
grade materials. The chinese are now well ahead with both pebble
bed
and thorium reactors.

Evidence? From what i can see there's only one working pebble
reactor and
no thorium reactors anywhere.

The Chinese pebble reactor is not without controversy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0823113558.htm

And an African project never got off the ground
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebb...odular_reactor

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

If it ever works sustainedly. Even then I think it will be further
away than the fission alternatives.

True, since fission has been around since the 50s. However, the
appetite
for fission is low. ParticularlyÂ* in the west. The downsides are
sufficient
to warrant investing in alternative technologies. Fusion can
generate more
energy, produces much less dangerous waste and is inherently fail
safe.

For me it's the long term solution when solar and wind capacity
has peaked.




Kinda Fail safe, One bad weld between the Superconducting magnets and
you would probably vaporize the machine,

Significantly damage? probably. Vaporise? nope.

Remember the LHC incident?

Nope



Some info on it 2008.

https://home.cern/news/press-release...s-lhc-incident


Hmm. A helium leak and a superconducting magnet quench. Hardly a
"vaporise
" incident, is it?


Hardly the same type of machine! Hardly the same expected results.
A tokomak is not a cyclotron is it?
One is running a gas at -473 Deg the other a plasma at a few million Deg.

Rene

OK, I found an article for the carbon beam dump at the LHC.

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...hc-from-itself


If the beam were to go off-track, it would drill a hole in any material
in its path. The beam is collimated, hair thin, and very energetic.
And unlike some industrial lasers that can thump their way through
a number of inches of material, the collimated beam could drill
through many many feet of material.

To "dump" it, they de-focus the beam and diffuse it, then
point it at a 24 foot long 3 foot diameter chunk of graphite. Which
heats up instantly.

"Together the LHC’s magnets store even more energy than the proton beams
Â*do - a whopping 10,000 megajoules, compared to 362 megajoules for the
beams."

And the staff aren't allowed to stand in the tunnel while it's running.
Parts of the tunnel are radioactive, and when you see a picture like this,
at a guess the area around this is probably (coincidentally) radioactive
from **** hitting the fan.

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/sit...?itok=hKKksrAJ


*******

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/why-to...y-to-work-out/

Â*Â* "As this phenomenon builds, it is essential to discharge the huge
energy
Â*Â*Â* accumulated in the magnet to the exterior of the Tokamak
Building."Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* [Clever]

Â*Â* "If a quench in ITER were to cause all of its magnets to go normal,
Â*Â*Â* the magnetic energy released would be over 40 gigajoules,
Â*Â*Â* the equivalent of roughly ten tons of TNT. How fast that
Â*Â*Â* energy is released depends on a number of factors, and
Â*Â*Â* regulators will require design features to minimize external damage."

So that's 4x the LHC magnet energy content.

Â*Â* Paul

Thanks Paul for digging up those great articles, made seriously good
reading and bears out my thoughts on the subject, the cost also would be
totally prohibitive for units which could supply the amounts of
megawatts we require.

Rene