========================================================================= Date: 28 January 1993, 21:35:59 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: what about heat pumps? People in this group seem to be assuming that if a cold fusion experiment appears to yield 1+x units of heat energy out for every 1 unit of electrical energy in, the experiment is a success. This bothers me since a heat pump can do this. I have a couple of questions: 1. While I don't really believe that CF experiments are pro- ducing heat by sucking it out of the environment, how is this possibilty absolutely excluded? 2. Is it not the case, that unless a CF device has a gain (value of x) better than that of a perfect heat pump, it will be use- less for generating electricity or powering machinery (or for anything except generating heat)? How many of the 'positive' experiments report such gains? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 28 April 1993, 12:27:20 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle. A number of people have posted accounts of this at varience with the account given in "What Do You Care What Other People Think" Richard P. Feynman, 1988, W.W. Norton, New York (henceforth WDYCWOPT). It should be noted that this is "as told to Ralph Leighton" and appeared after Feynman's death. Barry Merriman posted: >Actually, feynman's hypothesis was that it was an engine failure, >which is why he wrote a detailed chapter in the report on his investigations >of the engines. ... >Yes; and as the story shows, it helps to have an expert on the >inside telling you what is really going on. On his own, feynman >had gone in the wrong direction. This is incorrect. WDYCWOPT (p. 132) "I was hot on the trail of the booster rocket so I said, "I'll have to put off the main engines until later, when I have more time." WDYCWOPT (p. 181) "So I made up a game for myself: "Imagine that something else had failed-the main en- gines for instance-and we were making the same kind of intensive inves- tigation as we are now: would we discover the same slipping safety cri- teria and lack of communication?"" Dale Bass posted: > As I said, I believe he dipped the thing in cold water > because that demonstration was suggested to him. > He would have had no independent way to verify the potential failure > modes of a system as complex as a space shuttle; I can think of many > ways to mislead a credulous physicist with very real phenomena that > have nothing to do with the actual failure. Imagine if someone > from, say, Morton Thiokol had fed Mr. Feynman technical information > with the express purpose of blaming Rockwell's subsystems. He > would have been completely helpless in determining probability > of such failure modes, and I can imagine rigged demonstrations of equal > impact involving other subsystems. > > To suggest that he would have had any idea about such things > independent of the technical staff associated with the shuttle is > naive. And I believe he was quite embarassed later > at the way he allowed himself to be used. In WDYCWOPT (p. 146) Feynman indicates he thought up the ice water idea himself. Suggesting Morton Thiokol could have pointed him at Rockwell is silly. It was obvious at this point that problem was with the right booster rocket. In any case Morton Thiokol had no particular expertise in Rockwell's systems. Dale Bass posted: > Why do people keep saying things like this? It is my understanding > that the 'demonstration' was *not* his idea. Please feel free to > correct me if I misread the situation or else stop implying he was > not a mouthpiece for others. There is no way for him to have > 'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he > was at the mercy of those who were talking to him. The pliability > of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do > with that accident. I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the > solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined > with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough. > Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot > gases on the pliability of the o-rings. > > This was a talented man, not a god. He made mistakes like the > rest of us. Excessive credulity is a mistake. He apparently > lent his prestige to something that he could not check. His book says the demonstration was his idea. The point was Nasa had no idea what "warm enough" was. The pliabilty of the O rings was obviously relevant to the safety of the joint. Dale Bass posted: > Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions. > The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing. Do you > happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel? > Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the > time it had to cool down. The thing is huge and it was insulated to > an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it. > Keep in mind also that things had warmed a bit as well before the launch. > Please calculate for me the thermal conditions of the seals > *at launch*. This is all besides the point. Nasa launched without doing any of this although they had been warned that cold could adversely affect the seals. This was stupid even if they had gotten away with it which was the point Feynman was making. Dale Bass posted: > Nor did he do them. However, how did Mr. Feyman know that > thermal conditions a couple of seconds after launch did not > sufficiently heat the o-rings without degredation that they > again appropriately performed the task allotted? Again besides the point since relying on such an effect would clearly be idiotic. Dale Bass posted: > As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not > his idea, it was suggested to him. The novelty was not his. > > It's interesting that Feynman's 'defenders' in this instance > don't seem to account for Feynman's apparent chagrin regarding > this episode. What is the basis for these statements. The only regrets about the episode expressed in WDYCWOPT is that Feynman had tested his demo beforehand instead trying it for the first time on live TV. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 28 April 1993, 20:26:37 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle Dale Bass posted: > This does not, however, affect the argument that such a person > could have been misled by nonbenign anonymous 'experts' at NASA, contractors, > subcontractors, the military. Please don't mistake what actually happened > for what could have happened. > Also recall that this discussion started with the implication that this > episode represented a case where 'nonexpert' performed an investigation > that determined facts that 'experts' would not have. It is clear, however, > that several 'experts' already had good ideas as to the cause, and had > managed to funnel them to the 'nonexpert' mouthpiece. I have > wondered if Mr. Feynman, in his quest to be the wondrous mystical > 'safecracker', did not perform a disservice to the investigation by > neglecting to tell us from whence he was being fed information at the time. > After all, the given reason for anonymity did not have to be the actual > reason. > It turned out to be an extremely minor disservice, but it did not have > to be, and it should be a cautionary episode for those who find themselves > in similar situations. You are correct that the original post by terry: >Jolly good! You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late >Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he >exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone >else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece >of O-ring material into a glass of cold water! is nonsense (as was pointed out earlier). There was no great mystery to be solved, the cause was pretty obvious. His ice water demo could also be criticised as grandstanding. That said I do not understand the animosity towards Feynman apparent in your posts. I do not believe it would have been at all easy to sell Feynman a phony accident cause. I also believe his contribution to the accident in- vestigation was very valuable and that he was an excellent choice to serve on the commision. Nasa with its "experts" had come up with an accident probabilty of 10**-5 a figure that the "nonexpert" Feynman correctly characterized as ludicrous. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 3 May 1993, 19:53:08 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle J. A. Carr posted: >Of course, the most telling fact is that there was already a clear >relationship between O-ring erosion and temperature at launch. All >problems occured during cold launches and none during warm ones. The >worst damage was during the coldest launch. ... This is not quite correct. If we use 65 degrees F calculated joint temperature as the division between cold and warm launches then of the 7 previous flights with problems 4 were cold launches and 3 were warm launches (see WDYCWOPT, p. 137, Figure 10). A relationship with temperature is not apparent until you note that the 17 previous flights without problems were all warm launches. I believe this point caused some confusion. It is also a bit misleading to make too much of the temperature relationship. The joint was unsafe at warm temperatures as well. It was probably more unsafe at cold temperatures but NASA rightly did not consider launching only in warm weather a sufficient fix. Dale Bass posted: > Keep in mind that my remarks should be taken in a very generic sense. > I fully agree that the investigation did not turn out badly. Indeed, > Feynman has won lasting fame, beyond what he already had, with the > o-ring episode. I know at least one person who only knows Feynman > in this context, and there are probably many many others. However, > I still do not like that episode, and I think that the common > conclusions from that episode (e.g. that someone can and often does > come from outside the field and 'stump' and 'show up' the experts) > are potentially injurious to such investigations in the future. > I also do not like the idea that key conclusions in such an > investigation are irretrievably associated a silly stunt in front of > cameras. Stunts are okay for coldfusion, but this is a multi-billion > dollar piece of hardware and peoples' lives. and also: > And here you have it in a nutshell. It *should* have been > 'an investigation by an FAA crash team'. > > That it wasn't is the root of most of my problems. The fact > that Feynman probably was the most technically adept person > on the panel is not comforting. And I'm afraid that the next time > the opposing logical conclusions will be either a) no technical > people at all or b) more Nobel Laureates in Physics. I believe you are allowing your distaste for Feynman's actions in this particular episode to unduly color your opinion of his overall contribution to the investigation which I believe was highly positive. I do not believe it should have been a NTSB type investigation. Such an investigation is primarily geared to finding the immediate cause of an accident. In the case of Challenger this was pretty obvious and there was little likelyhood of an investigation getting it wrong. How- ever the root cause of the accident was political. NASA feels compelled to lie in order to sell its programs to Congress and then is under great pressure to achieve the impossible. While the immediate technical problem which caused the accident has (presumedly) been fixed, the more serious underlying political problem does not appear to have been addressed. In this sense the in- vestigation did turn out badly. Finally you appear to believe for some reason that being a Nobel Laureate is indicative of technical incompetence. Feynman was as well qualified as anyone to investigate the accident. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 29 September 1993, 19:55:49 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Energy R&D spending Robert Heeter posted: >Just to spark some debate though, I'd like to point out that current >US energy R&D spending, relative to energy's share of GNP, is about >1/4 of 1%. Energy accounts for about $500 billion (so I'm told, I >can find the source if necessary) and energy R&D (corporate plus >government) is only about $1.2 billion. This level of R&D (that >is, the ratio of R&D to the total economic value of the industry) >is much lower than in most other industries. By way of contrast, >the total US economy is about $5 trillion, and the government spends >between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Corrections to these figures >are welcome. My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on >energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help >create progress in the field. Oil isn't forever. Where did you get the $1.2 billion figure? It seems suspect to me. Exxon spent $624 million on R&D last year (source: 1992 annual report) most of which I would expect was energy related. Do you have a breakdown between government and private spending and also among different energy sources? Since you seem to be an authority on the current state of hot fusion research let me ask the following questions. 1. What is the current state of the art regarding computer modeling of hot fusion designs? 2. How dependent are these computer models on hot fusion experimental results past and future? 3. What exactly are current hot fusion experiments supposed to be accomplishing? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 5 October 1993, 18:46:14 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Energy R&D Robert Heeter posted: >Ok, so Federal Energy R&D spending is about 1.6 billion. >(I don!t believe it has changed significantly in recent years, althoughI >do believe that renewables have been steadily getting more money.) Well I found a source (Scientific American, Sept 1990, p.163) which seems to indicate the figure is more like $2.7 billion. In any case this is just direct federal expenditure. There are also large indirect expenditures such as the gasohol tax credit. Robert Heeter posted: >But my basic point was that the energy industry spends less than >other industries on R&D spending, which may be one reason why >progress in this area is slower than others. 1.2% is far less than >3.4%. Why should different industries spend the same fraction of sales on R&D? Are you prepared to argue that industries spending more than 3.4% are overspending? Robert Heeter posted: >One issue which the numbers tend to mask is whether industry and >government have the same idea of what counts as R&D spending. I!m >assuming that Exxon does not include drilling costs in R&D, thought >this could be considered energy !development.! I think that the >government!s R&D focuses more on developing new technologies for >future energy production, whereas industry may be including money spent >to further implement current technologies. Exxon does not include drilling costs in R&D. In 1992 Exxon spent $8.8 billion on capital equipment and exploration of which $5.2 was production equipment and exploration of which $1 billion was exploration. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 5 October 1993, 19:21:45 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Evaluating progress in hot fusion Robert Heeter posted: >I've said this before, but I suppose it'll bear repeating: the hot fusion >research effort has made more progress in the last 20 years than even >the microchip computer-memory industry. Hot fusion has achieved something >like a millionfold increase in the key parameter (fusion power output). >Yes, there *are* scientific and engineering problems to be solved. But >these problems *can* be solved, and economically at that. The latest >reactor design studies suggest that hot fusion, if done right, will be >a competitive energy source. If you want sources for all this, I'll go >and get them. I don't have them with me now, alas. I don't see the point of this sort of argument. It just shows you started from a very low base. 1000000*0=0. In any case the key parameter is not fusion power output it is cost per kilowatt hour to generate electricity in a comercial fusion reactor. It is my under- standing that the last 20 years of fusion research has found unexpected problems increasing projected costs for fusion generated electricity. If so, this is not progress at all. Finally even if fusion power output was the key parameter you only get your millionfold increase by ignoring the existence of fusion bombs. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 8 October 1993, 17:48:24 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Investing in the Future Jim Bowery posted: >It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy >without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be > convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission > reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle). What exactly are you complaining about? Do you believe investors in Manville or Union Carbide are guilty of manslaughter? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 8 October 1993, 18:55:54 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: fission Barry Merriman posts: >Yes, but that requires breeder reactors, and subsequent production of lots >of nasty weapons-potential stuff. Do you want Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc >to have their own breeder reactors? You must if you intend fission >to be an energy solution for hundreds of years. How do you figure this? A breeder economy does not require that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons grade material. In any case if an energy solution requires eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure that could be arranged. Dr Bruce Scott posts (quoting Barry Merriman): >>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium >>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our >>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy >>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution. >How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel >grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole, >assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available >energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U >total). So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same >people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth >and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple >division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If >consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less >than 800 years. > >Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that >day rolls around. If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium as well which gives 40k years. As for your .5%/year consumption growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that fusion doesn't last all that long either. We know how to make fusion. We just don't know how to use it as an economical source of power. It seems likely that research using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics of fusion in the far future. Hence unless you believe fusion power has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is likely to prove a waste of money. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 11 October 1993, 18:59:43 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Investing in the future I asked: > Jim Bowery posted: >>It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy >>without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be >> convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission >> reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle). >> > What exactly are you complaining about? Do you believe >investors in Manville or Union Carbide are guilty of manslaughter? Jim Bowery responded in part: >What this means in the case of state-insured entities like Union Carbide >is that their moral hazard is greater than it needs to be. The solution >isn't to throw all of Union Carbide's investors in jail for manslaughter, >(although a guy like Tucker might claim justice would be done). The >solution is to replace liability-limited constructs like corporations >and limited partnerships with the more general constructs of contract law >and let the courts take their course in such disasters. > >Remember, the courts already routinely "pierce the corporate veil" in >order to do justice. The corporate veil is a sham and government-supported >liability insurance is a political disaster waiting to happen. I didn't find this response particularly illuminating. The issue is: If A incurs a liability to B which A is unable to pay under what circumstances should the liability devolve onto third parties? Related questions are: What should be done with A? and What measures is society entitled to take so as to prevent this situation from occurring? I fail to see how contract law applies if no contract exists between A and B. The courts usually respect the corporate veil as they did in the Manville case. The courts can pierce the veil when the entity be- hind the veil has done something which forfeits its protection (such as commingling assets) however I believe this happens rarely. Any proposed investment in which a significant proportion of the cost is due to low probabilty high cost events will be difficult to evaluate. I believe this is in inherent in the situation and should not be attributed to our current societal organization. Note that estimates of the probabilty of high cost events are susceptible to manipulation by opponents as well as proponets. Nightmare scenerios can be invented for almost any project. In discussing the effects of government policy on the apparent economics of fission reactors you should also consider that fission power plants are much more regulated than other power plants and that this regulation is done in an economically irrational way. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 13 October 1993, 17:44:19 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Investing in the future Jim Bowery: >The least damaging regulatory mechanism the state can use to accomplish >this is to require liability insurance with limits and underwriting >qualifications that are high enough to provide reasonable assurance to >the state that it will not have to use its taxation or other regulatory >powers. Isn't this more or less what is currently done for fission power plants in the US? You may believe the current requirement ($5.5 billion, if I remember correctly) is too low, however no state decision of this sort will satisfy everyone. What insurance requirement would you impose on fission power plants? How did you determine this? What insurance requirement would you impose on cold fusion research? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 14 October 1993, 19:28:35 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Droege's challenge According to Taube's book, Bad Science, the conductivity of LiOD electrolyte varies significantly with temperature and this means that a measured temperature change in a cell without a corresponding change in cell resistance is probably spurious. Do you agree with this? Do you see a corresponding change in cell resistance in your data? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 18 October 1993, 18:30:42 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: fission I posted: > How do you figure this? A breeder economy does not require >that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons >grade material. In any case if an energy solution requires >eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure >that could be arranged. Robert Heeter replied: >I can!t believe this went for a week without comment. Clearly >Jim Shearer can!t be serious, in which case he has no defense >against the proliferation critique of fission breeders. If he >is serious, then I am completely slack-jawed in shock. Regardless, >the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants >energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder. Clearly you are easily shocked. For the record, I consider the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons should they wish to do so. Your last sentence is obviously false. Nations want many things. This does not mean that will obtain them. I posted (responding to Dr Bruce Scott) > If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium >as well which gives 40k years. As for your .5%/year consumption >growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that >fusion doesn't last all that long either. Robert Heeter answers: >It may not be !all that long! on geological timescales, but it!s >still orders of magnitude longer than fission. (The energy >density of fusion fuel is much higher, and there!s a lot more of >it.) But granting that there!s enough fuel for both, the question >becomes: would you rather have fission plants creating gobs of >high-level radioactive waste, or fusion plants creating little to >no such waste (depending on choice of fuel cycle, plant materials, >etc.)? I need to see an argument showing that fusion doesn!t win >this one hands-down. Obviously you didn't do the arithmetic. If you had, you would have discovered that fusion does not even buy one order of magnitude in time. The reason of course is that seemingly innocent assumption of .5% per year growth in consumption continued indefinitely. Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants. I don't believe disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem). I posted: >It seems likely that research >using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics >of fusion in the far future. Hence unless you believe fusion power >has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is >likely to prove a waste of money. Robert Heeter replied: Not at all. The ARIES studies (Conn, et al, 1992, references available) show that with a few not-unreasonable advances we can have economical fusion power within 50 years. This doesn!t count as far future to me. And as I see it, even if I didn!t believe fusion had a shot at being economical in the near term, I!d still put money into research on it. Without the research, there will be no advances, and without the advances, there will never be fusion. It!s only the research using today!s technology that gets you to tomorrow!s technology. I think this is obvious, but it looks like it needed pointing out. In this context I consider 50 years the far future. What did the Spruce Goose contribute to aeronautics? I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic science. I would not build large test machines until they are needed to validate an economically viable power plant design. A future economically viable fusion plant is likely to depend in large part on technology which was developed for other purposes. Excessive concentration of research money in any narrow area is likely to prove counterproductive in the long run even as regards that area because it prevents the efficient development of our technological capacity as a whole. Robert Heeter posted: >Right now my entire professional career is involved, since I intend >to go into fusion research. And to me, that counts a lot more than >any sum of money you could name. So I assume that!s enough for you? I hope you have some sort of fallback position as I suspect the employment situation for new PhDs in fusion research may be rather grim in a few years. For that matter have you investigated what the situation for recent PhDs is today? Are they happy with their lot? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 21 October 1993, 18:43:12 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics) Barry Merriman posts: >Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied >in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from >current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that >is at best only marginally economically viable. However, >based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have conclude that >viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the prevailing >opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically >viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased >by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants (~ 10GW). Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo- voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre- vailing opinion you state. So what are you complaining about? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 27 October 1993, 19:58:26 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Fusion Economics I posted: > How do you figure this? A breeder economy does not require >that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons >grade material. In any case if an energy solution requires >eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure >that could be arranged. and: > Clearly you are easily shocked. For the record, I consider >the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly >since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons >should they wish to do so. Robert Heeter replied: >Are there? I guess I'm underinformed here. I've read that the breeder >reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed* >to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to >acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs. I'm shocked by >your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're >willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support >a breeder-based energy system. The shock isn't so much due to the >apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that >that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly. >But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get >weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up. Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it seems unlikely that this is the easiest way. As for inhumanity, I fail to see what is inhumane in suggesting that the world might inpose different governments on Iran Libya and Cuba if these countries appeared to otherwise be about to obtain nuclear weapons. Robert Heeter said: > ... Regardless, >the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants >energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder. I replied: > Your last sentence is obviously false. Nations want many >things. This does not mean that will obtain them. Robert Heeter added: >Well, when it comes to energy independence, which is perhaps second >only to social stability as a prerequisite for a viable economy, >and when there's no fossil fuel lying around anymore, I really wonder >whether I might actually be right. Perhaps I should have said that >in a world where only the breeder gives you the fuel you need, any >nation which wants energy independence is going to put in a lot of >effort to make a breeder, and it's going to take a lot of effort >to prevent them from doing so, if you decide that there's a large >proliferation risk. The thrust of the idea is just that you're >going to have a lot of external costs with a breeder economy; although >I suppose we're putting up with similar costs in todays oil economy >(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like). Fusion >would be less likely to have this sort of problem. (Any room >for agreement here now?) Not much, your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite for a viable economy is clearly absurd. Do you believe the United States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies? Most nations want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much. I said: > Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today >fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants. I don't believe >disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for >fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem). Robert Heeter replied: >Ok, I agree with you here. But I wasn't thinking about building a >fusion plant with today's technology! I was really asking whether >you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution. And >I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis - I think the political >aspect is also relevant. It's very difficult to get people to accept >fission. I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't >a serious technical problem. On the timescales over which the >high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount >of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are. I'm >not saying you're wrong, just that I need more information in order >to completely accept the claim that waste isn't a problem. I consider this to be an economic question not a scientific question. If fission is cheaper it's better. I refuse to consider the political aspect since this just encourages advocates of one tech- nology to invent spurious but politically attractive arguments against alternatives. It is my understanding that simply dumping the waste in the deep ocean would be safe enough. (I am not advocating this). Would this pose any real threat to people? By the way how long does it take before fission waste is as safe as uranium ore? Robert Heeter posted: >Ok, I think anything in my lifetime is not far future, so we just have >a timescale disagreement here. As far as aeronautics, consider that >50 years ago the germans were just developing jet aircraft, and rocket >flight, and radar instrumentation. 50 years doesn't strike me as >such a bad horizon, especially because energy seems to move more slowly >than other areas of technology. Money was spent 50 years ago developing jet aircraft, rocket flight and radar because it was believed (correctly) that militarily useful results would be obtained quickly (within a few years). If fusion had similar near term prospects I would support it. I said: > I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic >science. I would not build large test machines until they are needed >to validate an economically viable power plant design. Robert Heater replied: >I wholeheartedly agree, at least insofar as I understand what you've >said. But I'd better ask some questions for clarification. >What do you mean by "large test machine"? What if someone believes >that the tokamak will be an economically viable design by the time >we get the test machines built? What if we need the large machine >in order to understand the engineering of a viable reactor? How can >we know what we need for a viable plant design unless we build one >and work out the problems? How does one know whether a particular >confinement scheme will work well as a power plant without building >a machine large enough to get reactor-relevant plasma conditions? "Large test machine" means TFTR and especially ITER. It is pointless to work on engineering problems which even if solved satisfactorily do not give a economically viable design. I would rather see money going towards improving computer simulation codes to the point where you can judge designs without having to build expensive test machines. I have no idea how feasible this is at the moment (which is why I asked in a previous post what the current state of the art is). I posted: > I hope you have some sort of fallback position as I suspect >the employment situation for new PhDs in fusion research may be rather >grim in a few years. For that matter have you investigated what the >situation for recent PhDs is today? Are they happy with their lot? Robert Heeter answered: >Thanks for the concern, but I'm not so foolish as to go into physics >without realizing that I may not work in it forever. I'm not worried >about not finding employment, though. Princeton seems to do fairly well >at having employable graduates. I took a pretty close look at that >when I was choosing schools and deciding on going into physics. >Of course, you seem to be insinuating that plasma physics is going to >go through some kind of fiscal trauma in a few years - is that what >you meant about a grim employment situation? This would require a >worldwide abandonment of fusion, which seems unlikely. (The US only >has 20% of the world fusion workforce.) Ok you can't say you weren't warned. A fair number of young scientists are currently unhappy with their employment oportunities and many feel that they were misled by their professors and others. (See for example Physics Today, May 1993, p.9-11 and p.57-60). A grim employment situation does not require a worldwide aban- doment of fusion, a 50% cutback would be more than sufficient. In fact all a grim employment situation requires is many qualified applicants for every opening which can occur without any cutbacks at all if the production of new PhDs is excessive. By the way not everyone would be willing to relocate out of the US to find work. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 29 October 1993, 19:08:18 EDT From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics Barry Merriman posted: >Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied >in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from >current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that >is at best only marginally economically viable. However, >based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have conclude that >viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the prevailing >opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically >viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased >by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants (~ 10GW). I replied: > Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo- >voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive >and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a >fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre- >vailing opinion you state. So what are you complaining about? Robert Heeter objects: >I think you're misinterpreting what Barry meant. As I read it, Barry >is saying that if you built a tokamak fusion reactor using *today's* >technology, the power it produces would cost 10 times as much as >other sources cost. But the same thing is (roughly) true for solar >technologies, particularly if you are going to include the energy-storage >equipment necessary to make up for the fact that the sun doesn't shine >24 hours a day. Wind faces similar problems; although the cost is less, >there aren't as many good sites, either, and you still have to deal >with storage for when the air just isn't moving. I interpreted Barry Merriman's post as saying the best that can be hoped for in Tokamak design power plants, ever, is a cost of $.50 per kilowatt hour in 10GW (electric?) plants. (Assuming a current cost of $.05 per kwh). I invite clarification if this was not what he meant. Solar photovoltaic is currently at about $.30 per kwh, the others are claimed to be at $.10 per kwh or less. All would appear to have room for improvement (from economies from mass production if nothing else). I would expect storage costs to be at worst a factor of 2 today (is this realistic?), again with considerable room for improve- ment as there is little demand for storage systems today. If so all but solar photovoltaic would still be well under $.50 per kwh and would have the further large advantage of not requiring 10GW plants. Barry Merriman protested: >James, get serious. Those are all low power density technologies you cite >(not to mention some of them have limited capacity and applicability: >tell Japan to rely on solar---which country should they take over >in order to get the land area required for solar cells.). >Are you saying the industrialized world need no high power density >sources? I don't think so. That is the need fusion is intended to fill. What does power density have to do with anything? Electric utilities should use the cheapest means of generating electricity re- gardless of whether the method is low or high power density (whatever that means anyway). As for capacity and applicability I believe any of the 4 could replace a significant fraction of the US electrical power currently being generated from fossil fuels. Is this incorrect? (I omitted hydoelectric and geothermal which are also cheap because they appear to have limited room for expansion.) As for Japan, I am sure congress will be delighted to hear that fusion research should be supported because it may solve Japan's energy problems. In any case it is estimated that solar plants satisfying the current US demand for electricity would require less than .5% of US land area. Since Japan's area is 4% of the US's area and its electri- city production is 25% of the US's, it would appear solar plants sat- isfying Japan's current demand for electricity would require less than 5% of Japan's area and would not require Japan to take over anybody. The industrialized world will need a substitute for oil's use in transportation. This has nothing to do with the economics (or lack thereof) of using fusion to generate electricity. Robert Heeter posted: > ... Recent reactor design >studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive >(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily >everyone else's here. ... Even fusion proponents appear to difficulty accepting these estimates since Bruce Scott posted: >By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure >for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like >15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale). Why confuse matters with 1980 dollars rather than current dollars? Since coal is the fossil fuel used to generate electricity and the world has a 1500 year supply (at current consumption rates), why do you expect the cost of electricity to increase over the next 50 years? By the way the photovoltaic people are hoping for $.06 per kwh, the wind and biomass people $.04 per kwh. Robert Heeter posted: >And don't forget radon emissions from today's fission plants. Did you mean today's coal plants? If I remember correctly they emit considerably more radon than fission plants. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 3 November 1993, 18:05:00 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics Bruce Scott complains: >Jim Shearer misunderstands me. I posted: Ok, let me ask you directly. What is your opinion of the studies (ESECOM, ARIES) which Robert Heeter keeps claiming show we can produce electricity from tokamak design fusion power plants at a cost of 3-6 cents per kwh within 50 years? Would you feel comfortable advising potential investors that this is a realistic expectation? Bruce Scott had posted: >By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure >for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like >15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale). Bruce Scott adds: >I give a figure in constant dollars to try to minimise red herrings that >come up when people play around with inflationary scales. Just to define >terms, mind you. > >My point is merely that what is a competitive price now and what will be a >competitive price when we know how to do fusion are likely to be different, >and that judgements based upon what is competitive now are likely to be >erroneous. > >Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr >to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived >in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas). > >I urge people to define which dollars they speak about: if you wish to >use current dollars make sure you clarify which year you mean. Today? >Or after demonstration or non-demonstration of fusion feasibility? I have no objection to using constant dollars. I am objecting to the use of 1980 dollars instead of current dollars since most people will not immediately realize that a price of $.15 in 1980 dollars is a price of more than $.25 in current dollars (I do not know the exact conversion factor offhand). By current dollars I mean of course 1993 dollars. These costs are costs to the utility at the generating plant busbar. The price a homeowner pays is of course substantially more. The current (Nov 8, 1993) Business Week contains a table of current costs for various means of generating power (p. 94-95, table references the Electric Power Research Institute). These are (cents per kwh): Coal 4-5 Wind 5-9 Gas 4-5 Biomass 6-8 Hydropower 4-7 Solar 10-12 Geothermal 5-8 Photovoltaic 30-40 The world has very large reserves of coal. Hence any technology which hopes to be widely used to generate electricity any time soon must be competitive with coal in cost. Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does not appear to have any substantial basis. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 3 November 1993, 19:33:16 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics I said: > Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that >that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained >them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it >seems unlikely that this is the easiest way. Robert Heeter protests: >I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I >said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes >much simpler. Care to refute this, or are you going to evade? I find it plausible that possesion of power breeder techno- logy makes it easier to build nuclear weapons. I also find it plausible that possesion of tokamak reactor technology makes it easier to build nuclear weapons. For that matter it would appear that possesion of fission reactor technology makes it easier to build weapons. If I remember correctly the Soviet Union obtained weapons plutonium from fission power reactors and that the US could have done so but decided not to for political reasons. I do not know enough to give quantitative estimates about how much difference any of the above would make. However this is all irrelevant. The US already has nuclear weapons. If the US developes a power breeder reactor this will not help Iran, Libya or Cuba develop nuclear weapons. I said: > Not much, your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite >for a viable economy is clearly absurd. Do you believe the United >States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies? Most nations >want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much. Robert Heeter replied >I would claim that the US and Japan have viable economies only insofar >as we have adequate military force to *ensure* an adequate energy >supply. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Rapid Deployment Force >are both examples of ways in which the US tried to make certain that >it would be able to survive an oil squeeze and protect oil production >in the mideast. Perhaps "energy security" is a better term to describe >my idea than energy independence. If there's no oil, and you rely on the >generosity of other countries to provide you with fission fuel since >you don't have a breeder, you will have a strong incentive to either >develop your own breeder or become very close allies with someone who >has one. This will certainly apply to the major nations and the pariah >nations of the world. You're right in that it's a cost-benefit >situation, and nations which feel secure in their alliances will >probably choose not to develop breeders. But the gist of my >argument is that a breeder economy is inevitably going to have a >lot of extra costs associated with it due to the political problems >it will introduce. You are not relying on the "generosity" of other countries to sell you fission fuel instead you are relying on their self- interest. As long as there are several competing suppliers there is little danger you will be unable to buy fission fuel. Just as today there is little danger Japan will be unable to buy oil. I suggest you read Adam Smith on this point. Do you believe every nation should try to be self-sufficient in everything? I said > I consider this to be an economic question not a scientific >question. If fission is cheaper it's better. I refuse to consider >the political aspect since this just encourages advocates of one tech- >nology to invent spurious but politically attractive arguments against >alternatives. It is my understanding that simply dumping the waste in >the deep ocean would be safe enough. (I am not advocating this). >Would this pose any real threat to people? By the way how long does >it take before fission waste is as safe as uranium ore? Robert Heeter replied: >I sympathize with your desire to stop arguing political issues. >I guess what I'd like to know is how certain we can be that if we >dispose of the waste, it will stay put. Dumping the waste in the >ocean will certainly dilute it, but then you're going to have lots >of plankton ingesting it, and then it goes up the food chain, and >I imagine it's conceivable that you could have some pretty radioactive >fish being caught and sold as food. I don't have the tools to >analyze this fully, though. But you're not advocating dumping it >in the oceans. Where do you want to put it, then? I said the "deep" ocean. There are no plankton in the deep ocean. I believe there are numerous safe and affordable ways of disposing of nuclear waste. I am not competent to select the best way from among them. However I do not think it makes much difference to the cost of fission power unless totally unreason- able requirements are placed on the disposal method. Robert Heeter said: >Well, the trouble with just writing computer simulation codes is >that you can't know if they're correct without comparing them with >real-life experience. This would not be true if the codes were based on the fund- amental laws. I gather this is not feasible at the moment and the codes rely on poorly understood empirical approximations. Is this correct? Robert Heeter said: >One of the big problems with plasma physics is that each time you >build a new, larger machine, the plasma finds new ways to do things >you'd never have expected beforehand. Do you mean here that new things go wrong? Robert Heeter said: > The recent design studies I >tend to cite (ESECOM, ARIES) have concluded that a large fusion >machine is likely to be economically viable. I do not have access to these studies. How about a summary of what they project an economically viable fusion reactor will look like (and why they think it will be cheaper than coal within 50 years). For example what size, capital cost, running costs, total cost per kwh, expected fraction of potential power actually generated, frequency of unplanned outages and costs thereof, plant lifetime etc. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 10 November 1993, 12:12:09 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics Bruce Scott asked: >By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure >for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like >15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale). I replied in part: > Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does not appear to have any > substantial basis. Bruce Scott counters: >Sorry, I really didn't expect it to, given the current eco-culture. You have answered your own question. The 3-6 cent/kW-hour figure is based on the current eco-culture. By the way I find the apparent belief among many fusion proponents that a more powerful environmental movement will work in fusion's favor naive at best. The core of the environmental movement is rejection of the modern world with its idea of progress. For this reason the environmental movement will find fusion power plants incomparably more threatening than coal power plants. Additionally political restrictions on burning coal cause direct economic harm to many people. This creates a natural political counterweight to environmentalist attempts to restrict use of coal which is not present regarding attempts to restrict the use of fusion. For these reasons the effect of the environmental movement is likely to favor the use of coal over the use of fusion to generate power just as currently the effect of the environmental movement is to favor the use of coal over the use of fission to generate power. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 10 November 1993, 13:55:31 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics Bruce Scott posted: >I fear very much this scenario: > >billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research > >while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space >of configurations would have worked and we will never know it. What do you mean by "would have worked"? It is my under- standing that even if ITER performs as its proponents expect it will not lead to an economically viable power reactor. Is this not the case? Barry Merriman asks: >But isn't the current alternative scenario (in the US) > > no ITER --> end of fusion research > >? An obviously superior alternative as it saves billions. Barry Merriman also asked (reformatted): >Is it not possible that certain desirable technologies >are so expensive to >develop that no private sector entity would assume the risk? Of course, however the following statements are also true. 1.) Certain desirable technologies are so expensive to develop that their benefits do not cover their development costs. 2.) Development costs are difficult to predict. 3.) In some cases benefits are also difficult to predict. 4.) Government support of some technologies may hamper develop- ment of more desirable alternatives. 5.) US government technology development spending decisions are quite political. 6.) As a results of the above factors it is possible (likely?) that we would be better off if the US government didn't spend money developing technology. Barry Merriman also claimed: >How about, say, jet aircraft and satellites; I suspect these were originally >developed by the government labs. Look like winners to me. In fact, I >would guess the gov't is no better or worse at picking winners than >any other entity. What you probably object to is they suffer little penalty >for bad picks. Actually there is reason to expect the US government to be worse at picking winners than private entities. This is because the US government is not trying to pick winners in the same sense that private entities do. US government spending is politically driven and its primary objective is to gain votes and/or campaign money. For example I doubt any objective observor believes the space station Freedom (or whatever its called now) is a good idea yet it continues to obtain large amounts of government money. Barry Smith posted (reformatted): >solar radiation is surprisingly high; >peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square meter Barry Merriman asked: >Are you sure about this? If I recall, the solar constant is about >1300 W/m^2, and that is what is incident *above* the atmoshpere. I >can't believe that most of that makes it down to sea level. 1 kilowatt per square meter is the figure usually given. See for example "Photovoltaics: Unlimited Electrical Energy from the Sun", Jack Stone, Physics Today, September 1993, p. 25. Here it is stated "On a typical land area on Earth, approximately 1000 W/m**2 of energy from photons is available for conversion into electrical power at solar noon." This is on a cloudless day and includes scattered light. The same source gives 1367 W/m**2 above the atmo- sphere. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 10 November 1993, 15:22:32 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: fusion economics Robert Heeter posts: >This isn't the whole truth, as I see it. None of the top-notch >designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem >*is* bad. So you *have* to go with different materials. While >it's true that development of new materials will cost money and >take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive. Certainly >you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your >test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly >as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think. This would seem to depend on what requirements you are placing on the new materials. If they are expected to do the same things as steel at the same cost as steel while being produced in minute volumes compared to steel very seems generous. So what properties are these new materials required to have? Robert Heeter also posts: >The 3-6 cents that I've been quoting was independently arrived-at in >two different studies. The ESECOM study (Holdren et al, summary published >in Fusion Technology, Jan '88) has various tokamak designs coming out >in the 3.5-5.3 cents/kW-hr range, using 1986 dollars. The idea they had >was to compare their designs with current and future fission designs, >so that they could assess whether fusion might be feasible. The >best-present-experience LWR is about 3.3 cents/kW-hr, and the median >is 5.7 cents/kW-hr. (Again, 1986 dollars.) As I understand the >article, they are demonstrating that their fusion designs can be >competitive, and the estimated cost is placed in today's reference >frame so that it can be compared with other technologies. > >Conn, et al, in the ARIES studies, arrive at similar conclusions. >The cover of the booklet I have lists the title as "Fusion Reactor >Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects", and says that the paper >was submitted to _Nuclear Fusion_ ca. 1990. I don't know whether >it was published, alas. Conn gives 4.8-6.5 cents/kWhr for fusion >and 4.6 cents and 7.8 cents for Better Experience / Median experience >PWR fission plants. These are in 1988 dollars. > >I hope this clarifies the numbers! I'd be happy to discuss the studies >more; this is all new to me. Ok, lets start with the fission figures. Why the difference between the two studies (much more than can be explained by the difference between 1986 and 1988 dollars)? Why aren't average and bad experience numbers given? These figures are the reason utilities aren't ordering fission power plants. What plants are included in figuring the median experience? If only operating plants are included this biases the figures a lot. How do fission costs break down between capital, fuel and operating costs? Why is fusion expected to be cheaper than fission? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 17 November 1993, 14:23:20 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fission economics Dr Bruce Scott posted (quoting Barry Merriman): >>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium >>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our >>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy >>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution. >How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel >grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole, >assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available >energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U >total). So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same >people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth >and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple >division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If >consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less >than 800 years. > >Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that >day rolls around. I responded to this before but I overlooked the biggest problem with this calculation. The 60 year supply is for uranium which can be economically used in present day fission reactors. If breeder technology is perfected, not only does this mean that the 60 year supply of high-grade uranium ore will last much longer, it also means that low-grade uranium ores may be used. Since much more uranium is present in low-grade ores than in high-grade ores this means that the supply is much larger than the above calculation indicates. See for example "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source" by Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Physics, 51(1), Jan. 1983, p75-76, which suggests breeder reactors could provide all of the world's energy requirements (at present rates of consumption) for the next 5 billion years using uranium from the oceans. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 17 November 1993, 17:50:37 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics Bruce Scott posted: >Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr >to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived >in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas). I replied in part: > These costs are costs to the utility at the generating plant >busbar. The price a homeowner pays is of course substantially more. Bruce Scott again: >... BTW I have always thought of 15 cents/kW-hr, for whatever it is >worth. That's close to what I pay here. Bernd Pollermann added: >Well, maybe not, or he just looked at some other parts of the world: >In France/Switzerland you pay NOW about 11-12 cents/KWh . We seem to have a failure to communicate here. Unless you are planning to sell fusion reactors that people can put in their basements the current price individuals pay for electricity is irrelevant to the discussion of the economic viability of fusion reactors. If you are planning to sell fusion reactors to electric utility companies the cost they care about is the cost of electricity at the point it enters their distribution system. This is the standard way of comparing the costs of different means of generating electricty for utilities. The comparative cost figures I posted were figured on this basis. These are the figures that fusion reactors must meet to be economically viable. Do you understand the difference between retail and wholesale? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 21 November 1993, 11:57:29 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Fusion Economics I asked: > Do you understand the difference between retail and wholesale? Bruce Scott replied: >Yes I do. ... Well then you should stop misleading people by comparing the wholesale price of future fusion power with the current retail price of electricity. Bruce Scott again: > ... Do you understand the difference between regulated and un- >regulated economies? Well, you do, and you strike me as someone who >is aghast at the prospect of the former. ... Actually there aren't too many anarchists around these days and I don't happen to be one. More Bruce Scott: > ... I, however, feel regulation, >even to the point of making undesirable forms of activity uneconomical >by using the tax code, is essential if we are going to preserve a livable >world. I have no objection to making certain undesirable forms of activity, such as murder, illegal. Like I said, I am not an anarchist. However I see little reason to believe that politicians are good at setting prices or directing investment flows. More Bruce Scott: > ... To that end, coal-based power systems are unacceptable in the long >run. What is this statement based on? More Bruce Scott: >The reason that what I and others pay for power is quite relevant is that >the hard part has already been achieved in Europe: getting the consumer >used to a price for energy which can cover some of the clean-ups which >are necessary and will become necessary. Ok, how about some facts. What portion of the current price Europeans pay for electricity is available for clean-ups? By the way a high cost utility in the US such as mine, Consolidated Edison, also charges residential users about $.15 per kwhr (commercial about $.12). I said: > If you are planning to sell fusion reactors to electric > utility companies the cost they care about is the cost of electricity > at the point it enters their distribution system. Bruce Scott replied: >Yes, but remember, this will not be the "free market" cost. That is >unacceptable as long as the people producing the power do not have to pay >for the damage they cause. In the case of fission, you would have to ensure >that the new techniques for separating the actinide part of the waste and >the special treatments of that part are actually used. In a "free market" >system they would not, because they cost money. I don't believe not separating actinides causes any significant damage. I don't believe reasonable requirements for waste disposal have a material effect on fission power costs. I said: > These are the figures that fusion reactors must meet to be > economically viable. Bruce Scott replied: >Keep in mind that the price of energy is political. The laws of nature are not political. Sure the politicians can go for fusion regardless of cost, however I don't see why anyone with the possible exception of fusion researchers would think that this is desirable. Bruce Scott said (regarding global warming): >In the short term, the best course of action would be to re-vitalise >fission, properly regulated to ensure that modern waste treatment methods >are used. In the meantime we will know whether fusion -- of the tokamak >or other variety -- will be useful. I am under the impression that barring some totally unforeseen breakthrough fusion power will not have much effect on global warming because it cannot possibly displace enough fossil fuel use quickly enough to materially affect atmospheric CO2 levels before the crisis point is reached. Even fission would appear to be of marginal importance in this regard and it is much further along than fusion. How much of the current CO2 discharges are from power plants anyway? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 24 November 1993, 18:41:52 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Global warming Bruce Scott posted (in response to a query as to why current models of global warming justify large policy changes): >Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. ... It is this mindset that tempts many people to dismiss the environmental movement as antirational. Obviously (to me anyway) preventable risk should be prevented if and only if the costs do not exceed the benefits. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 24 November 1993, 19:28:10 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Global warming Michael Tobis posted: >A good strategy integrates the costs and benefits of all possible outcomes >for each strategy, weighted by best estimates of the probablity of such >outcomes. In situations where the maximum possible loss is very large, but >the likely loss is quite small, the maximum possible loss carries a lot of >weight in evaluating the optimal cost strategy. > >Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so >because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a >need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst* >plausible outcomes into account as well? I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above. I have the following questions. 1. The above appears to assume that outcomes should be arithmetically averaged. Why is the arithmetic average to be preferred to the geometric average? 2. What is the function we are maximizing? 3. What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome? 4. Is the best plausible outcome no effect? What probability would you assign to the following scenario? Anthropogenic CO2 prevents another ice age. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 24 November 1993, 21:33:04 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Global warming Michael Tobis posted: >The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the level >at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases >in emissions are unlikely. What is the basis for this statement? A naive model predicts the final concentration will be a linear function of the steady state emission level. Incidently why are sudden decreases unlikely? It would seem to me that emissions are likely to decrease at least as fast as they rose as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted. Michael Tobis again: >By the way, a sudden decrease of *emissions* by some 80% is NOW required >to hold CO2 *concentrations* to current levels. Again what is the basis of this statement? The naive model suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic CO2 has remained in the atmosphere). James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 24 November 1993, 22:00:40 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Global warming Michael Tobis posted: >The models that Dale so insistently questions are among several streams of >evidence indicating that the time for concern in this matter is upon us. >Policy is typically made on the basis of far less widely held opinions on >the part of economists, a far less precise discipline than physical >climatology. Why should climatology be held to a standard of proof so much >higher than economists' when the indicated policy of the two disciplines >(apparently) disagree? I have some problems with this. 1. Why do you believe that economists currently have any significant influence on policy? For example most economists believe the law prohibiting the export of Alaskan oil harms the economy of the United States for no good reason. Nevertheless so far as I know the law remains in effect. 2. On what basis do you characterize economics as a far less precise discipline than physical climatology? 3. In what way is climatology being held to a higher standard of proof than economics? 4. How can either economics or climatology have a indicated policy regarding global warming in isolation from the other? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 14 December 1993, 18:50:20 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion Joseph Davidson asked: >Please correct me - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when >it was designed? Robert Heeter replied: >No, you're right. But we haven't heard the last from TFTR yet. >I believe they anticipate getting 10 MW sometime next year as they >learn to optimize the D-T plasma. 10 MW out vs 30 MW in is >still not quite breakeven, but you have to consider that when >TFTR was designed a typical machine was some four orders of >magnitude less, so 10 MW is actually quite close to breakeven. >As far as I know TFTR has pretty much achieved everything it >was designed to do, and more. (For instance, they have >achieved plasma temperatures of some 400 million degrees C, >whereas I think the design specification was 100 million.) You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of 3 is not important. However according to Matt Kennel: >Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales >as the volume. This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was designed. Is this correct? This would appear to have extremely negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 17 December 1993, 17:40:13 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: TFTR Robert Heeter posted: > ... As for approximate break-even: as I pointed out >earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which >is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed. ... You appear to be comparing DT numbers for TFTR to DD numbers for earlier machines which I believe is misleading. The earlier PLT (Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for DT. Robert Heeter also posted: >In the context of the below results, one can see that TFTR was >designed to get close to breakeven, and there were times when >improvements to TFTR were proposed which would allow it to get >closer, but from what I understand it's not the case that TFTR >was originally designed to exceed breakeven. and: >I don't think TFTR was originally designed to achieve breakeven, >though it could be that breakeven proved to require higher parameters >than TFTR was designed to achieve. Anyone know for sure? "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 60) "The attainment of Q values somewhat greater than 1 is a realistic prospect for the next generation of tokamak experiments. Two of the large tokamaks currently under construction will be capable of demonstrating this type of operation on a short-pulse basis in actual deuterium-tritium plasmas. The devices, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at Princeton, which is scheduled for completion in late 1981, and the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in England, scheduled for 1982, will have plasma currents of about three million amperes, neutral- beam heating powers of tens of megawatts and expected fusion-generated output powers of between 10 and 100 megawatts. The minor radius of the plasma in the TFTR and the JET will be respectively two and three times larger than the minor radius of the plasma in the PLT; it is estimated that the cost of each of the new facilities will be on the order of $300 million." In view of the above I do not see how the actual results to date can be characterized as other than disappointing. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 18 December 1993, 23:24:37 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: TFTR I said: > ... The earlier PLT >(Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for >DT. Robert Heeter asked >Is there a reference for that PLT value that I could >have? (For my archives.) ... The same article: "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59) "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in fusion research to date." James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 20 December 1993, 15:43:59 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: TFTR I said: > The same article: > "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth >Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59) > "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is >about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in >fusion research to date." Robert Heeter replied: >Thanks! I'll have to go get the article. Can you tell me when >these PLT values were obtained? It makes a difference whether >it was before or after TFTR was designed, at least in the context >of our original discussion. I would try looking, but right now The PLT numbers appear to have been obtained in 1978. If in fact the TFTR design is significantly suboptimal because the design was frozen before these PLT results were obtained this would appear to indicate extreme incompetence by the program managers. In any case the results were known as of 1979 when Furth was predicting TFTR and JET would demonstrate Q values greater than 1. In "Fusion", edited by Edward Teller, Academic Press, 1981, Furth (p. 223) lists Q values of [about] 2 for TFTR and >>1 for JET. You have suggested that lack of funding explains TFTR's failure to reach breakeven. Perhaps you can explain exactly what features of TFTR planned in 1979-1981 were deleted and what effect this had on the achievable Q values. While you are at it perhaps you can explain what went wrong with JET as well. You and someone else have suggested that achieving 10 million watts of power when 10-100 was expected does not constitute a dis- appointing result. I disagree. Finally the real problem with the Tokamak fusion has nothing to do with whether this machine or that machine met its goals or not. The real problem is that there is no realistic prospect that a Tokamak fusion power reactor will be economically competitive with fission reactors in the foreseeable future. I actually do not see how any objective observor can doubt this in view of the vastly greater engi- neering difficulties involved in building fusion power reactors. Since fission is currently not economically competitive with coal in the US I see no reason for the US government to continue to fund the fusion program at current levels. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 22 December 1993, 17:45:09 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion I said: > You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of > 3 is not important. > However according to Matt Kennel: > >Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales > >as the volume. > This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that > a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear > dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was > designed. Is this correct? This would appear to have extremely > negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion. Robert I. Eachus responded: > I'm defending tokamaks? Well... > > First of all, the fact that the first few tritium runs are not at >breakeven says little about what will happen in the next year, >although this does count as "close to breakeven" as of when TFTR was >built. (However, I doubt TFTR will reach breakeven, although JET >might.) I am assuming that their stated hope to obtain 10MW is their maximum expectation based on the DD runs. Robert I. Eachus added: > Second, of course any commercial hot fusion power plant will be >much larger than the 270 MW that your post suggest. Many BWR and PWR >(nuclear) power plants are around 3 to 4 GW(t), or around 1000 to 1400 >MW(e) output. (The t is for thermal, the e is electrical, or output.) >Commercial hot fusion plants would probably be around this size or >larger, although efficiencies are expected to be higher. This is incorrect. 270MW would be the size of a breakeven machine. It is my understanding that a commercial reactor would need to reach ignition at Q=5. This is another factor of 5 in linear dimension, 125 in power. Hence the power would be 33.75GW. This compares to 30*125MW or 3.75GW if TFTR were achieving breakeven. (My first post was in error in suggesting the multiplier was 27. I was incorrectly comparing to the power of the actual TFTR machine instead of to the hypothetical breakeven TFTR. The correct multiplier is 9.) As you note a 3.75GW(t) plant is plausible. Can the same be said for a 33.75GW(t) plant? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Date: 23 December 1993, 15:40:30 EST From: JBS at YKTVMV To: usenet-poster at polecat.newsgate.ibm.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion X-Post-Me: Yes Subject: Re: Technological development (was TFTR) Robert Heeter posted: >Ahh, now I see where you're coming from. One might also ask >how it is that robots are now effectively performing jobs that >were once done by manual labor, considering the "vastly greater >engineering difficulties involved". And cost-effectively, too. >There are any number of historical examples where a technologically >more-advanced device has achieved advantages over a less-advanced >device, *once the technology was mastered*. I'm sure you're aware >that the engineering difficulties *may* be soluble, and that if >they are, fusion will have some substantial advantages over >fission. I certainly hope your views towards technological >development don't reflect the views of IBM as an organization... The views I express are of course my own and not those of IBM. I was unaware that there was anything controversial about my views on technological development. I believe 1.) Society should attempt to maximize the returns on its investments. This means prioritizing investment opportunities and funding the ones with the greatest expected returns. Tech- nological development is just one possible area of investment. 2.) All other things being equal: a) Investments with short payback periods are preferable to investments with long payback periods. b) Investments with certain returns are preferable to investments with uncertain returns. c) Investments with certain costs are preferable to investments with uncertain costs. d) Small investments are preferable to large investments (ie diversification is good). 3.) There is no payoff for finding the second best way of doing something. 4.) Rival technologies should be evaluated by the methods of traditional economics (ie cheaper is better). 5.) Evaluation of investments should be based on objective reality not the dreams of proponents. 6.) Some investments do not work out. Current funding should be based on current prospects not on how much money has already been invested or how promising the investment looked at one time. (Of course one must consider transaction costs when deciding whether to switch investment from one area to another.) Do you disagree with the above or just with my specific judgement that funding tokamak machines is a bad investment for the US at this time? What criteria do you believe the US government should apply in deciding whether to fund ITER? Do you agree that Tokamak investment is objectively less attractive now than it was in 1980? Under what circumstances would you advocate ceasing to fund Tokamak research at current levels? Robert Heeter added: >I will do the research on TFTR that you suggest, and see what comes >up. I trust you will post the results. I will defer further comment on your TFTR posts until you do so. James B. Shearer