One Thing Hitler Did Right According to Mitt Romney: Coal

This is a bit old but nevertheless...

Germany figured how to liquify coal over 8 decades ago. He should not have credited this to Hitler, but to Germany in the 1920s.

The Energy Blog: About Coal Liquefaction

The one thing the Romans got right, Christians make the best lion food!

Crikey how old is that thing, "at 40 or 50 dollars BOE they are economic"? Also it doesn't sound unlike the core of Obama's energy policy "fire some investment seed money out there at lots of options".

Then again, in 2013 the first hydrogen fusion test will be made in California. For those who don't know, this is the same thing the sun uses to generate the heat and power it generates. Hydrogen fusion. Unlike a nuclear power plant which relies on nuclear fission (splitting atoms apart), hydrogen fusion works by uniting hydrogen atoms and see the power released by them that way.

Rainman05 said:

Then again, in 2013 the first hydrogen fusion test will be made in California. For those who don't know, this is the same thing the sun uses to generate the heat and power it generates. Hydrogen fusion. Unlike a nuclear power plant which relies on nuclear fission (splitting atoms apart), hydrogen fusion works by uniting hydrogen atoms and see the power released by them that way.

Click to expand...

The first successful fusion test took place in the 1930s.

Nuclear fusion does indeed, hold out considerable promise, if we can work some problems. It could become a practically limitless source of cheap, abundant energy.

The problem is that so far, in order to maintain a controlled fusion reaction, we've had to put much more energy into containing it and maintaining the conditions required for such a reaction, than we've been able to get back out.

The only way we've been able to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than was put into it is in a rather uncontrolled form, that looks something like this:

Bob Blaylock said:

The first successful fusion test took place in the 1930s.

Nuclear fusion does indeed, hold out considerable promise, if we can work some problems. It could become a practically limitless source of cheap, abundant energy.

The problem is that so far, in order to maintain a controlled fusion reaction, we've had to put much more energy into containing it and maintaining the conditions required for such a reaction, than we've been able to get back out.

The only way we've been able to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than was put into it is in a rather uncontrolled form, that looks something like this: :skull:

Click to expand...

Which is why what Rainman is referring to is so exciting. It aims to produce a contained reaction that gives a roughly x10 return on energy expended. Of course even if successful it still represents being decades away from commercial power production but maybe, just maybe in my lifetime a feasibility scale fusion power plant will go into production.

EDIT: Here's a quick Google I rustled up for it.

Dwight said:

Which is why what Rainman is referring to is so exciting. It aims to produce a contained reaction that gives a roughly x10 return on energy expended. Of course even if successful it still represents being decades away from commercial power production but maybe, just maybe in my lifetime a feasibility scale fusion power plant will go into production.

EDIT: Here's a quick Google I rustled up for it.

Click to expand...

When they actually achieve it, then it'll be exciting.

For most of the past half-century, we've been “ten or twenty years away” from being able to produce a controlled, sustained, fusion reaction that can be used to generate energy. I don't see that this article describes anything different.

Bob Blaylock said:

The first successful fusion test took place in the 1930s.

Nuclear fusion does indeed, hold out considerable promise, if we can work some problems. It could become a practically limitless source of cheap, abundant energy.

The problem is that so far, in order to maintain a controlled fusion reaction, we've had to put much more energy into containing it and maintaining the conditions required for such a reaction, than we've been able to get back out.

The only way we've been able to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than was put into it is in a rather uncontrolled form, that looks something like this:

View attachment 67135073

Click to expand...

Good one.

The problem with liberals (actually radical leftists) is that they think they can legislate away laws of physics and economics. And they usually mock conservatives when the raw facts are pointed out.

No doubt, fusion is a wonderful energy source. And no doubt someday it will be harnessed. (actually, I have some small doubt, but am optimistic about its promise) The problem is that hoping for marvelous developments in new energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, fusion, etc doesn't help the poor Joe who needs to get up early every morning and drive his car to his construction job. He needs gas to put in the car while the dreamers and developers are working on the next miracle fuel.

We have enough fossil fuels to meet our needs for a century or more - right here on the North American continent. All that keeps us from being energy independent is religion.

The left-wing has rejected traditional religion, but has latched onto a newer more destructive religion. In their new religion they are every bit as dogmatic and unwavering as the idiots who are burning our embassies in the name of Islam.

Their religion is also indifferent to logic - it is also completely devoid of sympathy for an unbelievers plight - it is also equally blind towards the facts that counter their 'true belief' and doesn't care that it cripples their own followers as much as the non-believers - it also cares not for contemporary problems, only being interested in its version of '72 virgins' in some future existence.

This new religion is radical environmentalism. It seeks to stop the use of anything that (in their minds) harms - or even insults - Mother Earth. Their 'inquisition' is neither the torture of the limbs, nor the beheading of infidels, but the bankruptcy of 'non-believers' in the pureness of their mission.

Dang - it's late and the body wants to go back to bed - more later 'yawn.'

That is why I was talking about hydrogen fusion, not nuclear one. Hydrogen fusion promises to be a clean source of energy. Cleaner than most. No environmentally damaging byproducts.

The first nuclear reactor used for generating electricity was in the 1960's in the good old USA. And it used fission... splitting atoms. Not fusion.

all else, yes, i agree with the above posts.

EDIT1: I am also excited because if this turns out to be viable... who knows, in a few decades, it could be used for space travel. Currently we are using fossil fuels for space travelling.. and they can only get us so far. Nuclear power is quite difficult to be used for space travel because of the huge requirements for controlled conditions. So hydrogen could be the way to go. We already have a working example that it can work in space -> teh sun.

Generation isn't the big issue. Storage and delivery are.

Bob Blaylock said:

When they actually achieve it, then it'll be exciting.

For most of the past half-century, we've been “ten or twenty years away” from being able to produce a controlled, sustained, fusion reaction that can be used to generate energy. I don't see that this article describes anything different.

Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone I'd consider remotely knowledgable describe fusion power generation closer than several decades out? It is an entirely different class power generation solution in that way.

The problem with liberals (actually radical leftists) is that they think they can legislate away laws of physics and economics.

Click to expand...

That's silly; You research to locate them and then and engineer around them. Which is exactly what's being talked about here.

That's what Mitt is talking about, too. Although coal liquefation has got so serious problems inherent with the feedstock, "Clean Coal" is a lot more marketing PR than substance. Coal is problematic because of its impurities and solid state. Although there is one form of coal liquefaction that we are using right now to some success, coal bed methane.

clownboy said:

Generation isn't the big issue. Storage and delivery are.

Click to expand...

Have one of the oldest nukes in the USA within a few miles... All of it is a big issue.

Rokkitsci said:

Good one.

The problem with liberals (actually radical leftists) is that they think they can legislate away laws of physics and economics. And they usually mock conservatives when the raw facts are pointed out.

Click to expand...

Wow, could that be any more ironic, coming from the science denial party?