• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good step in Nuclear power

Captain Adverse said:
IMO a good step in nuclear power would be to put real money behind the research and development of cold fusion. But that's just me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

longview said:
I agree, Ponds and Fleischmann saw something, but as it stands now the patent office will not issue
any patents that even sound like cold fusion.
New Energy Times - U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Cold Fusion Memo
Click to expand...

Lets get hot fusion working before we think about cold fusion. Cold fusion has never been demonstrated, and there is no theoretical framework that would even allow it. If someone proposes a working theory of cold fusion (which would be a nobel prize winning endeavor) then maybe we could start looking at it practically. Right now it's in the realms of science fiction.

Glen Contrarian said:
One of the few areas where I disagree with my fellow progressives is that I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power. Absolutely!
Click to expand...

I'm with you! Nuclear power is a great thing and should be the bedrock of our grid going forward. I think a lot of the 'progressives against nuclear' thing is a myth. One of the ways I distinguish progressives from liberals (in general, and in my opinion, at least) is the backing of strongly pro-science stances. I find that most people who do know a bit about the science/engineering behind nuclear are generally strong supporters. Likewise with positions on things like GMO etc.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Lets get hot fusion working before we think about cold fusion. Cold fusion has never been demonstrated, and there is no theoretical framework that would even allow it. If someone proposes a working theory of cold fusion (which would be a nobel prize winning endeavor) then maybe we could start looking at it practically. Right now it's in the realms of science fiction.



I'm with you! Nuclear power is a great thing and should be the bedrock of our grid going forward. I think a lot of the 'progressives against nuclear' thing is a myth. One of the ways I distinguish progressives from liberals (in general, and in my opinion, at least) is the backing of strongly pro-science stances. I find that most people who do know a bit about the science/engineering behind nuclear are generally strong supporters. Likewise with positions on things like GMO etc.
Click to expand...
Hot Fusion has had many decades of research, I am not sure excluding any line if research is a good idea.
Dr. Randell Mills has a good theory of what Ponds and Fleischmann saw,
and why it is difficult to reproduce.
Blacklight`s Free Energy Device Finally Verified by Rowan University - The Green Optimistic

That said, I think standardizing and simplifying known fission reactors world buy us time
to develop other energy sources.
 
longview said:
Hot Fusion has had many decades of research, I am not sure excluding any line if research is a good idea.
Dr. Randell Mills has a good theory of what Ponds and Fleischmann saw,
and why it is difficult to reproduce.
Blacklight`s Free Energy Device Finally Verified by Rowan University - The Green Optimistic

That said, I think standardizing and simplifying known fission reactors world buy us time
to develop other energy sources.
Click to expand...

There are people that continue to work on cold fusion, but right now putting a patent in on it would be akin to putting a patent on a hyperdrive warp engine, it's just not even theoretically feasible. At least with hot fusion we have a solid theoretical groundwork, and we have actually made it happen (although we cannot yet get more energy out than energy we put in).

You're absolutely correct on the fission reactor route however, there are numerous different types of fission reactors in use by various countries and agencies. Some designs are used for specific geographical and practical reasons such as availability of certain isotopes and breeding materials etc but honestly a lot of the reasons are political. Consolidation on designs, safety features and nuclear standards would be a great move for the nuclear industry right now. A lot of nuclear power stations currently in service were commissioned in the 50's and most don't have an operational life of more than seventy years, so quite a few are about to be on their way out. Whilst this does give us an opportunity to regroup and rethink as we start to build more, misuse and overuse of the current aging generation of reactors could lead to further public disregard for them. This, coupled with the fact that nuclear reactors don't actually create very many jobs (they are largely self-sufficient once operational, and don't need an infrastructure/big imports of fuel regularly to support them), means I don't have highest hopes for nuclear power even though in my opinion it is the answer to our energy problem.

A lot of hopes for nuclear power rest in the hands of the teams at ITER, which aims to be the first non-experiemental energy producing fusion power plant, scheduled for completeion in around 2030. Unfortunately, money has been thrown at the project for a long time now and delays keep on happening. We also have to consider that ITER will then make way for DEMO (which will be a prototype for a commercially viable fusion power plant) which will then finally be followed by actual commercial fusion energy. Whilst I think we should continue to fund it most politicians these days don't have time for a project that won't have payoffs for another 30 years :/

The biggest hurdle for nuclear energy right now though is the tumbling oil prices. Why invest in new and improved energy structure when fossil fuels are so cheap. Your average citizen doesn't care about funneling tax dollars towards fusion energy when gas is below $1. It's a shame because in my opinion it's short term thinking at work.
 
Nilly said:
There are people that continue to work on cold fusion, but right now putting a patent in on it would be akin to putting a patent on a hyperdrive warp engine, it's just not even theoretically feasible. At least with hot fusion we have a solid theoretical groundwork, and we have actually made it happen (although we cannot yet get more energy out than energy we put in).
Click to expand...
Dr. Mills has something working, although he is not claiming cold fusion.
(What he is claiming is almost as extraordinary, that native hydrogen exists at a stable, but not ground state.)
The Idea that the patent office would revoke a patent because it sounded like something else,
is disturbing.
I think Ponds and Fleischmann saw something real, but could not replicate it.
It is worth bearing in mind that the first research showing silicone exhibited unusual electrical properties,
was in the 1920's, almost 2 decades would pass before a working transistor could be made.
Mills explanation is as good a theory as any, until someone disproves it.
 
longview said:
Dr. Mills has something working, although he is not claiming cold fusion.
(What he is claiming is almost as extraordinary, that native hydrogen exists at a stable, but not ground state.)
The Idea that the patent office would revoke a patent because it sounded like something else,
is disturbing.
I think Ponds and Fleischmann saw something real, but could not replicate it.
It is worth bearing in mind that the first research showing silicone exhibited unusual electrical properties,
was in the 1920's, almost 2 decades would pass before a working transistor could be made.
Mills explanation is as good a theory as any, until someone disproves it.
Click to expand...

Mills theories are inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental results that have been verified many, many times. For all intents and purposes it has been disproven.

Fleischmanns original experiment was never replicated and was found to have many experimental flaws. Furthermore, it was discovered that they never actually witnessed the fusion byproducts that they claimed to see.

If someone comes up with a sound theory of cold fusion then that would be amazing. If someone were to get it working experimentally, then even better. But right now there are higher chances of pigs flying.
 
Nilly said:
Mills theories are inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental results that have been verified many, many times. For all intents and purposes it has been disproven.

Fleischmanns original experiment was never replicated and was found to have many experimental flaws. Furthermore, it was discovered that they never actually witnessed the fusion byproducts that they claimed to see.

If someone comes up with a sound theory of cold fusion then that would be amazing. If someone were to get it working experimentally, then even better. But right now there are higher chances of pigs flying.
Click to expand...
Mills theories are inconsistent with quantum mechanics, (as we now understand it),
yet outside observers have verified his concept produces excess energy.
In addition some of the byproducts are new materials, never seen before.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO a good step in nuclear power would be to put real money behind the research and development of cold fusion. But that's just me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, while we're at it we should put money into perpetual motion machines and sorcery.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO a good step in nuclear power would be to put real money behind the research and development of cold fusion. But that's just me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

IMO, cold fusion is a dead end likely caused by either liars or incompetents.

They can call it "low temperature fusion" but i think it's just a silly concept. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That energy fuels all kinds of reactions, it's readily available to put electrons into elevated energy states that are mobile in, say, a semiconductor material. Hot water washes your dishes or clothes better. It greases the skids for reactions. The fusion in the sun, for example, simple hydrogen fusion, fusing only the smallest, single proton elements to create helium at about 15 million degrees C.

Controlled fusion might be feasible if we concentrate energy in one spot with focused light. Even then, i'd guess it would create a lot of thermal energy. Nuclear energy relies on thermal energy to produce steam that uses gas energy to spin turbines tied to electromagnetic arrangements that function as generators. It would have to sustain itself to be a net gain. That kindof implies that it gets and stays really hot.

Anyway i don't mean to sound too arrogant, i certainly cannot rule out all forms of what might be considered low temperature fusion. From what i've seen, i'm far from convinced by it.
 
As a followup, I found this article in Technology Review.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/
I thought as an exercise it might be fun to look at how much man made gasoline
could be generated from one of these plants.
With current technology, it takes about 50 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
The article says the plant would cost $1.7 Billion, and would generate 500 Mw.
500 Mw is 500 Mwh per hour, so 500 X 10^6/50 X10^3= 10,000 gallons per hour.
This rate would produce 86,400,000 gallons of gasoline per year.
If the plant had a 20 year life expectancy, the cost of the finished gasoline would be,
$1.7 X 10^9/ 1.728 X10 ^9 gallons= $.98 per gallon.
If the electricity were sold at $40 per Mwh, it would generate $3.5 Billion.
So selling the wholesale Carbon neutral gasoline for $2 per gallon would be
comparable to just making electricity.
The big difference is the gasoline could be stored for up to several years, until needed,
and is compatible with existing infrastructure.
 
Absentglare said:
IMO, cold fusion is a dead end likely caused by either liars or incompetents.

They can call it "low temperature fusion" but i think it's just a silly concept. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That energy fuels all kinds of reactions, it's readily available to put electrons into elevated energy states that are mobile in, say, a semiconductor material. Hot water washes your dishes or clothes better. It greases the skids for reactions. The fusion in the sun, for example, simple hydrogen fusion, fusing only the smallest, single proton elements to create helium at about 15 million degrees C.

Controlled fusion might be feasible if we concentrate energy in one spot with focused light. Even then, i'd guess it would create a lot of thermal energy. Nuclear energy relies on thermal energy to produce steam that uses gas energy to spin turbines tied to electromagnetic arrangements that function as generators. It would have to sustain itself to be a net gain. That kindof implies that it gets and stays really hot.

Anyway i don't mean to sound too arrogant, i certainly cannot rule out all forms of what might be considered low temperature fusion. From what i've seen, i'm far from convinced by it.
Click to expand...

Fusion is a misnomer. Its really a low energy fission or transmutation process. The difference is two fold with this LENR than with standard fission. One the energy released is not quite as great and takes advantage of the weak nuclear force to split atoms and release controlled amounts of energy for direct conversion. Secondly positive control and better safety factor. Primary stumbling blocks are developing terahertz frequency generation.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Fusion is a misnomer. Its really a low energy fission or transmutation process. The difference is two fold with this LENR than with standard fission. One the energy released is not quite as great and takes advantage of the weak nuclear force to split atoms and release controlled amounts of energy for direct conversion. Secondly positive control and better safety factor. Primary stumbling blocks are developing terahertz frequency generation.
Click to expand...

That would make a whole lot more sense. They would do well to avoid the phrase "cold fusion" at all costs !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom