Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

... Problem is it is not particularly any closer today then they thought it was back then. Back then they thought it was 50 years away, they still think it's 50 years away. ...

Not exactly accurate. When I started working professionally on the problem we thought it would be solved in a few years.

Between 1966 and 1976 at the applied physic lab of JHU, I worked on the "CTR" (Controlled Thermo-nuclear Reaction) problem as controlling the Hydrogen-bomb for slow energy release was called back then. The US navy paid my salary as they (and we) at the start of CTR research thought it would be achieved in a few years.

The Navy wanted our group at APL/JHU to get real "hands on" experience with high temperature plasmas, but did not expect our group's five physic PhDs to solve the problem. They wanted us to be able to help them technically oversee the power plant of the first fusion powered aircraft carrier. They expected to let the contract for it around 1970.

(APL/JHU's main activity was / is to be a trusted, very knowledgeable group of physics professionals to help develop navy needed technology and then oversee industrial production of it. During WWII, APL invented the proximity fused artillery shell that saved the pacific fleet from destruction by Japan's Kama Kazi diving planes - shells did not need to hit the plane - just fly by near it.) Since then APL develop the 360 degree continuous scan and track radar with no moving parts you see on all Aegis ships, and was in charge of defending the fleet against supersonic sea skimming cruise missiles and many others, now even ICBMs with a modified version of the SAM-2 missile APL developed over few decades.

Back to CTR: as each year passed, more instabilities were discovered and the solution to the CTR problem seemed to move two year further into the future. When the Navy "threw in the towel" - killed further funding for our group, in 1976, we and they though perhaps the CTR problem would be solved by 2000.

The machines have grown so large and complex (and costly) that I am now convinced more than half of the US coal will have been used up before CTR electricity is economically feasible. (Read that as "never.") A coal fired steam boiler is very simple and cheap and with higher energy density than CTR's high vacuum "bottle" / systems, its supper-conducting very-strong magnets, etc. IMHO, what started out as very applied physics has turned into an expensive basic research program with little chance of ever being commercially applied. (That hope is used to justify the tax dollars, much like "save the family farmer" is used to justify billions for giant agro-businesses, like privately owned Cargill.)

 

[adoucette]

Fusion is already a reality and just needs to be refined. If a large budgetry boost could be acquired then it would probably come sooner than 2050. New experiments using focused laser power could reap rewards.

LOL

The record so far (and it's over a decade old) is a Q of 1.25

The purpose of a fusion reactor is to produce power, not to recirculate it, so a practical reactor must have frecirc = 0.2 approximately. Lower would be better but will be hard to achieve. Using these values we find for a practical reactor Q = 22.

So NO, we are not anywhere close to having a practical fusion reactor and no one in the industry expects it within 40 years.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Not exactly accurate. When I started working professionally on the problem we thought it would be solved in a few years..

LOL
Ok, we were pretty optimistic when we started out....
What we didn't know seemed easy to solve, but as you pointed out, the more you knew, the more difficult you realized it was.

I don't think anyone working on the ITER today seriously believes we will have a working Fusion reactor in less than 40 years, and more and more I read scientists say that we may never have it.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Pumping CO2 under ground is also being trialed with success I think I recall.

I wouldn't say "with success" as of yet.

http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/projects-research-development/etis/otways

Success is when you can do it cheaply and safely and in Gigatons of volume.

The last one is the most difficult problem. If you can't store Gigatons of CO2 it's hardly worth doing.

Remember though, this is just one half of the solution, they haven't figured out how to separate the CO2 from the flue gasses yet.

Of course they are working on the storage in parallel, but the first problem, getting the CO2 separated at a reasonable cost has not been figured out.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

I wouldn't say "with success" as of yet.

http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/projects-research-development/etis/otways

Success is when you can do it cheaply and safely and in Gigatons of volume.

The last one is the most difficult problem. If you can't store Gigatons of CO2 it's hardly worth doing.

Remember though, this is just one half of the solution, they haven't figured out how to separate the CO2 from the flue gasses yet.

Of course they are working on the storage in parallel, but the first problem, getting the CO2 separated at a reasonable cost has not been figured out.

Arthur

Didn't I read somewhere about using pockets where oil or gas is as reservoirs? Not sure now.

Fusion reactors have produced power, just not balanced the books yet. The ITER remit is to have plasma by 2018 or something. The time frames are big, and it will not be a significant player for some time, but I am hopeful. And like I said, the laser experiments underway could open up possiblities.

The point is carbon capture ideas are all over the place. If someone could invent a way of taking the carbon brick out of the truck everynight then the US could carry on as is
(didn't I see something about this recently? some guy had achieved something like this?)

Can we afford to not bring down CO2 emissions? If we can't then EV and or hydrogen will be very important tech for the future.

 

[universaldistress]

If we don't need to bring down CO2 because the earth CAN cope, then I will go out and buy my own 5 litre truck pocket willing

 

[universaldistress]

Dammit Universaldistress you made me cough up my pop I was drinking when I read your "some governments have oiled sticks up their asses" Holy crap that was funny!

Anyway you called that one right on.

I am glad someone is enjoying my discourse

 

[adoucette]

We have solved all these problems a century ago with the electric trolley. Now we have light rail and subways too. The problem is that these things require public funding, and Republicans will oppose it, probably claiming that they would hurt American auto companies, who make more marketing personal vehicles than they would utilitarian public transportation.

Bull.
It's not a Republican vs Democrat issue.

Let's look at London, they have extensive light rail, subways, buses and they don't make any great amount of cars anymore, so none of those things are the issue.

And yet:

The foundation also showed that liking an area was the main reason why people did not live closer to their work. Drivers would rather sit in their cars twice as long than change jobs, move house or change their work base.

The main reason given for using the car to drive to work was that it was quicker than other options. Almost half of the motorists questioned said that if their car journey time doubled, they would simply allow more time for their journey.

Only 7% would make the switch to public transport.

The foundation said its findings showed that people are "wedded to the car for practical reasons" and must be catered for by planners. The RAC Foundation's executive director Edmund King said: "Our research shows that we are a nation of car commuters. "We have the longest commute in Europe and even if our commuting time doubled most of us would just shrug and leave more time for the journey."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm#graph

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Fusion reactors have produced power, just not balanced the books yet. The ITER remit is to have plasma by 2018 or something. The time frames are big, and it will not be a significant player for some time, but I am hopeful. And like I said, the laser experiments underway could open up possiblities.

But ITER is not designed to produce power on a commercial basis, it's to learn the basis of controlling fusion. They expect ITER to begin first plasma in 2019 and then be operational for TWENTY years. Using what is learned from a decade of ITER's tests then would be applied to designing and building the first demonstration power plant, which is why, even if all goes right (and it never has before) we are at least three decades to the first Demonstration reactor to produce commercial level power and if after running the Demo for a decade or so, they would use what was learned from the Demonstration reactor to design and begin to build the first set of commercial reactors. Considering how complex ITER is, it will obviously be many decades from that point before it would be a substantial percent of our Electrical generation such that Fusion is simply not relevant to our present discussions.

http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond

 

[adoucette]

Japan has the most earthquakes of any nation bar none. The fact the Japanese messed up their emergency protocols has no impact on the viability of nuclear energy. It just puts the way we do it under review. Will any nuclear power plants be shut down now because of the problems in Japan? (except of course at fukushima).

Why YES they will.

Germany shut down all 7 of it's reactors built before 1980

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72E17620110315

The US is going to review all of their reactors, particularly the ones of the same design as Fukishima (34 of our reactors)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-usa-nuclear-review-idUSTRE72M8YK20110323

Will it stop other nations from completing reactor projects?

Why YES it will.

The future development of South Texas Project (STP) units 3 and 4 looks unlikely after majority shareholder NRG Energy announced that it will write down its investments so far in the project and make no further investment.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-NRG_withdraws_from_Texan_project-2004114.html

Will it realistically stop any nation from utilising this resource?

Why YES it will

Italy's Council of Ministers has approved a moratorium of at least one year on construction of nuclear power plants in the country, which had been looking to restart its long-abandoned nuclear program.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Italy_announces_nuclear_moratorium-2403117.html

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

On the future of nuclear power:

IMHO, fusion reactor will never be economically attractive, even if it can be made to work. A very complex, expensive machine with great uncertainties about how long the walls would last with 17.6 Mev neutron flux on them, etc. and lower energy density than a simple, cheap, coal fired steam boiler. (It is the low energy density of sunlight which makes solar power expensive.)

ITER has become basic research project exploring this and other physics questions, not the design study / application development of a new energy source, but that is not admitted as then the funding would stop.

What is a possible out come from the nuclear accidents, with decades of radio-active land produced, is the correction of the cold war era error: - The selection of uranium (as you can make bombs with it) instead of much safer thorium for nuclear power (which can not be used to make bombs, so was not funded)

For some details, see my post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2718805&postcount=19

 

[jimW]

GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. We use it daily. Our farm and all transportation is self sufficient and zero emissions. My only carbon footprint is air transport which I could overlook with carbon credits from my other uses, but I hope some well off person or group will soon do the aircraft and make it all good. see GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3

 

[adoucette]

On the future of nuclear power:

IMHO, fusion reactor will never be economically attractive, even if it can be made to work. A very complex, expensive machine with great uncertainties about how long the walls would last with 17.6 Mev neutron flux on them, etc. and lower energy density than a simple, cheap, coal fired steam boiler. (It is the low energy density of sunlight which makes solar power expensive.)

ITER has become basic research project exploring this and other physics questions, not the design study / application development of a new energy source, but that is not admitted as then the funding would stop.

This post made me look up one of my old posts on Physorg:

From Oct of 05

Bush committed the United States to participate in negotiations on the largest and most technologically sophisticated energy research project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
ITER is a cost-shared $5 billion research project towards developing fusion’s potential as a commercially viable and clean source of energy near the middle of this century. The $50 million provided in the 2006 Budget funds the first year of equipment fabrication for the United States’ in-kind contributions.

==> Note, the ITER has grown to over 3 times the cost estimate in this short period of time, they asked for and got $17 Billion last year.

...

As far as Fusion itself goes:

We achieved fusion temps in 78.
82 started construction of TFTR reactor
83 achieved break even
85 started construction on Sperical Torus
87 NOVA Laser Fusion
91 Begin planning for ITER reactor (goal is to produce 500 MW for 5 min)
94 TFTR produces 10 MW of power
00 Complete prototype for ITER
02 Medium Symetric Torus
05 Agree on French siting of ITER

future

06 Begin US prod of Super Cond wire for ITER
08 Self generate plasma current
10 National Ignition Facility (alternate approach to Fusion)
12 Confirm stability of high temp plasma
16 ITER first Plasma <== Slipped by three years

25 Achieve high power fusion power for extended periods
25 Design first generation of Fusion power plants
~50 First generation Fusion Power plants become operational

Huge distance in both time and requirements from 25 to 50.

So actually I was wrong, now they are saying its only 45 years out.

Might not mean much but this is the first time I've seen it less than 50 years out.
The fact that no milestones are laid out from 25 to 50 is a tad worrying though.
Like the guys putting the plan don't believe it themselves, so why bother.

Personally, I think anything more then 25 years out is just a SWAG anyway.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3363&view=findpost&p=32270

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. We use it daily. Our farm and all transportation is self sufficient and zero emissions. My only carbon footprint is air transport which I could overlook with carbon credits from my other uses, but I hope some well off person or group will soon do the aircraft and make it all good. see GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3

... This guy {jimW} and his double, MrGreeen (yes green with 3 "e") are making scam posts to collect money from the ignorant via Sciforums. MrGreeen has made 6 identical posts in different threads all referencing either GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3.com but they link to the same site. They are trying to collect $100 from foolish / ignorant investors.

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2631138&postcount=76 made back on 10/10/10.

Note part of jimW's post I made bold - there is usually some subtle request for funds - once a specific one for $100.

At first glance, they seem to have taken in Rogerg, but perhaps he is not just an ignorant well wishing old man, but actually another “shill” for the scam with a different presentation spin? See his post at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2634157&postcount=78

I tried to set Rogerg straight with some facts posted here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2634222&postcount=80
but his reply in next post, 81, lead me to think he is part of the scam. – All came to sciforums at about the same time.

Never do they address the facts, about NH3 production, which has had millions of dollars poured into improving it with only minor improvements during the last 100+ years. NH3 is a high volume product used mainly in agriculture. At least a hundred Ph.D. chemists have worked on the problem of making NH3 more cheaply during the ten decades it has been a large volume commercial product.

Mr. Greeen and jimW never responded to the well establish chemical limitation on economical production of NH3 or to the simple questions asked here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2635628&postcount=82

Summary: This is a lying scam – don’t send them any money.

 

[Billy T]

In post 1775. I noted the GOAL for 1991 was for ITER to produce 500Mw for five minutes.

As few have any feeling for what that enegy production is I will put in other terms:

5E8W x 5 x 60 = 15E10 Joules.

A gallon of gasoline has 132MJ {From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline}
Or 1.32E10 Joules Error 100 times smaller, 1.32E8 J is correct.

Thus in 5 minutes (if that goal was achieved) ITER produced the same energy as in 15/1.32 = 11.36 gallons of gasoline or produces the energy equivalent of 136.36 gallons of gasoline per hour (if it could run for an hour.)*

I am too lazy to calculate but bet the US uses that in tiny fraction of a second.

* at present it could not as there is little or no way to remove the heating (AFAIK) so if it did release the energy in 136 gallons of gasoline, it would just melt the vacuum vessel walls and implode. Most of the released energy is carried by the 17.6MeV neutrons which ignore the magnetic fields and just slam in the vacuum vessel wall.

CORRECTION NOTE:
ITER, Would make the energy content of 13,636 gallons of gas per hour. Still a "drop in the bucket" vs the needs and not recovering the cost if sold.

 

[adoucette]

In post 1775. I noted the GOAL for 1991 was for ITER to produce 500Mw for five minutes.

IIRC, the goal was to put 50 MWs in and get 500 MWs out and do it for 5 minutes.

Both requirements are huge challenges.

But that ratio, 10 times more out then what is put in would still not be commercially viable.

Apparently we need about ~20 times the input for the output to be commercially viable due to the costs of the device and the losses incurred.

If ITER is successful (big if) they would use what they learn to build the first DEMO reactor, but even of there are no more schedule slips (very unlikely) that isn't expected to begin the design phase until nearly 2030.

Right now we can barely get a tiny fraction more than we put in, and we can only do it for a very brief period of time.

We have a LONG way to go.

Arthur

 

[X-Man2]

Some further hope for the EV future with China taking on the job of advancing it to the next level.We know China is a determined people deadly serious in their business practices.

"Wary over its growing dependence on foreign oil, China plans to become a world leader in clean-energy vehicles, pledging to invest more than $14 billion by 2020 -- and have five million of them on the road by then.

Beijing's determination has executives predicting China, the world's largest auto market, will be one of the first to see widespread adoption of electric cars"

"The scale of China's market -- a record 18 million vehicles were sold last year -- provides Chinese auto manufacturers with a huge laboratory to help find the right electric-car formula, Wale said"

"They won't wait until research and development gives the perfect solution. They'll move much more quickly in terms of putting options in front of people and learning from that and putting the next one out," Wale said"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-carmakers-electric-future-china.html

 

[universaldistress]

Why YES they will.

Germany shut down all 7 of it's reactors built before 1980

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72E17620110315

The US is going to review all of their reactors, particularly the ones of the same design as Fukishima (34 of our reactors)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-usa-nuclear-review-idUSTRE72M8YK20110323



Why YES it will.



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-NRG_withdraws_from_Texan_project-2004114.html




Why YES it will



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Italy_announces_nuclear_moratorium-2403117.html

Arthur

This seems to be a knee jerk reaction. The german's stations will probably come back online after the moratorium.

As to future projects being cancelled, there is no evidence to say a decision has been made. The moratoriums will have to run through first.

Looks like the Texas project just needs someone else to invest.

None of this is conclusive and just shows you that safety aspects are under review during the moratorium periods. I don't honestly think any of this will equate to nuclear power being abandoned in any meaningful way.

 

[universaldistress]

GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. We use it daily. Our farm and all transportation is self sufficient and zero emissions. My only carbon footprint is air transport which I could overlook with carbon credits from my other uses, but I hope some well off person or group will soon do the aircraft and make it all good. see GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3

Would like to know more. Could you post the basics?

 

[universaldistress]

On the future of nuclear power:

IMHO, fusion reactor will never be economically attractive, even if it can be made to work. A very complex, expensive machine with great uncertainties about how long the walls would last with 17.6 Mev neutron flux on them, etc. and lower energy density than a simple, cheap, coal fired steam boiler. (It is the low energy density of sunlight which makes solar power expensive.)

ITER has become basic research project exploring this and other physics questions, not the design study / application development of a new energy source, but that is not admitted as then the funding would stop.

What is a possible out come from the nuclear accidents, with decades of radio-active land produced, is the correction of the cold war era error: - The selection of uranium (as you can make bombs with it) instead of much safer thorium for nuclear power (which can not be used to make bombs, so was not funded)

For some details, see my post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2718805&postcount=19

If fusion could be made to work then of course it will become cost effective.