www.ditl.org

Agreed, with the exception of proliferation of nuclear power. Interestingly enough, it is the left-wing nuts over here who have tied up the advancement of nuclear power, and there will still be fierce resistance.

On the plus side - unlike Bush, Obama can actually say the word "nuclear."

He should start a campaign to educate people as to why nuclear energy is the way to go. Them maybe the planet can progress beyond the rapidly emptying reserves of oil.

Rochey wrote:He should start a campaign to educate people as to why nuclear energy is the way to go. Them maybe the planet can progress beyond the rapidly emptying reserves of oil.

I agree on going nuclear. But even that should be a stop gap solution. I would actually like to see more advancement with solar, wind and geothermal. And I will admit that I'm no expert on any of these sources.

Does anyone know how fusion power is coming along?

Capt. Jethro wrote:
I agree on going nuclear. But even that should be a stop gap solution. I would actually like to see more advancement with solar, wind and geothermal. And I will admit that I'm no expert on any of these sources.

Does anyone know how fusion power is coming along?

It continues to be fifty years away, just like it has for the last fifty. Honestly, it think we should in invest in every kind of energy we can. Nuclear, wind, solar and whatever else we can. Nuclear would be the most efficient but there's no reason other than the NIMBY's why we can't use everything else.

Capt. Jethro wrote:

Rochey wrote:He should start a campaign to educate people as to why nuclear energy is the way to go. Them maybe the planet can progress beyond the rapidly emptying reserves of oil.

I agree on going nuclear. But even that should be a stop gap solution. I would actually like to see more advancement with solar, wind and geothermal. And I will admit that I'm no expert on any of these sources.

Does anyone know how fusion power is coming along?

I actually had a lecture from a couple of research physicists in fusion a while back.

They said that the path to a working fusion power reactor is now pretty much set. What they need is five years more research with JET, then about ten years to build ITER, a planned multinational fusion system. Once that is built - and funding is already largely in place for it, the remaining work on JET is largely to work out the design details for ITER - then he says they need about ten or fifteen more years to experiment with it. At that point, he predicted that they will have solved all the practical problems and would be ready to built a prototype for a working power generating fusion reactor. As far as he was concerned, there were no remaining theoretical difficulties to iron out - it was purely a matter of getting the practical issues sorted.

One thing he did say was that once ITER started showing that a practical fusion reactor was indeed possible, they expected funding to go through the roof and the pace to pick up significantly.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I actually had a lecture from a couple of research physicists in fusion a while back.

They said that the path to a working fusion power reactor is now pretty much set. What they need is five years more research with JET, then about ten years to build ITER, a planned multinational fusion system. Once that is built - and funding is already largely in place for it, the remaining work on JET is largely to work out the design details for ITER - then he says they need about ten or fifteen more years to experiment with it. At that point, he predicted that they will have solved all the practical problems and would be ready to built a prototype for a working power generating fusion reactor. As far as he was concerned, there were no remaining theoretical difficulties to iron out - it was purely a matter of getting the practical issues sorted.

One thing he did say was that once ITER started showing that a practical fusion reactor was indeed possible, they expected funding to go through the roof and the pace to pick up significantly.

I would really like to see a countdown established, if it's gonna take 25 years then hack the clock and let's get busy. Kinda like the one when JFK started the clock on sending a man to the moon.

One thing I am interested in, and have looked at some of the specs, is solar shingles to be placed on houses. My house faces east and has continuous sunlight throughout the day. And in the southeast USA, redneck territory Rochey, we have plenty of sun. Since I live in a subdivision it would be nice if every home were configured in this fashion, setting up an array so to speak.

But as always, my biggest fear of not getting things done for the right reasons is because of politics. I used James Woods' character in the movie 'Contact' as an example. He knew what the truth was and what the right thing to do was, but it didn't suit his political ambition.

Its a shame Fusion doesnt get more press.

I think partly its because it was a let down in the 60's.

From what I heard, fusion was the next big thing in the 60's more powerful than nuclear and 100% clean. But since they just couldnt get it working back then a lot of people got let down and a lot of people claimed it was impossible, now people look at it as if its sci-fi.

One thing I am interested in, and have looked at some of the specs, is solar shingles to be placed on houses. My house faces east and has continuous sunlight throughout the day. And in the southeast USA, redneck territory Rochey, we have plenty of sun. Since I live in a subdivision it would be nice if every home were configured in this fashion, setting up an array so to speak.

If we could just replace roof-slates with solar panels and power houses that way, it'd be great. Thing is, AFAIK solar power is simply to weak to supply the type of power we're talking about.

The best sollution, IMO, is a mix of all of them. Slap solar panels on top of buildings to provide some of the energy directly, build up hydroelectric stations and wind farms to supply some more, and go nuts with the nuke reactors to supply the rest. Problem solved.

Of course, given that the oil companies are all in bed with the various world governments, there's no way this is ever going to happen.

Teaos wrote:Its a shame Fusion doesnt get more press.

I think partly its because it was a let down in the 60's.

From what I heard, fusion was the next big thing in the 60's more powerful than nuclear and 100% clean. But since they just couldnt get it working back then a lot of people got let down and a lot of people claimed it was impossible, now people look at it as if its sci-fi.

I wonder how many things were sci-fi in the hippie days has become reality today? In a simplistic view the first thing comes to mind is the flip open cell phone. Wasn't there a show on Discovery or something that showed TOS stuff with today's applications?

Rochey wrote:

One thing I am interested in, and have looked at some of the specs, is solar shingles to be placed on houses. My house faces east and has continuous sunlight throughout the day. And in the southeast USA, redneck territory Rochey, we have plenty of sun. Since I live in a subdivision it would be nice if every home were configured in this fashion, setting up an array so to speak.

If we could just replace roof-slates with solar panels and power houses that way, it'd be great. Thing is, AFAIK solar power is simply to weak to supply the type of power we're talking about.

The best sollution, IMO, is a mix of all of them. Slap solar panels on top of buildings to provide some of the energy directly, build up hydroelectric stations and wind farms to supply some more, and go nuts with the nuke reactors to supply the rest. Problem solved.

Of course, given that the oil companies are all in bed with the various world governments, there's no way this is ever going to happen.

Exactly! Politics + big business = average schmuck left out.

Here's what I was talking about concerning solar shingles.

http://www.oksolar.com/roof/

Interesting. I wonder how much power you could generate with a roof full of them.

Rochey wrote:Interesting. I wonder how much power you could generate with a roof full of them.

Not a whole hell of a lot here, the first winter would destroy them.

Aye, they'd probably only be useful in places where you get a load of sun, like Arizona or Texas or Australia. Over here they'd be useless; we get maybe 3 hours of sun per year, the rest is rain and clouds.

Lazar wrote:I really hope he can pass universal health care soon.

He's not in favor of universal health care. He's in favor of almost universal health care.

Monroe wrote:He's not in favor of universal health care. He's in favor of almost universal health care.

Well, it depends on how exactly you define "universal". During the primaries, Hillary said that his plan wasn't universal because it didn't include mandates for adults. Personally, I would favor a real single-payer plan, and the abolition of employer-based insurance and HMOs.

Private insurance companies can still be kept around. They'll just have to get their acts together and start providing a good service without looking for loopholes if they want to survive in a country with universal health care.