Re: DON'T LOSE time and money around the fusion energy illusion and the lunar-helium-3 dream!!!

In article <1188338295.877797.220400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
gaetanomarano <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 Ago, 21:25, Joe Strout <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"moron", "I know you're a troll", etc.

A: if you (really) "know" me, then you should know also that insults
have ZERO effects on me

Actually, calling you a troll isn't an insult, just a description of
your role here. In this context, it's standard jargon. However, you
are acting somewhat less trollish now, so I'll assume for the moment
that you are NOT a troll, and see how long that lasts.

And I didn't actually call you a moron, I only said that I was about to
think that. But I'll admit that this is splitting hairs.

"lunar geologists all seem to agree that there is ... do you have some
evidence they don't have, or what?"

A: they agree to a THEORY that "seems" credible but too optimistic...
in my opinion, this theory flaws on a critical point: He3 is a gas and
the lunar gravity can't keep it

Resisting the urge to sarcasm here... do you really think it hasn't
occurred to any of the scientists making detailed estimates of the
amount of lunar He3 that it is a gas, and of low molecular weight? Why
do you believe your insight here is unique?

also, the meteorites haven't help He3
to remain on the moon since they are RARE from billions years while
the He3 is dispersed in space in every second...

I don't know of anyone claiming that meteorites help He3 to remain on
the Moon. They do churn things up a bit, over billions of years, which
means that we'll probably find some amount of He3 in the top meter or
two of regolith rather than only in the top few mm. But I don't think
that impacts the estimates of total He3 much.

however, THEY must give us the evidence that a lunar-He3 exists, not
the inverse... :)

No, I tend to disagree. They are scientists with years of experience
studying planetary compositions. They read actual scientific papers, do
real experiments, and confer frequently with experts in related domains.
They've built detailed models to estimate how much He3 should be there,
and all seem to be in approximate agreement on the matter. You, on the
other hand, are a net troll, with no applicable training or experience
as far as I can tell, and you disagree with them, with no basis for your
disagreement apart from a belief that you have a unique insight on the
nature of He3. I'll put my money on the scientists.

"We currently derive about 10^13 watts from fossil fuels, and mid-century
power requirements are likely to be several times that, even taking into
account efficiency improvements."

A: the winning factor of a technology is its PRICE, not its
efficiency...

Yes, and pizza is better with pepperoni. But we were discussing the
feasibility of replacing all fossil fuels with wind power.

the problem is simple: in the next decades oil and
methane will still be abundant (but their prices will double, triple,
quadruple) while the (already competitive) wind turbines' prices will
soon fall to half, one third, etc. ...the consequence of that is clear

Yes: it's clear that wind will play an increasing role in our energy
mix, but it will never be able to replace all the energy we currently
derive from fossil fuels (let alone the energy we'll need 40 years from
now).

"it's intermittent and low-density, so use on that scale would require
radical reengineering of our power grids"

A: that's probably true (in part) but we can build the wind plants
with some redundancy and store the excess of energy as H2 ...no matter
how much costs nor the problems to solve, since we'll be FORCED to do
that by the oil price growt and (someday) by the oil end

No, we won't, because (fortunately) there are energy sources other than
wind. Go read Hoffert et al.; it's an excellent review and a good start
to having a grasp of the energy problem and realistic solutions.

"there are some alternative approaches worth funding"

A: I know the Bussard proposal, but, also the lowest cost fusion,
never can be so low cost like a wind turbine... and still remains
unsolved the problems and costs to bring back the lunar helium... if
any... :)

Clearly you don't know the Bussard proposal, since it wouldn't need any
lunar helium (as I pointed out). It's also extremely unlikely that, if
it works, it will fail to undersell wind power by orders of magnitude
(especially if you take into account energy storage & distribution
changes that would be needed to make large-scale wind power practical).

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>
.

Relevant Pages

  • 20 States Encourage Wind Energy
    ... Responding to issues ranging from energy security to global warming, ... Big improvements in wind turbine design over the last five years mean ... With turbine demand from wind power producers outstripping available ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: DONT LOSE time and money around the fusion energy illusion and the lunar-helium-3 dream!
    ... In fact in Britain a lot of wind power ... the US Department of Energy say that wind energy prices already are ... the silicon solar cells are efficient but very expensive while the new ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • on wind power....
    ... this is a general site negative to wind power ... Assuming a very optimistic LF of 50% for 3MW wind turbines, ... regard to the utilisation of wind energy, but until now this has certainly ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: How much can we reduce energy use?
    ... >>, and we may use as much wind ... >>energy as we need, as long as we produce enough. ... > All depends on the definition of pollution, ... > If wind power is ever to be more than a device for pumping tax money from ...
    (sci.energy)
  • FIGHTING FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
    ... Fighting for America's Energy Independence ... The so-called wind production tax credit Dorgan was ... with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six ... Costs and True Costs ...
    (sci.physics)