Princeton Nuclear Fusion Reactor Will Run Again 147
mdsolar writes with good news for the National Spherical Torus Experiment. Tucked away from major roadways and nestled amid more than 80 acres of forest sits a massive warehouse-like building where inside, a device that can produce temperatures hotter than the sun has sat cold and quiet for more than two years. But the wait is almost over for the nuclear fusion reactor to get back up and running at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. "We're very excited and we're all anxious to turn that machine back on," said Adam Cohen, deputy director for operations at PPPL. The National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) has been shut down since 2012 as it underwent a $94 million upgrade that will make it what officials say will be the most powerful fusion facility of its kind in the world. It is expected to be ready for operations in late winter or early spring, Cohen said.
Spherical Torus (Score:1)
Spherical Torus? Is that some sort of shape that has 4 or more (spatial) dimensions?
Re:Spherical Torus (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like a sphere with an empty column down the middle [plasma.inpe.br]
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like a sphere with an empty column down the middle [plasma.inpe.br]
In other words, it's a torus. It may not be of the standard donut dimensions people are accustomed to when they think torus, but it's still a torus. It's like saying that a rectangle with dimensions of 50x51 is a square-like rectangle. Simply calling it a rectangle would do.
Re:Spherical Torus (Score:5, Funny)
Newsflash: humans use approximations when convenient for explaining something, and do not use strict definitions at all times.
Re: (Score:3)
Newsflash: humans use approximations when convenient for explaining something, and do not use strict definitions at all times.
Bah silly humans, you don't even have a working protocol for inter individual communication and you think that you are going to master fusion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like saying the Earth is almost spherical, instead of saying it's a lump of matter with an undetermined shape.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, it's a torus.
No it is not. There is a very clear defintion to what a torus is, and this is not. It may be seen as a torus-like shape, but not a torus. Proper use of terminology is important in science and engineering.
It may not be of the standard donut dimensions people are accustomed to when they think torus, but it's still a torus.
Again, its not a question of what people are accustomed to, but rather a question of definition. And no, the shape named "thorus" is not defined through the shape of a donut.
It's like saying that a rectangle with dimensions of 50x51 is a square-like rectangle. Simply calling it a rectangle would do.
False analogy. Both linguisting points are absolutely not comparable. In the case of the shape of the Tokamak built at PPPL, it is nei
Pick your battles (Score:3)
Proper use of terminology is important in science and engineering.
When we get to any actual science or engineering then I will pretend to care. Until then it really is not important in a forum like slashdot to anyone but a few overly pedantic people who don't know when to pick their battles. Just because people here generally care about science and engineering doesn't mean we can't deal with a little obvious imprecision in a description of a shape. No one will be negatively affected by the fact that it isn't truly a torus and most of us are well aware that it isn't act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Spherical Torus (Score:4, Insightful)
The first airplane only flew 120 feet. Clearly air travel should never have been researched after such an abysmal failure in one of the first attempts.
Re: (Score:3)
The first airplane only flew 120 feet.
... and sixty years later we were walking on the moon. Sixty years after the first fusion reactor, where are we?
Re: (Score:2)
The first airplane only flew 120 feet.
... and sixty years later we were walking on the moon. Sixty years after the first fusion reactor, where are we?
Back home?
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying we should shut down most medical research? Modern medicine has been around for at least sixty years and we still don't have a cure for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's or internet stupidity.
As well...my analogy was incorrect. The analogy should be the time from the first research into powered flight until the first successful powered flight.
Guess what....that
Re: (Score:2)
Since this seems to be the pedantic thread... it was actually 66 years later.
Re: (Score:2)
That article seems to suggest that the evidence for Whitehead demonstrating the first powered flight is dubious at best. If Whitehead really did succeed first, why didn't he snatch up any of the government contracts being offered at the time?
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific breakthroughs don't occur on a set timeline unless you're writing a TV show. We've been "flying" in one form or another for hundreds of years - balloons, gliders, and -- with the advent of the internal combustion engine -- airplanes. One could argue that nuclear physics is significantly more challenging than achieving powered flight. After all, a reasonably competent amateur can build an aircraft -- www.sonex.com -- in his garage over a couple of years. The same can't be said for processing fissi
Re: (Score:2)
... and aren't still any close to walking on mars.
Re: (Score:2)
A topologist and an engineer walked into a bar.
The engineer kicked the shit out of the topologist for using the same words to mean different things than engineers use them to mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I was at the Princeton lab, the thing that impressed me even more than the fusion reactor (it just goes "phht") was the flywheel room. Imagine an indoor soccer field that's just rows and rows of massive 12' flywheels, all spinning up with grid power until they're suddenly all magnetically braked, to get enough juice to force two hydrogen atoms together.
Steampunk authors can't dream up anything as cool as physicists and mechanical engineers working on big problems.
Re:Spherical Torus (Score:5, Informative)
Spherical Torus?
I wondered the same thing. However, the National Spherical Torus Experiment web site [pppl.gov] has this explanation:
The magnetic field in NSTX forms a plasma that is a torus since there is a hole through the center, but where the outer boundary of the plasma is almost spherical in shape, hence the name “spherical torus” or “ST”.
There are also some links to more detailed descriptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to be confused with a spherical taurus in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read of tokamak's plasma described as a pretty good vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm an Elliptical Pisces,
what's your sign?
Re: (Score:2)
Public cynicism about fusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Public cynicism about fusion seems to have peaked at almost exactly the same time as there are a lot of new ideas and experiments ready to go.
Even the needlessly big, expensive NIF has hit some amazing recent roadmarks recently(scientific net positive), while at the same time their funding is being slashed. Lots of new clever experiments seem to be promising(like Larwenceville plasma physics' Focus Fusion record heat density), in an era where no one in policy positions seems interested in chasing the tech.
I'm glad Princeton is getting back in the game, but everything I hear says there won't be enough funding to actually get the staffing they need.
Re: (Score:3)
I really would like to hear some more news on the Lockheed high-beta fusion project and the Pollywell program.
Re: Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
The Skunkworks high beta fusion reactor [wikipedia.org] seems very interesting. 100MW reactor the size of a semi trailer and the complexity of a jet engine. Uses radio waves to heat the plasma (like a microwave oven). Confines plasma in a cylinder as opposed to a torus. In a tokamak reactor the confining magnetic field is created by the motion of the plasma. Thus the strength of the field decreases further from the plasma, creating an inherent instability. This creates a negative stability feedback because if the tokamak plasma expands the confining field gets weaker. I believe this is one of the reasons tokamaks need to be so huge to function.
The high beta reactor has a confining field that increases in strength as you move farther from the plasma, making confinement inherently stable. The machine was designed by Dr. Thomas McGuire who did his PhD thesis on fusors at MIT. It may be possible to build a full reactor by as soon as 2017 for a cost measured in millions, NOT billions.
Re: Public cynicism about fusion (Score:2)
Here is the PhD thesis [mit.edu] of Thomas J. McGuire who is designing the compact fusion device mentioned in the parent comment. This 2007 thesis argues for the need to build compact fusion devices and surveys some options with their strengths and flaws. I don't think it describes in detail the high beta reactor he is currently designing at Lockheed Martin. Still, it shows the idea of him designing this reactor is plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew all that but their has been no new news for a few months.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure they could get a few million dollars if they built an office with a window that overlooks the NSTX machine and an oversized mahogany desk and rented it out to all of those rich Bond villains out there. I hear Dick Cheney is in the market for a new lair of evil.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:4, Interesting)
That gives me an idea. If you build this in a way that looks cool (obviously make it functional first and foremost, but style it whenever you get a chance), you could rent it out to Hollywood studios needing a set.
Make a control room with lots of blinkenlights, put in a window to something that glows (it can be the capacitors or whatever, if putting a window into a tokemak is a bad idea, which it probably is), have lots of big cables running around, and so on. And make every room spacious enough that you can fit a camera crew inside it. Charge them $50K/day to use it as a set, only conditions being that they can't alter or break the functional parts, and any new parts they add have to be removed once they stop using the set.
This doesn't have to fund the entire project, it just has to pay off the cost of the cosmetics and the downtime, and after that it's free money. If you spent a quarter-million dollars making it look like something out of Star Trek, you could pay that off with a week of filming Star Trek XII or whatever number they're up to now.
Plus - the public outreach. The general public are, unfortunately, idiots. You could be doing some amazing research, be the top lab in the world in your field, and they would just complain about "their" tax money being spent on it. But making something "mad bitchin'"? They can get behind that.
Re: (Score:1)
Already done.
The NIF was used as a set in a recent Star Trek, posing as the Enterprise's engineering deck, with the target chamber pretending to be a warp core.
Oil interests (Score:2)
Of course, we need to fund more oil power. Don't you think the fossil fuels industry has people working around the clock to discredit and defund this. I would guess even some of the skeptical AC comments on this article are coming from the fossil fuel industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad Princeton is getting back in the game, but everything I hear says there won't be enough funding to actually get the staffing they need.
Sad to say, but the People support blowing up unwitting brown people in the Middle East, not real energy solutions.
For the cost of one Iraq Occupation, we'd have clean energy already. But War is the health of the State, not real solutions to human problems. Now if the humans would just realize that it's the State that enhances their suffering (whose electric rates
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
And here is that cynicism personified. Notice how anonymous coward here doesn't mention any sort of concrete goals he thinks should have been met, and haven't. Notice how he talks about a money pit, but doesn't talk about allocation. It always always always reads as repeating complaints you've heard somewhere else.
Tell me, how much slippage on the NIF timeline would be too much? Or ITER? What scientific results do you think have been unsatisfactory?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may be cynicism, but it is well placed cynicism. I'm all for funding fusion research, but the reality is that we are decades away from seeing anything remotely economically viable.
And the other reality is that we do have solar which is already economically viable but still behind fossil fuels (if you forget about externalites). If I were king of the world, I'd fund solar heavily because it can do good NOW. Serious good. World saving good.
And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But
Re: (Score:1)
It may be cynicism, but it is well placed cynicism. I'm all for funding fusion research, but the reality is that we are decades away from seeing anything remotely economically viable.
And the other reality is that we do have solar which is already economically viable but still behind fossil fuels (if you forget about externalites). If I were king of the world, I'd fund solar heavily because it can do good NOW. Serious good. World saving good.
And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But the other reality is that we have only so much money for the sciences and one dollar spent on one project is one not spent on the other. If I were King of the world I'd also cut military spending and fund sciences much more heavily.
But, alas, I am not King of the world.
Uh-oh, someone has been drinking the renewables koolaid again.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-oh, someone has been drinking the renewables koolaid again.
Thank you for your well-reasoned, informative response. Based on your information, I am changing my entire worldview. Thanks again, Anonymous Coward!
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But the other reality is that we have only so much money for the sciences and one dollar spent on one project is one not spent on the other.
Of all major industries, energy has the smallest percentage total revenue directed to funding research. That's already hinting at a problem.
And there's the fact that a fuckton of that is going to "exploration", i.e. finding more fossil fuels we don't really need.
Solar is good. Solar is wonderful. Solar has legitimate problems too. You seem to be perfectly willing to sell out the long term future for the medium term, which is the weirdest case of short-sightedness I've ever seen.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be perfectly willing to sell out the long term future for the medium term, which is the weirdest case of short-sightedness I've ever seen.
And at this point, I think you are deliberately misstating my argument. Fusion is a dream at this point that the most knowledgeable in the sciences say is at least 60-80 years away from economic viability. Don't believe me? Look at the ITER roadmap, publically available. And the reality is that the visionaries are usually overoptimistic. You and I will be dead before it becomes viable and our children as well. And that is assuming this becomes viable as there is always a risk when talking about advanced tech like this. Even if you are convinced the science will work out, political upheaval could mean that we can't see the project through to the end. Just imagine a more indebted US and Europe having to cut science and a China that no longer has a market to sell to and collapses on its own centrally managed bureaucracy. Insert your own worst case scenario and you see why century long, multi billion dollar research projects are risky.
So, fund it? Sure. But not at the expense of something that is a sure thing and will have a huge benefit now. You state that solar is somehow selling out the long-term... unless you mean over a billion years from now when the Sun goes nova, I'm not sure how this is remotely accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
And how much of that is precisely because we keep cutting funding or simply not devoting the resources that could make it viable in, say, 20 years? No, fusion is seen as a long-term investment so there's every incentive to make long-term fu
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
And how much of that is precisely because we keep cutting funding or simply not devoting the resources that could make it viable in, say, 20 years? No, fusion is seen as a long-term investment so there's every incentive to make long-term funding decisions that seen no reason to get a result in 20 years vs 60 years if it means spending three times as much (at least) in 20 years. That it creates some sort of morale problem seems to be missed or ignored
Exactly. [iter.org]
Break ground in 2008, 5 years before construction begins (2013), another 2 before assembly of the reactor (2015), 4 more years before commissioning (2019), and only starting full operations in 2027. That's 19 years. It should not take 7 years simply to build the building that will house the reactor, unless money is so tight that they have to pull money out of multi-year budgets. If you throw enough funding at it they should easily be able to go from breaking ground to first plasma in a fifth of the time their roadmap shows. The building that takes 7 years to build should be able to go up in 3 months easily.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of the delays in fusion research can be attributed directly to inconsistent funding.
If you keep on yanking money and then giving it back again, you're going to get FAR less productivity during the funded periods than if there were continuous funding.
Re: (Score:3)
What's "turnover"?
No, see, I'm a US Congressman, and the notion of an employee being replaced is confusing to me. It doesn't happen here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many of the delays in fusion research can be attributed directly to inconsistent funding.
As this chart makes clear [imgur.com] and should be part of every fusion discussion.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's insane when you compare fusion research funding to military spending in general, or what we spent on the Iraq war specifically. If we'd spent a fraction of those amounts on energy research...my God. It's not for sure that throwing money at energy research will solve all our problems, but come on, our society runs on energy, and the cheap energy we got from long-chain hydrocarbons is never coming back.
When I think about threats to the future of stable society, lack of cheap energy is #1. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would have all kinds of interesting ideas as to why the government isn't pumping more money into solving this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If we'd spent a fraction of those amounts on energy research...my God. It's not for sure that throwing money at energy research will solve all our problems,
But it would solve the problem of oil money funding ISIS. (That is, if we combined it with electric cars, since most oil goes to power transportation, not power plants)
Fusion Funding Profile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were king of the world, I'd fund solar heavily because it can do good NOW.
We are funding solar heavily. Something like 37 GW of solar was installed worldwide last year. That's tens of billions spent in one year, more than an order of magnitude more than is spent on fusion development. And that's just for one type of renewable energy. R&D is cheap, deployment is expensive - so it makes sense to fund research into lots of different things in case one of them pays off.
Now, I think that fusion is probably going to be just too tricky - but I might be wrong, and there are helpful s
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that true of pretty much every technology that's still in the development stage? There was a time when microprocessors weren't worth the materials they were made with, but they seem to have paid off in the long run. If we can get fusion to pay off, the benefits could potentially far outweigh what we've gotten from the microprocessor.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that true of pretty much every technology that's still in the development stage?
No, I don't think it is. Pretty much every technology that has gone on to be successful has started from a simple, working proof of concept and then scaled up from there. That covers everything from the steam engine to the telephone to nuclear energy to the microprocessor. Contrast that with fusion energy: 60-odd years of work, many billions of dollars spent, and we still don't have a minimal working proof of concept.*
Re: (Score:2)
It took somewhere between 1500 and 1700 years from the time the first steam engine (aeolipile) showed up until it was practically applied. If that's your idea of instantaneous development, then fusion should be no problem for you.
Likewise, depending on where you want to consider the development of the internal combustion engine beginning, it took somewhere between 60 and 2100 years to develop it into a practical application.
The key difference with fusion is that we're not saying "here's an invention, what c
Re: (Score:2)
It took somewhere between 1500 and 1700 years from the time the first steam engine (aeolipile) showed up until it was practically applied.
That's not what I mean. That was the time between when someone came up with a cute toy and when someone starting trying to do something useful with it. I'm talking about how long we've had an active fusion energy program spending large amounts of money every year to try to create something practical. When they started out, they thought they could have something in ten years. Ten years after that, they thought they could have something working in ten years. Ten years after that, they STILL thought it wa
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that? What's so amazing about fusion that makes it so much better than every other technological achievement in history? Sure, it would solve all our energy problems for about a thousand years, at which point we would have burned through most of the available fuel because, having no incentive for efficiency, we would have wasted most of it. (Yes, I'm cynical about humanity.) But solar energy is equally capable of solving all our energy problems. And unlike fusion, it's a real technolog
Re: (Score:2)
There's enough deuterium to last 100,000 years, but we'll go through it all in 1000 years anyway. Never underestimate the ability of humans to be wasteful when they don't have an incentive to be efficient.
Fortunately, solar doesn't have that problem. It gets delivered to us at a nice steady rate, and that isn't going to change much for many millions of years.
Re: (Score:3)
It's because of AC like you I need a cushion on my wall. Else my head would hurt a little bit more every few days.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they were not instantly useful, for one, they couldn't be let to get hot, for two, storage was a pain in the arse, for three, they evolve slowly, and are still in development, something any techy would know. I would like to ask, do you even follow technology and science? Or do you simply s**tpost on fusion?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? The vacuum tube was invented in 1907. The FET transistor was invented in 1925. Thee point-contact transistor in 1947. The first 'high frequency' one in 1953 (60Hz). Digital computers appearing in the 40s but with mechanical equivalents decades earlier.
The first microprocessor wasn't until 1968.
And the power of those first ones was still limited - hence you needed rooms full of them to be able to do a modest amount of 'useful' work, such that the smallest school calculator now is more powerful than t
Re: (Score:2)
There was a day when 'real computers' ran hot, requiring cooling water, raised floors etc.
The first cold running, air cooled computers were just lab curiosities. Of course in hindsight they were hugely valuable, for where they took us. But at the time they were as useful as tits on a boar.
The definition of microprocessor is a little nebulous. Single chip isn't even generally true today.
Re: (Score:3)
It helps to frame the discussion in terms of economics. If you take every dollar bill that has ever been spent on fusion research, wadded them up into a big ball, and threw them into a wood burning furnace, you would have a better return on your investment than you have right now. Hell, you could buy lottery tickets and have a better ROI.
That's an awful lot of words to say exactly nothing. You would have achieved better ROI by not posting at all, if you can't be bothered to actually respond.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
We've been chasing the mythical beast of fusion for decades and are not any closer to it this century than we were last century.
First, I think you are wrong. There has been a lot of progress, and although were are not yet CLOSE, we are CLOSER.
That said, how many hundreds of years did man spend trying to learn how to fly? Guess we should have given up on that pursuit a few hundred years ago.
Re:Public cynicism about fusion (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, as we all know, that big shiny thing in the sky burns wood.
Re: (Score:1)
Fusion is a money pit. We've been chasing the mythical beast of fusion for decades and are not any closer to it this century than we were last century. Even putting aside the joke that was Pons and Fleishman, this is nothing more than a wild goose chase and Ponzi scheme.
Well, while I agree on the money pit thing, at least it's something that obeys the laws of physics... unlike the whole Pons/Fleishman "cold fusion" nonsense (still waiting for that announcement about the eCat actually producing power for someone :rolleyes:).
Re: (Score:1)
I might also add, this is a $94million upgrade... for reference building the LHC cost ~$9billion, I'm betting this didn't cost anywhere near that to build initially.
I'm willing to bet if you added up the cost of every Fusion project currently going, and the LHC and all the other particle accelerators currently operating around the world, the cost would be a fraction of what was spent on 8 years of war/occupation in Iraq. Which do you think has been a better "value"?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice (Score:2)
I visited these folks when they had an open house a few years ago.
It isn't too often you can visit a place that's working on fusion reactors.
Meh (Score:2)
The spherical approach seemed like a great idea until they actually built them. Now it's pretty clear the economics are no better than the conventional MFP approaches. See the Disadvantages of this article, especially the first two items listed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak
Thorium? (Score:3)
One bajillion comments, and nobody's mentioned Thorium yet? I am surprised. Am I the only one around here who thinks a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a very good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
No but you are the only one who constantly brings it up in only vaguely related articles. This is about fusion not fission. In the long run fusion will be far better than any thorium cycle you can imagine.
GA DIII-D still running (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing anti-nuclear about reporting positive events in fusion development. I don't care how much bias you're used to seeing, there's no point in screaming "bias" when bias is clearly not present.
Re:mdsolar again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm so damned slow. I didn't catch that.
With that critical piece of information, I think this is snark directed at his detractors.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it makes no sense!
Why would a nice, stable form of baseline power with a compact, energy-dense fuel supply interest anyone? Amiright?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the fuel source could be expanding. One of the "neat" things about fission is breeder reactors. It's part of the concern with the status quo, because most older reactors are no good for expanding our fuel supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More expensive because your little horse in the race has a ton of subsidies.
Without them, solar's a VERY expensive beast to push.
As for proliferation. You run more than one reactor. So you burn down any and all byproducts until you essentially have lead.
As for less stable.
Explain stability issues in a liquid fueled molten salt reactor.
Explain how this is better than burning fossil fuels in the megatons every year and blowing most of the waste up a smokestack and into the environment...
Yes, the final bypr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this HOW?
Oh. Right. You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please indicate where it "failed".
Your history is faulty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, since, in MSR and LFTR designs there's no cladding, fuel ducts or grid spacers .
That's pretty much it. You've proven that you don't know what you're talking about and are trolling.
The actual problem you seem to be groping after is the corrosion factor and deplating effect on noble metals.
Some of these can be solved with chemistry. Some can be solved with maintenance intervals and part replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the other kind of anti-technology post, the kind that goes "Let's stop and wait for $DISTANT_TECHNOLOGY, for it will be so much safer and cleaner than the known-quantity reactor types we have today." Of course, when the new tech does reach break-even and plans are drawn up to build, the same people will pop up start regaling us with 'unexpected problems' pulled out of their own colons. Each one will be cited as a reason for stopping development and construction so we can 'do more studies'.
Folks, don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, any more than I will bother reading that sleeping pill you referenced from - I kid you not - the Institute for Energy and Environment at the Vermont Law School. My local nuke happily chugs away producing 6 GW at, last time I checked, 1.63 cents/kwh. For the vaunted Germans to get anywhere near that, they had to revert to burning lignite, the filthiest stuff it is possible to dig out of the ground. And no, America's nukes are not in general experiencing shortened lifetimes. In fact, we keep finding that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amory Lovins, the Institute for Creation Research of the energy industry. For the uninitiated, opportunity cost means that the capital used to build a nuclear plant producing power at low known rates could have been used to cover several square miles of Environment with its windy-day energy equivalent in wind turbines at a mere ten times the cost per kwh delivered. Deal of the century, clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(same ac)
But an interesting read, nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)