Speaking of wasting money …

Post a reply

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Speaking of wasting money …

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:28 pm

Hate to say it, but here’s a good example of why the government shouldn’t be involved in anything …

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/article ... 53397.html
NASA’s $93B Artemis Moon Project Price Tag Is ‘Unsustainable’

NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin predicted that the first four missions will cost $4.1 billion each and told Congress that price "strikes us as unsustainable."

He projected that by 2025, NASA will have spent $93 billion on the Artemis lunar program.

The price tag is far more than the space agency’s lunar program was projected to cost a decade ago, CNBC reported.

In 2012, NASA officials estimated each mission would cost about $500 million, with the first rocket shooting off in 2017. Now, the cost has increased eightfold, according to the NASA auditor.
Maybe this is the result of NASA pushing bogus agendas like Climate Change, Dark Matter, etc?

The comments below the article point out other federal programs that have cost far more than projected.

So maybe the real lesson is that we need to get the government out of nearly EVERYTHING we do?

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:35 pm

According to ...

There are currently over 200 tokamaks in operations across the globe
That’s a lot resources devoted to the pursuit of one type of controlled fusion. And after more than 50 years pursuing it, they still admit, in candid moments, that they are likely 30 years or more away from making it a commercial success ... assuming it works at all. In the meantime, they try to keep the taxpayer funding coming. For example, the article states
If all goes according to plan, ITER will be the first fusion reactor to produce net energy, which means producing more energy than it takes to generate superheated plasma and keep it contained in a powerful magnetic field.
Except ITER is not really slated to produce more energy than it takes to GENERATE the super heated plasma and keep it contained … not to mention convert it back into some useful amount of electricity to the public. But by making it sound like they are close to that goal, the complicit media help keep the money spigot open, ensuring that yet another generation or two of fusion scientists and many others do quite well economically.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by GaryN » Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:57 pm

Nuclear Fusion Is Already Facing a Fuel Crisis
It doesn’t even work yet, but nuclear fusion has encountered a shortage of tritium, the key fuel source for the most prominent experimental reactors.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nuclear ... uel-crisis

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:48 am

https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/08/ ... ed_fusion/
Speaking to the UK's Parliament in May, the aptly named Dame Sue Ion, former chair of the UK Nuclear Innovation Research Advisory Board, said the physics might demonstrate net gain this decade or the beginning of the next.

"But when will you get a prototype plant that demonstrates that commercial fusion may be even remotely possible? You're talking about post-2040. If you're talking about the availability of fusion power on the grid, then it is well into the second half of the century, if all the engineering and technical challenges that are yet to come are solved," she told MPs.

"I think there's a difference between confidence that it will work and confidence that it will work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and satisfy an economic environment in which it's got to live. And my answer to that is, I honestly don't know."

At the same hearing, Tim Luce, head of science and operation at ITER, the world's largest fusion experiment relying on magnetic confinement, warned that any economically viable fusion power source was unlikely to arrive in time to avoid the "sacrifices" that will be necessary to meet climate change targets.
That sure doesn’t sound very promising for a project taxpayers have already spent around $60 BILLION dollars on ... so far ... and which was justified on the basis that it would save us from climate catastrophe. Furthermore, it sounds like commercial fusion is still at least 30 years away even though fusion proponents have been promising commercial fusion in 30 years for at least 50 years now. I think we've found a black hole for our money.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Sat Aug 27, 2022 10:52 pm

Just published …

The Higgs boson: Everything about the God Particle
Yeah … everything except what good is it?

Seriously, folks, was this discovery really worth spending $4+ billion on?

What good … what technology … what changes in our life … have come from it?

As the article points out “The Higgs boson’s discovery was a significant achievement in physics. However, significant advances in particle physics have not been made since”, and the article doesn’t describe one thing that would change any of our lives in a measurable way. Yet the mainstream wants to throw even more money at particle physicists now. A lot more.

They want to build a Future Circular Collider (FSC) (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 2056-w.pdf and https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00173-2) that is 4 times the diameter of the LHC and which might cost … hold on to your sombreros … more than $20 billion dollars at current exchange rates … and with no guarantees it will find anything of value. And a large part of the justification for building such a device is that it would broaden the exploration for different Dark Matter candidates.

And such early cost estimates are notoriously off. The LHC which ended up costing twice what it was initially estimated to cost. The now discontinued SSC started out with $3.1 billion estimate which had been revised to $8.6 billion by the time it was canceled. So I'd hazard that the FCC could end up costing $50 billion dollars! And for WHAT? Another digit in the mass of the Higgs boson? Another negative DM result?

As Jared Kaplan, a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University, recently said (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... er-physics ) “The humanitarian case is very weak, and it was weak for the LHC as well.” “The reason for pessimism about practical applications is that we understand nature really, really well in some respects." Colliders are "getting further removed from relevance to technologies on a human scale.” As that article says, “The particles we discover in colliders like these exist only under extremely rare conditions, require extraordinary effort to produce, and are incredibly unstable, existing for only fractions of a second. E ven if one of them had incredibly useful properties, ... snip ... it’s hard to imagine how we’d get to industrial applications. … snip … So whatever we discover with the Future Circular Collider, it’s very unlikely to be a new energy source or to produce new products or techniques.”

So isn’t it about time we stop feeding the beast of modern particle physics? It would end up being more wasted money.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:28 pm

I noticed this article by “Doctor Y” on the American Council on Science and Health’s website: https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/08/24/fu ... tion-16509 “Fusion Power – Finally At Ignition!” It says “A recent article in The Science Times reports an announcement from the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the publication of three papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature describing experiments over the last year that NIF claims meet the criteria for having briefly achieved “ignition” in hydrogen fusion. It links to this announcement by LLNL: https://www.llnl.gov/news/three-peer-re ... ity-record . Funny thing, though. That doesn’t claim that they “briefly achieved ‘ignition’”. In fact, the very first paragraph states the 1.3 megajoule shot puts them “at the threshold of fusion gain and achieving scientific ignition.

Then there’s this article at the sciencealert website: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... plicate-it “Scientists Achieved Self-Sustaining Nuclear Fusion… But Now They Can't Replicate It”. It states that “Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility in California have spent over a decade perfecting their technique and have now confirmed that the landmark experiment conducted on 8 August 2021 did, in fact, produce the first-ever successful ignition of a nuclear fusion reaction.” That article links to this: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 129.075001 “Lawson Criterion for Ignition Exceeded in an Inertial Fusion Experiment”

The problem is that back in 1997, when the $1.1 billion dollar (which turned out to be about $3.5 billion) NIF was first proposed, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) formed a committee to review the proposal that defined ignition as an experiment that generates more energy than it consumes. Here, from the Executive Summary of their review of the proposed NIF (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5730/chapter/2 ): “ The definition of ‘ignition’ adopted here is fusion energy output greater than laser energy incident on the target assembly”. In Chapter 1 of that report, under the heading “Definition of Ignition”, it said “A plot of fusion yield as a function of other relevant drive parameters … snip … leads to the operative definition of ignition adopted by the committee: gain greater than unity.”

But as already pointed out in the earlier articles I posted on this, that didn't happen. Even Doctor Y admitted that it didn't in his article. So it sounds to me like the NIF organization is now trying to redefine what was agreed to be the definition of ignition in order to get the NIF approved in the first place. And that smacks of desperation. Just saying ...

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:49 am

Well … I suppose the $10 billion pounds the UK is investing in their STEP program might be a better investment than this $10 billion dollars *investment* has been: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... mmunities/ . Just saying …

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:35 am

Today there's news regarding a 12 billion dollar program being sold on a LIE.

Here’s the lie …

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/step ... -to-fusion
“It’s clear we must make significant changes to address the effects of climate change, and STEP’s delivery partners will play a crucial role in our quest to making fusion a reality.”
And here’s the 12 billion …

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/sust ... 3-08-2022/
Construction partner sought for £10bn nuclear build
This is what happens when socialists control *science* and your pocketbook. A rush to stupidity.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:09 pm

jackokie wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:54 pm
I wonder what would result if Helion and Eric Lerner's LPP Fusion hooked up.
They are fundamentally different approaches to producing fusion, but they might be able to learn something useful from each other.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by jackokie » Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:54 pm

Re: Helion Fusion. It looks like they are taking the same approach as SpaceX, iterating through increasingly capable designs that apply lessons learned from the last test article. Their optimistic forecasts are also reminiscent of Elon's. ;) Their design does seem to be among the most promising - much better than the Tokomat. I haven't heard anything about Lockheed's project lately, but I'm guessing it's turning out to be a lot harder than they thought.

I wonder what would result if Helion and Eric Lerner's LPP Fusion hooked up.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:48 pm

Read this …

https://henryscharbroiler.com/surprisin ... ee-energy/

Does it make any sense to any of you?

Do you ever get the feeling that fusion *scientists* are akin to witch doctors …

… just poking sticks at what they don’t understand to see what happens?

Newsweek gets it wrong …

by BeAChooser » Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:36 am

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion ... ia-1733238
Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Confirmed: California Team Achieved Ignition

A major breakthrough in nuclear fusion has been confirmed a year after it was achieved at a laboratory in California.

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL's) National Ignition Facility (NIF) recorded the first case of ignition on August 8, 2021, the results of which have now been published in three peer-reviewed papers.

Nuclear fusion is the process that powers the Sun and other stars: heavy hydrogen atoms collide with enough force that they fuse together to form a helium atom, releasing large amounts of energy as a by-product. Once the hydrogen plasma "ignites", the fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining, with the fusions themselves producing enough power to maintain the temperature without external heating.
Hmmmm. First of all, that article make it sound like no other fusion effort in the world has managed to fuse deuterium and tritium. But that’s not true. In fact, back in 2014 even LLNL was reporting that they had generated through fusion reactions more energy than what was deposited into the fuel. Of course, what Newsweek was trying to report is LLNL’s progress in achieving ignition.

Here's what Newsweek says LLNL achieved a year ago: “In this latest milestone at the LLNL, researchers recorded an energy yield of more than 1.3 megajoules (MJ) during only a few nanoseconds.” That’s true. In fact, LLNL reported (https://annual.llnl.gov/fy-2021/thresho ... ition-2021 ) in 2021 that the “fusion yield was 25 times more than the record set in 2018.” The LLNL article noted that “ignition occurs when the fusion energy produced exceeds the amount of laser energy delivered to the target chamber. The measure fusion yield was about 70 percent of that goal.

So Newsweek is wrong to claim that ignition was achieve. Maybe Newsweek’s *science* reporter didn’t actually read the reports that LLNL produced because nearly every other news outlet did and reported that LLNL was on the “threshold” of ignition. Maybe Newsweek’s science guy doesn’t understand the mean of threshold? In any case, they are still a long way from building an economically viable commercial fusion power plant by this means. Remember that as far as a commercial fusion power plant breaking even, there are large energy loses to produce the electricity delivered to the NIF. Now once a power plant is in operation, presumably it will supply it own power. But there are also loses converting that electricity to laser beams. In fact, this CNBC article (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/lawrenc ... usion.html) quotes Omar Hurricane, chief scientist for LLNL’s inertial-confinement fusion program, saying “The bottom line is that very little energy ever makes it into the fusion fuel as compared to the electricity we used to charge the laser.” Plus there will be large energy losses when converting the heat that the fusion produces back into electricity. In short, they are a long way from building an economically viable commercial fusion power plant.

In fact, this article in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... 240a1c0e0d ) noted that repeated attempts to replicate the August 8 experiment produced at most only 50% as much output energy. It states “for many, the failure to reproduce last August’s experiment underscores researchers’ inability to understand, engineer and predict experiments at these energies with precision.” As a result, some researchers have suggested that it’s time to rethink the National Ignition Facility’s design. “I think they should call it a success and stop,” says Stephen Bodner, a physicist who formerly headed the laser-fusion programme at the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. “Bodner says the NIF is a technological dead end, and that it is time to prepare for a next-generation laser that could open the door to fusion energy.” In other words, give us more money. Lots of it. And clearly things aren’t quite as rosy as Newsweek and a few other media outlet’s portrayed. Oh … and by the way, the NIF opened in 2009 with a promise to achieve ignition in 2012. Here it is a decade after that deadline and they still haven’t met that goal. The Nature article also confirms that the August 8th shot “didn’t meet the NAS definition of ignition.” So Newsweek article title is wrong … nothing more than hype.

One final point. The real reason LLNL pursues this is for weapons development. That’s their charter. And the Nature article says that “Omar Hurricane, chief scientist for Livermore’s inertial-confinement fusion programme, has advocated pressing forwards with the existing experimental design to probe this energy regime, rather than stepping back to regroup. … snip … For his part, Hurricane … snip … maintains that the device is now operating in a crucial fusion regime that will be useful for understanding and predicting the reliability of nuclear weapons.” So let’s not be deceived by a Newsweek article touting the promise of no carbon, fusion power plants that are just around the corner thank’s to LLNL’s “breakthrough”. Just saying …

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by Cargo » Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:24 am

Reference for my blank quote above. jic bac fia eol
BeAChooser wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 1:07 am
Can Fusion Solve the Climate Change Problem?
Re: Speaking of wasting money …

Here’s a great article on how the fusion scam works …

by BeAChooser » Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:03 pm

Well worth a read ...

https://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/08 ... ntentions/
MIT’s Road to Nuclear Fusion Is Paved With Good Intentions

By Steven B. Krivit

Aug. 8, 2022
What it shows is that the MIT/Commonwealth Fusion Systems SPARC project is likely a scam. They've gotten massive funding recently from a number of big investors (including Bill Gates, Google and George Soros) based on intentionally misleading statements that led them to believing MIT/CFS is building something they aren't actually building ... "the world’s first commercially relevant net energy fusion machine.” And because these investors had their own agenda that they couldn't see past (they wish to control the future power supply of the public) they were easily taken for a ride.

Re: Speaking of wasting money …

by BeAChooser » Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:27 pm

There’s one other fusion project I’d like to mention. In 2021 a company called Helion (https://www.helionenergy.com/fusion-energy/) secured $2.2 billion to commercialize fusion energy. They broke ground on a facility in Everett Washington where they planned to build a “7th generation fusion prototype called Polaris”. They expected construction to be complete in 2022 but now it’s not expected to be finished till 2023. But they claim that by 2024 they will demonstration net electricity production and that by 2030 commercial reactors could be ready.

Now I’m a little skeptical simply because back in 2014, the CEO of Helion told the Wall Street Journal that “we hope to reach that goal (net energy gain) in the next three years” and “profitable fusion energy in 2019”. In 2015 they claimed they’d demonstrate net energy gain by 2017 and promised a 50 MWe pilot plant by 2019. In 2016 they were still promising net energy gain with “a couple years” but now commercial power was “6 years” away. In 2018, “breakeven energy generation was 3 years away”. Their goal posts keep moving, like all these efforts. So why should we believe them now?

So many of these efforts are nothing but promises, promises, promises and apparently there are plenty of suckers who will believe these promises. Indeed, such scams are now the bread and butter of many physicists … be it in the fusion arena or the dark matter arena. And with the help of the bogus Climate Change scam, there is money to made.

BUT, I will admit this about the Helion venture. At least their approach to generating electricity is innovative and more in line with some of the notions of EU. They call their device a “linear fusion reactor”. It doesn’t try to maintain a stable fusion reaction like a tokamak or stellarator. And it doesn’t remove the heat from the plasma with a heat exchanger and turbines to convert steam to electricity. Instead, pulsed magnetic fields accelerate plasma into a burn chamber where the plasma fuses. The plasma expands, then magnetic coils in the walls of the reactor generate electricity from this moving plasma. The process is then repeated over and over and over, much like a diesel engine operates. They claim that as much as 95% of the energy released from the plasmas might be converted to electricity this way, rather than the 40% a typical heat exchanger/turbine approach achieves. And they claim they can build much smaller reactors … on the order of 50 MW … than the other approaches claim is economically feasible. Guess we’ll have to wait and see if this one pans out. At least we don’t have to wait 20-30 years to get to the demo stage like ITER promises.