backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 238 comment(s) - last by xsilver.. on Sep 15 at 12:03 AM


A visualization of iron atoms in solid steel. The black balls are irregularities, which damage the steel's internal magnetic fields, making it pliable at lower temperatures.  (Source: BBC)

Dr. Dudarev and the UKAEA helped Britain develop its JET lab fusion project, which was a pioneer in the field. Now he looks to take his new insight into steel to design better fusion reactor cages.  (Source: BBC)
One of America's greatest disasters could yield insight that helps power the future

It was one of America's darkest hours -- a terrorist attack struck on American soil, killing 2,974 people.  It was a tragedy felt worldwide, as 90 countries were represented among those who died.

The most devastating part of the attack in terms of damage was not the impact of the airplanes themselves, but the fires they caused.  The fires burned in the middle stories of the buildings at temperatures of around 500C (932F).  They weakened the steel supports, which eventually collapsed, taking the rest of the building with them, killing many in the top floors.  Part of the mystery was how this occurred -- steel's melting point is much higher. 

Dr Sergei Dudarev, principal scientist at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) explains, "Steels melt at about 1,150C (2,102F), but lose strength at much lower temperatures.  [The steel] becomes very soft. It is not melting but the effect is the same."

This deadly mystery was not first observed in the 9/11 attacks.  It was widely known among the scientific community before them that steel became pliable at lower temperatures.  This was unfortunate as steel's normal strength would lend itself nicely to many ultra-hot applications, such as lining the wall of a fusion reactor.  The phenomena went largely unexplained and unexplored until after 9/11 when the topic was brought into sharp focus.

Now, Dr. Dudarev and his fellow scientist have experienced a breakthrough developing new insight into how steel weakens at higher temperatures.  What they discovered was that tiny irregularities in the steel's structure disrupt the internal magnetic fields.  When the metal is cool it is hard, but when it is heated the irregularities damage the magnetic fields which hold the atoms rigid, allowing them to slide past each other.

The phenomenon is similar to that exploited since the days of ancient Rome to work iron.  While not able to reach temperatures high enough to melt the iron, sometimes, blacksmiths discovered if they heated it to a relatively hot temperature, the metal became pliable, able to be shaped into weapons.  While this was good for the Romans, it was not so good for modern applications which demand heat resistance, such as architecture and fusion power.

Architects have previously tried to protect buildings from this phenomenon by placing insulating panels around the support beams.  However, as the 9/11 attacks showed, these panels can be easily ripped off by a disaster.  This is precisely what is thought to have happened -- the collision with the airliners ripped off the insulation, exposing the steel to the fire.  Ultimately this elasticity doomed the structure.

Trying to make something good come of such a negative event, Dr. Dudarev and the UKAEA first worked out the mechanism for this weakness.  Now they are working on developing steel that lacks the irregularities and thus is able to operate at blistering temperatures.  Such Iron Man-like steel would be a crucial step towards achieving clean cheap power for mankind through nuclear fusion.  The group is working on the ITER reactor, the international community's largest experimental fusion reactor yet.

The 500 MW ITER reactor must be lined with ultra-robust materials. By mixing steel with other elements, Dr. Dudarev is confident he and his team can develop exotic steels to fit the bill.  He is confident that the problem is not a difficult one, and just comes down to experimentation.  He states, "We need to look at the magnetic properties of steel, [and] vary their chemical composition in a systematic way in order to get rid of this behavior."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 9:38:20 AM , Rating: 5
This where any alternative energy money needs to be going. Fusion. It's our future. Not half-brained schemes to try and push solar and wind where they're not feasible and practical. Which is large scale power generation.




RE: You see
By MPE on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: You see
By djc208 on 9/11/2008 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 5
Isn't it heavily subsidized by the government? They buy the electricy for far more than what it would be worth in a free market.

It may be the necessary first step to making it feasable but that doesn't make it so now.


RE: You see
By Sunrise089 on 9/11/2008 10:03:37 AM , Rating: 4
Put your logic away please. It's much more fun "green" type people to point to their success stories that aren't price competitive but rely on subsidies, tax exemptions, or outright exclusive contracts to prove how viable they are.


RE: You see
By quiksilvr on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By mikefarinha on 9/11/2008 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
20 grand. Granted that's not chump change but after 5-6 years you get that money back with the money saved from monthly electric bills.


Are you telling me you pay $20,000 in electricity every 5-6 years?!?! Did your energy company tell you that your electricity is gold plated or something?


RE: You see
By AmbroseAthan on 9/11/2008 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 5
As ridiculous as that sounds...

My last electric bill in my apartment was ~$350, for August; luckily I split it with my roommates. I am in NYC and per KWh my building charges 34.5 cents (Welcome to New York City). This is with keeping the A/C & lights off when people are not home, which is most of the day.

Our last two bills have been this high, and at the current rate, we would hit $20,000 in slightly over 5.5 years.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 1
Even still you wouldn't break even in 5.5 years on a set of $20K solar panels, given they would only supply you with power roughly 1/3 of the time. Actually, probably less than that in NYC, due to latitude, clouds, and (possibly) shade from other nearby buildings.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 11:56:15 AM , Rating: 3
A house takes 30 years to pay off buddy. Many people live in their homes many years after that... I know your an anti global warming, pollute the planet and who gives a shit kinda person, Ive seen it before in your posts but this is simple math. Besides the price of electricity isn't going down over the next couple of decades.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
On the exceedingly rare occasion when solar proponents actually do the "simple math", the results induce them to slink away with their tail between their legs.

And by the way, over the last 50 years, the price of electricity has risen far *slower* than inflation. The next 50 years should be the same-- unless the environmentalists achieve their goals of making energy both scarce and expensive.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ok Nostradamus, I guess well all just take your word that power costs should "stay the same" rate of increase over the next 50 years. I on the other hand read the news papers. US Russian(large source of oil) tensions are at are at an all time high since the cold war. The middle east is a model of stability and should be a completely reliable source of energy for the next 50 years.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to be sarcastic, you should at least be on topic. We were discussing electricity costs, which in the US derive almost entirely from coal, hydro, and nuclear. Secondly, the Middle East has always been unstable, and tensions with Russia are far lower today than they were in the 1950s and 60s, a period in which electricty costs still decreased on an inflation-adjusted basis.

So yes, the prediction that electricity will, barring regulatory changes motivated by environmental groups, continue to get cheaper is certainly a safe one.


RE: You see
By Murloc on 9/11/2008 12:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
the best thing is to use solar panels to heat water, so you don't need to use oil during the summer, and they are not too expensive.
It's not all, but something.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 4
Absolutely. When you need *heat* on a sunny day, solar power makes perfect sense. For hot water and swimming pools, the economics are there. I have a solar-powered pool heater myself...it's essentially just a couple large panels of blackened pipes, that mount on the top of the pool cabana.


RE: You see
By Polynikes on 9/11/2008 1:55:51 PM , Rating: 3
I saw a lot of that on houses in the Outer Banks in NC. Seems like a smart idea to me.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 1
Oil is still used in the production of electricity and home heating purposes. In fact 8% of NY's electricity is from oil burning sources(yeah I can google too). Ever heard of combined-cycle technology? Probably not, but I just did all of the radiographic weld inspection for a brand new combined-cycle power production facility in Redlands CA. This plant requires oil based fuels to power the combustion turbine, the first stage of the combined-cycle. So actually oil is used for electricity generating purposes and new oil burning plants are being built today.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "(yeah I can google too). "

Then you can google that oil accounts for only 1.6% on a national basis, an utterly insignificant amount. Oil used to be an even smaller amount-- it makes no sense whatsoever to burn it for electricity. But 25 years of environmentalists blocking every coal and nuclear plant eventually takes it toll.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 1:28:53 PM , Rating: 1
Actually it accounts for 5% of electricity in North America. Considering the population numbers it's hardly and insignificant amount...
Regardless replacing this "insignificant amount" with green sources would reduce our dependency on foreign oil, be better for the environment, help to advance the technology, and possibly be lower fuel costs at the pump.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
In the US, petroleum liquids and coke combined accounts for 65,000 out of 4.1 million thousand-Megawatt hours. That's 1.6% of total electricity generation:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table...

And you cannot "replace" all this with wind and solar, no matter how hard you stamp your feet. Some yes, during peak summer days. But in the Northeast (which has the highest usage of petroleum) peak demand often comes at periods when wind and solar isn't available. What do you suggest we do then? Huddle?


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 2:33:49 PM , Rating: 1
My stats were all of North America combined, we are not the only country in the world. Other nations rely much more on oil to produce electricity. Some up to 75% in fact. New green energy technologies could reduce this need for oil for other nations as well which is good for our environment and for our wallets at the pump.


RE: You see
By afkrotch on 9/12/2008 9:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Bet the countries that burn mostly oil are the ones with the oil. With how expensive oil is, it doesn't make sense to burn it for power production, unless they are a major oil producing country. In that case, oil would be much cheaper than importing in coal.

For them, going greener doesn't make sense either as it'd cost them far more than simply continuing to burn fuel.


RE: You see
By afkrotch on 9/12/2008 9:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
And only 3% is from oil in the US. Throw up some wind plants and that'll be covered easily. That or burn more coal.


RE: You see
By afkrotch on 9/12/2008 9:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
Explain what Russia and the Middle East have to do with our electricity production. We don't exactly burn a lot of oil for power. We don't get natural gas from them either. Russia we get coal, but an extremely small amount. Even if we stopped getting coal from them, it's no big deal.

So please, explain.


RE: You see
By Jimbo1234 on 9/11/2008 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 4
"A house takes 30 years to pay off buddy."

Not necessarily. If you live within your means, try 10-15. If you buy what you really cannot afford, then 30-50 is about right.


RE: You see
By Spuke on 9/11/2008 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not necessarily. If you live within your means, try 10-15. If you buy what you really cannot afford, then 30-50 is about right.
Some of us live in CA where housing isn't cheap (it's STILL above the national average), even in todays market. A house in a price range where most could afford a 15 year loan in THIS state would not be in the best of neighborhoods. To be frank, it would be in a high crime area.

In my area of CA (one of the cheapest places in the state), you can get a very nice home that's good sized (~2500 sq ft, ~232 m2) in a good neighborhood in the high $200k's for about $2500 or so a month for a 15 year mortgage at 5.75%. You can even find some ok places for just under $200k but they may be near an undesirable area or the schools may not be all that.


RE: You see
By Samus on 9/12/2008 8:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
Actually most people do NOT live in their homes for 30 years. Most people buy a number of homes they live in between 2-5 years before finally settling on a home to live in for the long haul. I've never met anyone that lived in a home for 30 years.

Even my childhood home I grew up in my parents recently sold because it was too big for them after all us kids moved out. They lived there for 19 years but it was paid off in 13 years with a 30-year conventional.

Maybe rural america is different, but here in Chicago, most people rent (much like NYC) and those that do own, IF they decide to hold onto the property after moving out, will likely rent it.


RE: You see
By FredEx on 9/13/2008 3:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
At their peak time of day they are putting power on the grid offsetting the cost for power needed at night if one is not using a battery system. With the battery system added one can often not pull any power from the grid at all.

I have some friends in upstate Washington where it is often cloudy and rainy, they have no electric bill, in fact they build up a credit which gets used during extreme weather days and in the winter sometimes. Besides solar electric, they do solar hot water from a system they installed themselves. It provides all their hot water needs and heats their house. Even on cloudy days with temps about 50 to 60 their hot water system can give them water 140 degrees. Their hot water for bathing needs to be just 120 degrees. I believe that is code to prevent scalding anyway, it is where I live. Their in floor radiant heat only needs to be around 72 degrees...depends on your preferences.

They have about $30,000 in to their system, but they have a large house that could easily snatch $400,000 around where I am in Michigan, I don't know what they'd get there, most likely a lot more. My medium/small ranch house if out there would go for double what I could hope to get here.

My friend like me is a tinkerer, we both were in the same field, electronics/electrical. We went to tech school together in the 70's and used to work for the same company. He has built his own small windmill, it generates more than enough to run his computer room with four systems always going in it. He got much of the ideas for it off the net, tossed in his own ideas.

God knows they have plenty of wind there to go with the rain.

This stuff is getting cheaper with time, more efficient also. You don't have to be in Florida or southern California for this stuff to be worthwhile.


RE: You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 12:49:36 PM , Rating: 4
HOLY CRAP! $350!!!

This is why I don't live in the north east. It's way too expensive to live up there. And I thought my apartment's electricity bill was high.

And in response to some of your other posts. Fine lets get clean, reliable energy that doesn't depend on anything foreign. AKA, nuclear.


RE: You see
By JediJeb on 9/11/2008 3:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
The highest electric bill I have had in 3 years at my house was $55, and that was mid summer when it was 105F outside. But here in Ky we have the cheapest electricity rates nation wide. Also my house only cost $42,000 so putting a set of solar panels on it would add 50% to the cost of the house.

One thing I have been looking into is adding a solar hot water floor heating system that I could install myself cheaply( making most of the parts myself) to heat during the day in the winter, since natural gas is supposed to rise 60% here this winter or so the gas company is telling me. Last winter I had a $100 gas bill for heating which is stupid since I am pulling directly off a main transmission line running nearby.


RE: You see
By Solandri on 9/11/2008 3:19:40 PM , Rating: 4
Average annual electricity use in the U.S. was just shy of 11,000 kWh per household in 2001 (the latest year there appear to be figures for).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_ta...

Multiply that by the average electricity cost of just under $0.11/kWh and you get an annual average of $1,200/yr spent on electricity by each household. If an average American household bought a $20,000 solar panel system that somehow provided 100% of their electricity, it would take almost 17 years to pay for itself.


RE: You see
By Keeir on 9/12/2008 3:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think of

http://www.bp.com/solarsavings.do?categoryId=8050

as a good place to get a quick estimate of actual payback period on "quality" solar installations. Note at Zip code 84050 in Arizona, according to BP you need a 7w system valued at 59,500 dollars to make that ~11,000 kWh average. Final end user cost is reduced ~35,000 dollars with tax rebates. Still a 20+ year payback period (assuming inflation costs of energy are similar to 4-6% investement that could be earned or a 4-6% financing charge). Clearly without the ~40% of rebates and tax credits, not a financial sound option considering expected life-spans of solar panels is typically around 30 years.

Note: BP is indeed a high cost option and includes installation and other costs in thier estimates. No doubt you can aquire and install a similar system for significantly less, but at the same time, these are the baseline figures BP is releasing and I see no reason they would be more than 25% or so higher than any source quality panel and installation job.


RE: You see
By Spuke on 9/11/2008 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
My highest ever was just under $300 and that was during the Enron fiasco in the middle of the summer. My normal summer bills are in the low to mid $100's. I can't imagine having a $300 bill and considering that normal. Sheesh!


RE: You see
By goz314 on 9/11/2008 6:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Try owning an average sized home in Phoenix with a pool during the summer months and you will see how high your monthly power bill can get. My bill last month was $317 and that was taking into account my participation in a demand based incentive program that charges different rates based on system wide demand. Seeing as how I used 1100 kwh during that month, it comes out to be about $0.28 per kwh. Granted that per kwh cost factors in delivery charges and taxes, but those charges can't realistically be seprated out when talking about true consumer costs. Air conditioning is an absolute must 24/7 when the ambient outside temperature is 110+.

Also, I should point out that this real world data flies in the face of the much touted cheaper cost per kwh associated with Nuclear Power generation. Palo Verde, which is owned and operated by APS, actually has higher rates than SRP, the other leading power provider in the valley of the sun. SRP generates most of it's power from natural gas power plants and from hydroelectric plants.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 10:34:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
this real world data flies in the face of the much touted cheaper cost per kwh associated with Nuclear Power generation. Palo Verde, which is owned and operated by APS, actually has higher rates than SRP, the other leading power provider
Whoa, whoa. Not only is this an excellent example of the logical fallacy known as "misleading vividness", it also has a few factual errors. First of all, APS doesn't "own" Palo Verde. It's owned by 7 different utilities. In fact, SRP (the other utility you cite) owns a large chunk of it as well.

In addition to its chunk of Palo Verde, APS operates 3 coal-powered plants and a total of **seven** gas-powered plants (the most expensive type to operate). It's also spending money on solar concentrator research.

SRP, on the other hand, is not "mostly natural gas". In addition to its share of the Palo Verde nuclear plant and its (very cheap to operate) hydroelectric sources, it also has 6 coal plants and only four gas plants.

Comparing these two utilities retail rates, then trying to make a blanket assumption about wholesale costs of supplying nuclear power is entirely off the mark.


RE: You see
By Spuke on 9/11/2008 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen some conversion kits online but they cost more than just buying a solar water heater or tankless water heater. Just didn't make sense to me.


RE: You see
By MarcLeFou on 9/11/2008 6:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's not entirely accurate.

Nuclear still needs uranium.

And Canada is one of the world's largest producer.


RE: You see
By PhoenixKnight on 9/11/2008 9:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but what will happen when we're at War after we get into an argument about censorship and Canada bombs the Baldwins? Did you ever think about how that might affect the price of uranium?


RE: You see
By myhipsi on 9/12/2008 8:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
I live in north eastern Canada (Newfoundland) and I pay $0.10/kwh. I never realized just how cheap electricity is up here.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 5
Here's the problem. Solar and wind don't just have periods when they're totally unavailable, they are *constantly* varying in output. So is your demand for electricity...but it varies differently. This is the problem of load-matching. Once you get above 10-15% of the total grid demand, the costs for load-matching skyrocket.

The world leader in wind/solar is Denmark, and even they can't get above 19% from those sources. They're only able to reach that goal by selling most of their excess to the European grid...then buying back conventional power. Even still, their power costs are the highest in Europe, more than triple what we pay here in the US.

Remember that, for wind, there are just as many periods when the wind is blowing too hard to generate as there are when its not blowing at all. Furthermore wind is far from "clean" power. It requires 10X the steel and 5X the concrete as the equivalent amount of power from nuclear-- and with turbine lifespans of ~30 years, you have to repay that enormous cost in resources once a generation.


RE: You see
By nah on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:10:49 PM , Rating: 4
Eh? Subsidizing inefficient solar plants today does not help us build better ones tomorrow.

Research will help us do that. And I'm all for more research into solar power. But subsidizing the actual construction of commercial PV plants today is, in most cases, foolish beyond belief.

> "yes we can improve the wind turbine... "

We've been building and improving windmills for over 500 years now. There's a limit on how far a technology can progress.

Wind is an extraodinarily diffuse source of energy; concentrating that into useful levels requires large amounts of resources. No amount of hand-waving and foot-stamping is going to change that.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect logic. Private industry will research anything that has a future market, not a present one. Do you think people were using transistors before Bell Labs built the first one?

In any case, I'm not opposed to government-sponsored research. I'm opposed to government subsidies, to prop up a technology before its ready for prime time.

> "wanna take a wild guess who built(subsidized) the first nuclear plants/technology... "

The University of Chicago, a private university.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "The first reactor was built at the Hanford site by the US military"

No, the first reactor was the Chicago Pile. And while both it and Hanford (the first plutonium production reactor) involved government funding, both were primarily intended to advance nuclear goals for the military, and had no connection with commercial power generation.

So what's your point? The government can't fund military projects?


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 10:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Green energy sources could also be considered a military goal. How many times have we gone to war to secure our sources of oil???
As already pointed out, no amount of subsidizing solar and wind is going to cut our dependence on foreign oil. Only 1.6% of our electricity is generated from oil, and with current technology, even if we're willing to pay the exhorbitant costs of alternative power, we just can't supply more than 10-15% of the grid with those variable sources.

That works out to a net reduction of around 0.2% in oil consumption...less than our average increase in a single year.

> " that would allow solar, wind, hydro, ect. electricity to become viable sources of power in the future."

I'm all for funding research that might eventually make these sources viable. But as you yourself admit, they're not viable today. And government subsidies to build wind and solar farms (as opposed to pure research) is a foolhardly mistake, plain and simple.


RE: You see
By SlyNine on 9/11/2008 10:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
No I think they should go back to wind energy, hook up sail masts on the Nimitz. That's progress for you.

Forget fusion/nuclear research that can power energy weapons that can shoot down torpedoes, bandits and other threats and provide an endless source of ALWAYS ON power. Lets just go BACK to wind power.


RE: You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon nanotubes aren't currently being used really for anything in the real world. But research is being done because once we perfect it, it will be one of the greatest new materials of the 21st century. Solar power doesn't have such a great outlook except in the minds of environmentalists. As masher has stated, even if you achieve 100% efficiency, you still have to deal with the fact that its a highly variable source of power and one that DOES NOT work 24/7.


RE: You see
By eldakka on 9/12/2008 4:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and one that DOES NOT work 24/7.


It can work 24x7.

It's called orbital solar power arrays...

Not saying it's practicle at the moment, but it is possible.


RE: You see
By danrien on 9/11/2008 2:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
And we've been using iron since pre-Christ times, and yet this very article focuses on advances made in metallurgy research. Limit indeed!


RE: You see
By nah on 9/11/2008 12:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you not read?


I did .I meant to say that the US would not have to sell to other places--it would be too busy supplying it's domestic market


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:13:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not, but the gross size of the market is irrelevant when you're discussing a percentage of the total demand.

The US market is far larger, given. But we cannot supply more than a small percentage of total grid demand from variable sources like wind and solar, not without energy storage technology we do not yet possess.


RE: You see
By nah on 9/11/2008 12:25:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not,

Not really;)
quote:
, not without energy storage technology we do not yet possess.

With the tremendous progress in -to take just one example--cell phone and laptop batteries--if you remember the first cell-phones--their batteries were like bricks--this is no more impossible to envision than Generation IV type rectors like the Rubbiatron


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "this is no more impossible to envision than Generation IV type rectors like the Rubbiatron "

Oh sure, I can imagine it. I've been imaging what we can do with such cheap "super-batteries" since I was a kid in the early 1970s.

Problem is, we don't have them. We *do* have nuclear power, though.


RE: You see
By nah on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By teldar on 9/11/2008 1:19:16 PM , Rating: 5
Are you insane?
Are you proposing to store our country's energy supply in batteries?
Wow.
Talk about disconnected from facts.


RE: You see
By Solandri on 9/11/2008 3:34:36 PM , Rating: 4
Cell phone and laptop batteries have not improved much. What's improved significantly is the efficiency of the electronics. Early cell phones and laptops had components running at 5-12 V. Current components typically run at 1.5-3.3 V, with some main components (e.g. CPU) often running at less than 1 V. There have also been significant gains in backlight efficiency, power save (turning off unused components), and transmission standards (analog phones blasted at full power the entire time you talked, digital phones compress what you say into a small data packet and send it as a burst at the lowest necessary power).

These improvements let you run a device with the same functionality for much longer on the same battery, or the same amount of time on a much smaller battery. Almost none of the gain has been from improvements in battery technology. The last chart I saw, the average improvement in battery capacity over the last 100 years was about 1% per year.

Lithium-ion represented a (relatively) big leap in battery storage per unit weight. But it wasn't an improvement on a volumetric basis.


RE: You see
By nah on 9/11/2008 3:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january...

quote:
Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices. The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers. "It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development."
The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels.



RE: You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 3
Ok and that is in the experimental phase. Saying that is proof that battery life has improved would be like saying fusion is ready for prime time.

When the first battery that is actually produced with that advancement is sold, then its made a difference.


RE: You see
By afkrotch on 9/12/2008 8:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A good solar panel system for a home is around 20 grand. Granted that's not chump change but after 5-6 years you get that money back with the money saved from monthly electric bills.


WTF?

I pay 60 Euros a month.

60 x 12 = 720
720 x 5 = 3600

Damn, just a few Euros shy of 20 grand.


RE: You see
By luseferous on 9/11/2008 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Like the nuclear power Industry ?


RE: You see
By bpurkapi on 9/11/2008 1:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
You act as though oil firms do not receive subsidies and exclusive contracts from the government...


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:17:37 PM , Rating: 3
Oil firms do not receive subsidies. They do receive some tax credits (a reduction in the amount *they* pay the government, rather than the government paying them) but its only to compel some specific action the government wishes them to take, and even counting those credits, oil companies still pay a higher percentage of total profits than the average US firm.

Compare that to wind and solar companies, which receive tax credits, massive subsidies and grants, and still are looking for (and sometimes receiving) enormous tracts of free land upon which to site their massive projects.


RE: You see
By zzeoss on 9/12/2008 2:06:33 AM , Rating: 1
I've seen you give the same explanations several times on different threads (sometimes with more proof/links/etc, on different topics). Kudos for not giving up on them!
It's amazing how some people just don't get it (or try to counter you with childish arguments). Maybe you should put all this "misconceptions" in a blog and explain/analyze them in a concise manner for everyone to understand. Or a series of blogs on different topics.

ps: I read dailytech since 2006 or so, but this is one of my first posts.


RE: You see
By FaceMaster on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/11/2008 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
That's fairly true, but if one used logic, they'd realize that the subsidies and exemptions really do level the field in a fair manner- for both industry and the consumer.

For instance, power production by burning coal releases tons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. If a country were to impose a carbon-tax, the price of coal-produced electricity would rise appreciably. Carbon-taxes are not particularly popular in places like the US, because of the word 'tax', and the understanding that public energy rates will increase.
If a carbon tax were put into place, the subsidies and current tax exemptions would be less necessary, and production methods like solar and wind would be much more competitive- at the cost of the consumer.
You're doing the same thing in both really- alternatives have higher initial cost, which can be viewed as internalized costs that coal would be charged with if a carbon tax were used- you either reward tech for being environmentally friendly, or penalize it for being unfriendly.

So really there are three possibilities-
1. The government gives aid to cleaner technologies to allow investments and introductions onto the market, fairly leveling the production costs and rate offerings to the consumer (in other words: bring the price of alternatives down to that of coal, so their environmental benefits can be instituted).
2. The government imposes a carbon tax, which penalizes coal power production for release of carbon dioxide, which steady-state solar and wind installations do not release. This increases the cost of coal-produced electricity closer to that of alternatives, produces revenue, minimizes the necessity of subsidies for those alternatives: but at the cost of higher electric rates to the end consumer (in other words: carbon taxation would charge coal-fired production for the environmentally unfriendly release of CO2, which alternatives do not have)
3. Do nothing- fossil fuels will continue to hold a majority of energy production percentage, and the environment as well as public health will suffer- energy rates stay low, until slumps in availability or production of fuel impacts production costs.
3.5. Do both- impose a carbon tax, and use the revenue to offset public rates from the middle class downwards, as well as, subsidizing the cost of alternatives. As coal fades away from the influx of alternative installations on the grid, carbon tax revenue will lessen, but as the main cost of alternative sources is the initial investment and construction, energy costs will be able to stay low as carbon tax revenue decreases, and subsidies to both industry and consumer rates proportional decrease along with revenue from carbon taxation.


RE: You see
By 2nd Abnormalized Form on 9/12/2008 7:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike, say, the petroleum industry ;)


RE: You see
By vgermax on 9/11/2008 10:03:27 AM , Rating: 3
"Successful" should be defined in that statement. If by successful you only mean widespread use yes. If it also implies economic sustainability in the absence of heavy government subsidies, then no.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 5
> "Uhm you do know Germany has a succesful solar power industry right? "

Their largest solar plant is only 40MW peak. That works out to about 10MW average-- about 1/800 the output of a large nuclear installation. The plant also won't be operational for another year and, even then, will cost 4-5 times as much per KWh as conventional sources, and require baseline sources for when the sun isn't shining.


RE: You see
By Spivonious on 9/11/2008 10:24:01 AM , Rating: 1
I saw more wind turbines in Germany than solar panels.


RE: You see
By Connoisseur on 9/11/2008 9:58:36 AM , Rating: 1
From what I've read, we don't yet have a "working" fusion powerplant. That is, we don't have a sustained reactor that generates a net positive amount of energy relative to the amount of energy applied. Why should we focus all of our resources on a technology that hasn't even been proven work, outside of science fiction? I think it's a good idea to go at least 50/50. Focus on the renewable energy resources (such as hydro, geo, solar and wind) for the short term and invest in fusion for the long term. That way we won't be putting all our eggs in one basket. Even if fusion does become entirely practical, the worst case scenario is that we achieve it a few years later than we would have had we completely focused on it.


RE: You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should we focus all of our resources on a technology that hasn't even been proven work, outside of science fiction?


It works pretty well in the sun.

quote:
Focus on the renewable energy resources (such as hydro, geo, solar and wind) for the short term and invest in fusion for the long term.


I'd rather focus on nuclear now which research into better plant designs can actually help lead to advances in fusion power. And its a far better energy source. The only "renewable" sources I support are geo-thermal and hydro. Because they work all the time. Yes hydroelectric can have issues if there are droughts but its still a far more reliable source of power than solar or wind ever will be.


RE: You see
By Connoisseur on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 10:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
> "Solar power NOW might not be incredibly effective, but you can use the argument that there will be advances in solar efficiency to the point that solar becomes an entirely sustainable energy source "

Even assuming we can build 100% efficient solar panels for a quarter the cost we can today, solar still wouldn't be able to generate more than a fraction of the energy we need. We'd also need quantum advances in both energy storage technology, to match the highly variable nature of the sun to an equally variable demand, as well as similar advances in energy transmission, to allow sunny areas to power those less well-suited.


RE: You see
By Connoisseur on 9/11/2008 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. That's why I mentioned:
quote:
(in conjunction with others of course)


There is currently no single "end-all", "satisy the entire world's energy needs" technology and I don't see there yet being one in the near future. But efficiency improvements in all technologies should make them entirely sustainable when lumped together (and can also help hedge our bets in case one doesn't work out all the time).

Bottom line: take my comments as you'd like, but I still disagree with Camaro in that we should NOT be investing most or all of our resources into investigating an unproven technology. Right now, sustained fusion is simply an interesting science project for research labs. We can't "assume" that a breakthrough will happen to solve this issue.