I don't have much value to add, just go read him convert between energy scales between earthquakes, nuclear bombs, power plants, and the sun. What interests me is how large human energy uses are, that a 1 GW power plant produces more energy in a year than is released in fifteen Magnitude 7 earthquakes.
In the end, the sun wins. Go solar!
And the sun's energy comes from...
ReplyDeleteMost wise Bunny,
ReplyDeleteO/T, this, but I couldn't resist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/sheep-herding-rabbit?newsfeed=true
I hope you enjoy!
Regards,
Taylor B
David B. Benson: The sun's energy comes from the proton-proton chain reaction. Which we have no chance of reproducing here on earth. What's your point? See also http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
ReplyDeleteActually the p-p reaction enables the much faster (strong-interaction) follow-up reactions producing helium and a lot of energy -- which we might be able to do down here.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, p-p guards the pass.
Nick Barnes --- Two points: (1) the nuclear fusion device in France has already produced a (small) net energy; (2) think nuclear, even if only fission, rather than havesting photons.
ReplyDelete@Benson : it did ? I did not remember hearing that, could you please point me to the announcement ?
ReplyDeletebratisla
According to this article, Q = 0.7 is the best so far:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iter.org/sci/beyonditer
Pretty good actually. But note this is plasma energy break-even only. You need to also cool your superconducting magnets, keep the vacuum, reprocess the lithium blanket, etc. etc.
bratisla --- That's what I remembered from a local conversation, but Martin Vermeer seems to be on top of it.
ReplyDeletethanks for the answer !
ReplyDeleteI follow ITER from times to times, so I wondered if I missed something in this field (which is not my field, so I'm far from up to date)