Other duties call today, feel free to discuss any topic within site policy.
Guest authors are welcome to post stories.
00votes
Article Rating
270 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Tossy
August 3, 2013 7:10 pm
The perfect power source.
1. Tie a goat to a stake.
2. Tie a zombie to a treadmill connected to a generator.
3. Add more zombies.
markx
August 3, 2013 7:21 pm
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm “Here is a list of islands with populations of approximately 1 million, yet none have a nuclear power plant.”
Not sure on your point here, but, on the issue of small scale nuclear power and small populations it is important to note:
The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 “reactor years” of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.
Statement of Admiral F. L. “Skip” Bowman, U.S. Navy Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program before the House Committee on Science 29 October 2003.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm “Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,
Oh they do not. In fact, they export a considerable amount of electrical power to other countries at prices conventional power plants cannot compete with. Or are you suggesting that France is so stupid that they subsidize electricity in other countries? ” Is it affordable? Yes.”
No, it is clearly not, or it would produce far more power and be built instead of coal and gas plants.
Japan and Germany also ran very affordable nuclear power plants but shut them down because of political pressure, not financial pressure. In fact, Japan in particular is under massive financial pressure to resume nuclear power because they cannot generate power economically by means ofimported fossil fuels. China has plans for nuclear power plants by the dozen and so does India. By extension, one might ask why wind farms and solar farms are being built despite being proven unreliable and atrosciously expensive. The fact is that they are being built with massive subsidies, relgulatory requirements to build them, and political pressure. Their existance no more proves they are financially viable than the existance of coal and oil powered plants proves nuclear isn’t. “Is it safe? Yes.”
Seriously? Why then are nuclear plant workers required to wear lifetime radiodosimeter badges?
Seriously? How about to double check that the safety systems are working? “Does it produce ghg’s? No.”
Seriously? How many CO2 tons are emitted in mining and enriching the fuel, and building the plant with the hundreds of tons of steel and concrete?
Seriously? Compare the lifetime CO2 emissions, construction, refining, plant retirement of fossil fuel plants to nuclear plants. Fossil fuel plants over their lifetime produce orders of magnitude more ghg’s than do nuclear plants. By comparison, the emissions of a nuclear power plant, all those tons of steel and concrete included, are barely a rounding error. “So why is the green movement so dead against it?”
Perhaps the widespread nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and nearly from Three Mile Island have some little thing to do with it? Especially after decades of nuclear advocates (such as yourself) shouting about how safe nuclear power is! The common thought is that nuclear industry insiders lie and lie again. Each time a major event happens, we find that more lies are told.
Well expose some of the lies then. You’re just claiming that lies are being told without substantiating them. As for the fallout, sorry but facts trump this fanatasy world you live in. Fossil fuels contain radiactive elements, in particular coal which before scrubbers was simply pumped into the air, the average coal plan used to contribute far more to background radiation than did nuclear plants. But we figured out the problem and dealt with it. This is the part you don’t seem to understand. Yes there have been problems in the nuclear industry. But when you compare to the health hazards of conventional fuel, their record is stellar. It is like your chance of dying in a car accident versus an airplane crash. You are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash. Yet car crashes rarely make anything but the local news while airplane crashes are instant international headlines with opportunistic politicians screaming for investigations to make sure that the specific cause doesn’t happen again. By your standards, we would outlaw cars and force people to only fly any distance they couldn’t walk or ride a bike. Does that make sense to you? “Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.”
I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power. France is subsidized so it does not count.
And I’m still waiting for you to present some actual science. The financial case has been made already.
Roger Sowell;
Somehow, those dead people from Chernobyl are very likely not impressed with your argument. Neither am I. Radiation exposure is cumulative and workers in the industry are just now reaching old age where deaths can be attributed to their exposure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
About 30,000 people per year are killed in car accidents in the United States alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Should we ban cars?
As for your concern about cumulative exposure, have you forgotten those radiodosimeter badges you complained the workers have to wear? Do you suppose part of wearing them is to measure their cumulative exposure end ensure it doesn’t get high enough to risk their health? Are you aware that millions of people live in areas of the world in which background radiation is higher than what is allowed in nuclear power plants?
You still haven’t provided any facts. Just arm waving and hysterical claims of impending doom. You may be a CAGW skeptic, but you are using the tactics of the warmists to argue your position, not facts and logic.
…..[….]…. According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.”
Gee, didn’t Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank?
$10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?
But that’s just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.”
Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:
• that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
• that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
• that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”
…..[…..and more….]….
Tom in Texas
August 3, 2013 7:52 pm
“The US’ South Texas Nuclear Plant, near Corpus Christi on the Gulf coast, recently cancelled an expansion project that would have added two more reactors.”
San Antonio was going to take a % of that expansion. Instead, our demoncratic mayor and city council has decided to go with sunbeams (contracted at twice the price per kwhr).
Can’t wait to see the effects of the first hail storm. I have photos of hail’s effect on a newly installed large array of solar panels in the early 70’s. Bet it’s the same effect (unless it’s now rotten hail).
Note: 75 miles south of San Antonio, in the Eagle Ford, there is almost an unlimited amount natural gas. Not much activity in the NG zone due to its low price. In the oil zone, NG is the red-headed step child, that is produced as a by-product. Not cost effective to put in pipe, so much is just flaired off.
San Antonio should be the NG capitol of Texas. We should be driving Honda Civic GS vehicles and using NG to generate electricity. Except instead of public NG filling sites, we have electric charging sites (thank you DOE) that no one is using because few have electric cars.
Instead of becoming a NG society, San Antonio is getting sunbeams. Where’s my camera.
Can ANYONE show me a power company that reduced their rates after building a nuclear power plant? No, you cannot.
For those who cannot grasp the point about islands and nuclear power plants, if nukes were so safe and affordable, why don’t those islands build them and cut their costs of power? They don’t because it won’t.
Re naval use of nuclear power, yes it works and I’m happy to see it. No, the civilian power industry is not run by the military and has far more accidents. Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea. Shall we count the dead sailors as nuclear casualties?
For those of you who argued above that plutonium is safe, I suggest you do a little research on the name Karen Silkwood.
Regarding France, yes they do export power at night because they must. They cannot reduce the nuclear plants’ output sufficiently. The French have artificially low power prices after the government nationalized the industry.
Gee, this has been fun fellas.
markx
August 3, 2013 8:06 pm
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 7:54 pm “….Gee, this has been fun fellas….”
Are you having a lousy weekend, Roger? Otherwise, there is probably no real need to be contemptuous and sarcastic.
Roger Sowell;
Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Provide evidence of a single such incident.
markx
August 3, 2013 8:14 pm
Here is a time-lapse map of the 2053 nuclear explosions which have taken place between 1945 and 1998… (leaves out North Korea’s two alleged nuclear tests in this past decade)
It is important to note that had these been 2035 nuclear plants all exploding in populated areas this would have undoubtedly resulted in a lot of casualties. BUT, contrary to popular belief, a nuclear plant explosion or two (or 2035) would not destroy the planet, or civilization.
u.k.(us)
August 3, 2013 8:21 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm
————– @ur momisugly Roger Sowell,
you argue like a child.
It grates, the reading.
Just saying.
Roger Sowell;
For those of you who argued above that plutonium is safe, I suggest you do a little research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
The third leading cause of death in the world is drowning. Should we ban swimming? Or water?
davidmhoffer says:
“Provide evidence of a single such incident.” Ouch!
markx
August 3, 2013 8:24 pm
davidmhoffer says: August 3, 2013 at 8:12 pm Roger Sowell; “Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea.”
Provide evidence of a single such incident.
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
The Russians have lost several – and some due to cooling accidents.
But, the point is, it can be done very safely, with large numbers of people living in close proximity.
These small scale nuclear plants are ideally suited to dropping directly into existing power grids. It would be the cheapest, quickest and most practical solution should the occasion actually arise that someone accumulates some meaningful evidence that the planet is heading towards a state of catastrophic anthropologically caused global warming.
I think Roger’s ‘solution’ is that the bulk of the world’s population should simply go without affordable energy while he and his ilk futz around with wind and sun idealist fantasies.
Roger Sowell;
For those who cannot grasp the point about islands and nuclear power plants, if nukes were so safe and affordable, why don’t those islands build them and cut their costs of power? They don’t because it won’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just keep coming back to that over and over again. What any given island uses for power says nothing about the cost effectiveness of other options. The use of wind and solar power doesn’t mean they are economical, yet they are in use. You can’t argue the facts, so you keep coming back to this mindless mantra.
Its been fun? No it has not. Watching someone who claims to have critical thinking skills descend to misdirection and arm waving is disappointing.
markx;
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah well, you prevented Roger from stepping into the trap I set for him. 😉
Tom in Texas
August 3, 2013 8:27 pm
‘@ur momisugly Roger Sowell,
you argue like a child.”
He argues like a lawyer, which he is.
Tom in Texas
August 3, 2013 8:30 pm
“…descend to misdirection and arm waving is disappointing.”
Like a lawyer with a guilty client?
More evidence of why nuclear power plants cannot compete. http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
“The fourth shuttered reactor, the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, was shut down in May with 20 years left on its operating license after owner Dominion was unable to find a buyer. The announcement blamed market conditions stemming from low natural gas prices, which made the merchant plant a money loser.”
john says: August 3, 2013 at 11:04 am
… Chad, I’ve been working on a project combining bank fraud and renewable fraud. …
You and most of our politicians.
David Ball
August 3, 2013 9:04 pm
[i]”_Jim says:
August 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm
David Ball says August 3, 2013 at 9:03 am
…
There is plenty of energy in our solar system. How do we get it safely and without destroying our atmosphere?
LOL… and heartily I light add … let me guess, liberal arts major (and not a hard science degree esp. not in the field of engineering)?
(I think that statement is attributable to David; pls pardon me if it’s not.)”[i]
_Jim has just revealed the short sited fear of the unknown that has prevented man from advancing much further than we have. I post a scientific solution to the energy problem we all have to deal with and he responds as a child would. He accused Gail Combs of being childish in another thread, yet her posts are ALWAYS reasoned and she provides links. _Jim’s posts never contain any solutions to anything, just negative poo-pooing of others ideas.
I understand the science behind what I have posted and know EXACTLY where we are in terms of technology regarding a project like a “space elevator”.
It is quite obvious who the childish unscientific responses are from. Keep your opinion and show me where I am wrong, or provide a better answer to our energy problems. I’ll wait.
It’s time mankind started making the advances we are capable of.
markx
August 3, 2013 9:10 pm
davidmhoffer says: August 3, 2013 at 8:27 pm
markx;
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah well, you prevented Roger from stepping into the trap I set for him. 😉
Ah, sorry David!
But in truth the Russian side of the story is pretty dismal, and their decommissioning is a nightmare – but, of course, it does not have to be that way.
acementhead says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm
> Does anybody have any news about Rossi’s “ecat”? How about the “hotcat”?
People are hard at work, Rossi’s partner seems to have Rossi talking less, which is probably for the best. Rossi is quite happy with how things have been progressing. The focus has been on the hotcat for a while.
ICCF-18 (18th International Conference on Cold Fusion) had many things going on that I didn’t follow. Most were for systems producing a lot less heat than the E-Cat. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/program.php
There’s a group called the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project that has many things they’re involved with. They’re mostly low output devices, but they’re involved with bigger things too. I can’t keep up with them, see https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject?
One thing they mention is “We have been told by a trusted source, whom we can not disclose, that there will be an independent report of DGT Hyperion technology published at some point.” DGT is a greek company, Defkalion, that had been working with Rossi years ago but they had a falling out of sorts and have been working on stuff independently from Rossi. They had a demonstration of their system at ICCF-18.
markx
August 3, 2013 9:22 pm
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 8:37 pm More evidence of why nuclear power plants cannot compete. http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
Yeah, thanks, we know that, Roger … and it applies for now, while gas is abundant (oversupplied, even), but you perhaps underestimate the determination of our ‘green fanatics’ to save the planet strictly according to their beliefs.
Gas is a handy fill in, and from what we know know could get us through the next 200 years unsullied, but, never underestimate the destructive power of green idealistic fanaticist stupidity.
It has worked ‘nicely’ on nuclear power, and possibly will also do so on gas.
The perfect power source.
1. Tie a goat to a stake.
2. Tie a zombie to a treadmill connected to a generator.
3. Add more zombies.
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
“Here is a list of islands with populations of approximately 1 million, yet none have a nuclear power plant.”
Not sure on your point here, but, on the issue of small scale nuclear power and small populations it is important to note:
Statement of Admiral F. L. “Skip” Bowman, U.S. Navy Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program before the House Committee on Science 29 October 2003.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,
Oh they do not. In fact, they export a considerable amount of electrical power to other countries at prices conventional power plants cannot compete with. Or are you suggesting that France is so stupid that they subsidize electricity in other countries?
” Is it affordable? Yes.”
No, it is clearly not, or it would produce far more power and be built instead of coal and gas plants.
Japan and Germany also ran very affordable nuclear power plants but shut them down because of political pressure, not financial pressure. In fact, Japan in particular is under massive financial pressure to resume nuclear power because they cannot generate power economically by means ofimported fossil fuels. China has plans for nuclear power plants by the dozen and so does India. By extension, one might ask why wind farms and solar farms are being built despite being proven unreliable and atrosciously expensive. The fact is that they are being built with massive subsidies, relgulatory requirements to build them, and political pressure. Their existance no more proves they are financially viable than the existance of coal and oil powered plants proves nuclear isn’t.
“Is it safe? Yes.”
Seriously? Why then are nuclear plant workers required to wear lifetime radiodosimeter badges?
Seriously? How about to double check that the safety systems are working?
“Does it produce ghg’s? No.”
Seriously? How many CO2 tons are emitted in mining and enriching the fuel, and building the plant with the hundreds of tons of steel and concrete?
Seriously? Compare the lifetime CO2 emissions, construction, refining, plant retirement of fossil fuel plants to nuclear plants. Fossil fuel plants over their lifetime produce orders of magnitude more ghg’s than do nuclear plants. By comparison, the emissions of a nuclear power plant, all those tons of steel and concrete included, are barely a rounding error.
“So why is the green movement so dead against it?”
Perhaps the widespread nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and nearly from Three Mile Island have some little thing to do with it? Especially after decades of nuclear advocates (such as yourself) shouting about how safe nuclear power is! The common thought is that nuclear industry insiders lie and lie again. Each time a major event happens, we find that more lies are told.
Well expose some of the lies then. You’re just claiming that lies are being told without substantiating them. As for the fallout, sorry but facts trump this fanatasy world you live in. Fossil fuels contain radiactive elements, in particular coal which before scrubbers was simply pumped into the air, the average coal plan used to contribute far more to background radiation than did nuclear plants. But we figured out the problem and dealt with it. This is the part you don’t seem to understand. Yes there have been problems in the nuclear industry. But when you compare to the health hazards of conventional fuel, their record is stellar. It is like your chance of dying in a car accident versus an airplane crash. You are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash. Yet car crashes rarely make anything but the local news while airplane crashes are instant international headlines with opportunistic politicians screaming for investigations to make sure that the specific cause doesn’t happen again. By your standards, we would outlaw cars and force people to only fly any distance they couldn’t walk or ride a bike. Does that make sense to you?
“Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.”
I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power. France is subsidized so it does not count.
And I’m still waiting for you to present some actual science. The financial case has been made already.
Roger Sowell;
Somehow, those dead people from Chernobyl are very likely not impressed with your argument. Neither am I. Radiation exposure is cumulative and workers in the industry are just now reaching old age where deaths can be attributed to their exposure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
About 30,000 people per year are killed in car accidents in the United States alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Should we ban cars?
As for your concern about cumulative exposure, have you forgotten those radiodosimeter badges you complained the workers have to wear? Do you suppose part of wearing them is to measure their cumulative exposure end ensure it doesn’t get high enough to risk their health? Are you aware that millions of people live in areas of the world in which background radiation is higher than what is allowed in nuclear power plants?
You still haven’t provided any facts. Just arm waving and hysterical claims of impending doom. You may be a CAGW skeptic, but you are using the tactics of the warmists to argue your position, not facts and logic.
DR says: August 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm
“Does anyone have a comprehensive list of ‘Big Oil’ etc. funding greenie groups?”
Check out Donna Laframboise:
BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.de/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil-jackpot.html
“The US’ South Texas Nuclear Plant, near Corpus Christi on the Gulf coast, recently cancelled an expansion project that would have added two more reactors.”
San Antonio was going to take a % of that expansion. Instead, our demoncratic mayor and city council has decided to go with sunbeams (contracted at twice the price per kwhr).
Can’t wait to see the effects of the first hail storm. I have photos of hail’s effect on a newly installed large array of solar panels in the early 70’s. Bet it’s the same effect (unless it’s now rotten hail).
Note: 75 miles south of San Antonio, in the Eagle Ford, there is almost an unlimited amount natural gas. Not much activity in the NG zone due to its low price. In the oil zone, NG is the red-headed step child, that is produced as a by-product. Not cost effective to put in pipe, so much is just flaired off.
San Antonio should be the NG capitol of Texas. We should be driving Honda Civic GS vehicles and using NG to generate electricity. Except instead of public NG filling sites, we have electric charging sites (thank you DOE) that no one is using because few have electric cars.
Instead of becoming a NG society, San Antonio is getting sunbeams. Where’s my camera.
Can ANYONE show me a power company that reduced their rates after building a nuclear power plant? No, you cannot.
For those who cannot grasp the point about islands and nuclear power plants, if nukes were so safe and affordable, why don’t those islands build them and cut their costs of power? They don’t because it won’t.
Re naval use of nuclear power, yes it works and I’m happy to see it. No, the civilian power industry is not run by the military and has far more accidents. Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea. Shall we count the dead sailors as nuclear casualties?
For those of you who argued above that plutonium is safe, I suggest you do a little research on the name Karen Silkwood.
Regarding France, yes they do export power at night because they must. They cannot reduce the nuclear plants’ output sufficiently. The French have artificially low power prices after the government nationalized the industry.
Gee, this has been fun fellas.
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 7:54 pm
“….Gee, this has been fun fellas….”
Are you having a lousy weekend, Roger? Otherwise, there is probably no real need to be contemptuous and sarcastic.
Roger Sowell;
Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Provide evidence of a single such incident.
Here is a time-lapse map of the 2053 nuclear explosions which have taken place between 1945 and 1998… (leaves out North Korea’s two alleged nuclear tests in this past decade)
It is important to note that had these been 2035 nuclear plants all exploding in populated areas this would have undoubtedly resulted in a lot of casualties.
BUT, contrary to popular belief, a nuclear plant explosion or two (or 2035) would not destroy the planet, or civilization.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm
————–
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell,
you argue like a child.
It grates, the reading.
Just saying.
Roger Sowell;
For those of you who argued above that plutonium is safe, I suggest you do a little research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
The third leading cause of death in the world is drowning. Should we ban swimming? Or water?
davidmhoffer says:
“Provide evidence of a single such incident.”
Ouch!
davidmhoffer says: August 3, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Roger Sowell; “Even the nuclear navy has lost ships at sea.”
Provide evidence of a single such incident.
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
The Russians have lost several – and some due to cooling accidents.
But, the point is, it can be done very safely, with large numbers of people living in close proximity.
These small scale nuclear plants are ideally suited to dropping directly into existing power grids. It would be the cheapest, quickest and most practical solution should the occasion actually arise that someone accumulates some meaningful evidence that the planet is heading towards a state of catastrophic anthropologically caused global warming.
I think Roger’s ‘solution’ is that the bulk of the world’s population should simply go without affordable energy while he and his ilk futz around with wind and sun idealist fantasies.
Roger Sowell;
For those who cannot grasp the point about islands and nuclear power plants, if nukes were so safe and affordable, why don’t those islands build them and cut their costs of power? They don’t because it won’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just keep coming back to that over and over again. What any given island uses for power says nothing about the cost effectiveness of other options. The use of wind and solar power doesn’t mean they are economical, yet they are in use. You can’t argue the facts, so you keep coming back to this mindless mantra.
Its been fun? No it has not. Watching someone who claims to have critical thinking skills descend to misdirection and arm waving is disappointing.
markx;
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah well, you prevented Roger from stepping into the trap I set for him. 😉
‘@ur momisugly Roger Sowell,
you argue like a child.”
He argues like a lawyer, which he is.
“…descend to misdirection and arm waving is disappointing.”
Like a lawyer with a guilty client?
More evidence of why nuclear power plants cannot compete.
http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
“The fourth shuttered reactor, the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, was shut down in May with 20 years left on its operating license after owner Dominion was unable to find a buyer. The announcement blamed market conditions stemming from low natural gas prices, which made the merchant plant a money loser.”
No need to discuss Nuclear and Solar as Rossi’s ecats and hotcats and especially the notcats© acementhead, will soon be powering the world.
john says: August 3, 2013 at 11:04 am
… Chad, I’ve been working on a project combining bank fraud and renewable fraud. …
You and most of our politicians.
[i]”_Jim says:
August 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm
David Ball says August 3, 2013 at 9:03 am
…
There is plenty of energy in our solar system. How do we get it safely and without destroying our atmosphere?
LOL… and heartily I light add … let me guess, liberal arts major (and not a hard science degree esp. not in the field of engineering)?
(I think that statement is attributable to David; pls pardon me if it’s not.)”[i]
_Jim has just revealed the short sited fear of the unknown that has prevented man from advancing much further than we have. I post a scientific solution to the energy problem we all have to deal with and he responds as a child would. He accused Gail Combs of being childish in another thread, yet her posts are ALWAYS reasoned and she provides links. _Jim’s posts never contain any solutions to anything, just negative poo-pooing of others ideas.
I understand the science behind what I have posted and know EXACTLY where we are in terms of technology regarding a project like a “space elevator”.
It is quite obvious who the childish unscientific responses are from. Keep your opinion and show me where I am wrong, or provide a better answer to our energy problems. I’ll wait.
It’s time mankind started making the advances we are capable of.
davidmhoffer says: August 3, 2013 at 8:27 pm
markx;
US lost The Thresher and The Scorpion (subs – not due to nuclear accident)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah well, you prevented Roger from stepping into the trap I set for him. 😉
Ah, sorry David!
But in truth the Russian side of the story is pretty dismal, and their decommissioning is a nightmare – but, of course, it does not have to be that way.
acementhead says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm
> Does anybody have any news about Rossi’s “ecat”? How about the “hotcat”?
People are hard at work, Rossi’s partner seems to have Rossi talking less, which is probably for the best. Rossi is quite happy with how things have been progressing. The focus has been on the hotcat for a while.
ICCF-18 (18th International Conference on Cold Fusion) had many things going on that I didn’t follow. Most were for systems producing a lot less heat than the E-Cat.
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/program.php
There’s a group called the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project that has many things they’re involved with. They’re mostly low output devices, but they’re involved with bigger things too. I can’t keep up with them, see https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject?
One thing they mention is “We have been told by a trusted source, whom we can not disclose, that there will be an independent report of DGT Hyperion technology published at some point.” DGT is a greek company, Defkalion, that had been working with Rossi years ago but they had a falling out of sorts and have been working on stuff independently from Rossi. They had a demonstration of their system at ICCF-18.
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 8:37 pm
More evidence of why nuclear power plants cannot compete.
http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
Yeah, thanks, we know that, Roger … and it applies for now, while gas is abundant (oversupplied, even), but you perhaps underestimate the determination of our ‘green fanatics’ to save the planet strictly according to their beliefs.
Gas is a handy fill in, and from what we know know could get us through the next 200 years unsullied, but, never underestimate the destructive power of green idealistic fanaticist stupidity.
It has worked ‘nicely’ on nuclear power, and possibly will also do so on gas.