like for real i would happily distribute these all over the place
― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
wait isn't this a noise band
― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
ha, thanks for the early support! I've never distributed a zine before, although I have made one just for me and my friends (the "1610 Anthony Beat", which provided the daily news for where I was living, complete with exhaustive coverage of what I thought the cats were thinking about). I'm going to try to make this one decent, lightly footnote the comments so that I can provide some actual information on the last page, and throw in some appropriate artwork.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
I like this pair:
I think that this type of indoctrination is pathetic. I have given my kids the information they need to shoot down most of the drivel that they are exposed to. One good letter to the teacher a couple of years ago and Bill Nye (Global Warming Moron Guy) was banished from the school. The kids have current events homework once a week and they always take debunking material in for that. We figure that way we are counter-acting the programing for the other kids as well. The down side is that some of the kids (including mine) have started to poke fun at teachers who insist on spouting the "end of the world" stuff. They get in trouble at school for it, but I buy em an ice cream on the way home from school.
"Growing up, my parents did a great job of letting me be a kid. I didn't know what was happening in Vietnam, the recession in the 70s, Watergate or the gas rationing. We were kids and our biggest decision was where to play today.
Today, adults think children need to know this crap. They change the school curriculum to address social problems in America, instead of teaching math, English, reading, history, etc. I would imagine these areas had to be cut, in terms of time spent on learning this, to include such wasteful topics as global warming, sex education, etc.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
― cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:22 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:22 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I spend a lot of time calling some very good friends who don't believe in technological solutions to climate change or that an attempt to maintain living standards in the west whilst mitigating climate change 'lentil eaters' after an outburst accusing them of wanting us all to eat lentils in the dark, but this is friendly jibe. (If i am feeling uncharitable I will tell my activist friends to go back to school and get an engineering degree if they want to change the world, I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating, sometimes I a nasty cynical person.).
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
You have to admit it IS kind of disconcerting that Bill Nye was apparently lurking around at the school like some creep all the time.
― cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:40 (5 years ago) Permalink
My only worry is with copyright issues. Is there a copyright on comments published on a blog? I mean, I know that skirting around copyright has been central to zine culture from the very beginning, but I'd rather not have to deal with cease and desist letters either.
On the other hand, I do not expect (or even want) to make ANY money with this, only to recoup part of the printing/shipping costs.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
OMG you guys we might be running out of wind!
― Chubby Checker Psycho (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
I am a sort of energy guy as well - I work for a renewable energy company in a trading / marketing capacity, managing scheduling and contracts in the deregulated North-Eastern power markets. I have a business administration background and I'm working on an economics degree so I am extremely unlikely to solve any of the world's problems.
― Matt D, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
Don't knock yourself, you are the guys who are going to make my stuff a success.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah I don't have an engineering degree either - I kinda fell into this work after endless temp gigs at the local utility (PG&E)
― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
(altho that was a long time ago - I've been working for my current company for almost 10 years now)
I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating
dude for real
― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm not ragging on those without technical qualifications and realise the importance of advocacy, we wouldn't be this far along the road without it, I just favour a more directly practical approach.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:40 (5 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, good point: literature has never changed people's lives.
― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
(i totally get yr point, by the way Ed, I just had to stick up for my peoples.)
― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
Like I say the importance of everything from Thoreau through Rachel Carson right up to the day after tomorrow but I was thinking of a particular unemployed semi-professional activist I know.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
Trust me when I say I don't think he is going to bust out the next Silent Spring.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
LOL. I know who you are ragging on but until you learn to spell, engineer boy, don't even go there! World will be unsaved due to some typo-related glitch in yr masterplan.
― 502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
discovering that mil was means 1/1000th of an inch in american and not a handy abbreviation for millimetres yesterday was a more likely cause of failure. (I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission", we are hopefully quite alive to this). ;-P
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Besides they are getting me a harvard MBA to take care of things like spelling for me.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
Harvard MBA probably cannot spell either, claims to have minion for such things as well. I am beginning to think bad spelling in whatever language will be the downfall of everyone as it highlights lack of observational skills (you're surrounded by correct examples to look at and still FAIL).
Your clue about 'mil' is that it ain't 'mm'. DUHHHHHH.
― 502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
This was a verbal, rather than written things. NB I don't write professionally in ILX style.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission"
lolz I remember that - that was some funny (and very expensive) shit
― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
OK then you have an out, but whenever I've seen yr pro writing you have to be led gently through 'corrections' before you can get that sucker out there. BTW the best and worst thing that could have ever happened to crown me Spelling Bitch was acing MENSA spelling test given by bored English teacher when I was 15/16ish, which is prob not unique on ILX.
Be sure and drop N a line, letting her know how you're getting on. She'll be tickled about factory news.
― 502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
Anyway, groping back towards topic:
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
"Nobody has solved the issue of the '2012 supply gap' which may emerge later than thought but which will be deeper. It means prices may even jump over the $250 hurdle we have forecast a year ago," said Miller.
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
2012 comes from the IEA report from a few years back, but I'd say the "supply gap" will most likely occur when the economy "recovers" from the recession. Global oil production peaked in the 1st quarter of 2008 (declining slightly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2008, before the recession), indicating that there was already the beginning of a supply crunch in 2008, because prices during 2nd and 3rd quarters were at record highs yet production declined.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:49 (5 years ago) Permalink
WRT peak resources this work is really interesting:
― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 19:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
Joe Romm has a good post discussing Waxman-Markey, and in particular, the idea that if it fails to gain passage the EPA would easily take up the slack. The key part is here:
Many people, including some commenters here, are under the misimpression that absent passage of this bill, the EPA can and will use the endangerment finding to achieve comparable regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act. That view has several flaws.
First, whatever Obama might do with the EPA — and it would take many, many years to put in place a program that could substantially reduce existing emissions (see below) — could be undone by a subsequent administration, which is not true of climate legislation. Politically, it would be quite easy for a future President to simply stop the EPA process in its tracks or allow the myriad lawsuits against it that will inevitably occur to delay the process to death. What political cost could their be if the forces of denial and delay had already triumphed and stopped the US political system from embracing comparable legislative action? Undoing a law that was passed by Congress, however, and then used as the basis for international negotiations, would be hard even for a President Palin to do.
Second, whatever Obama might do with the EPA, the rest of the world would know that the United States political system is incapable of agreeing to binding targets, so that would certainly be all-but fatal to the international negotiation process or a bilateral deal with China.
Third, if Congress rejects this bill, then, domestically, legislative action on greenhouse gas emissions will be dead for a long time. How long did it take before we got a chance to take up serious health care legislation after it died? How long since we reconsidered an energy tax after the BTU tax died? How long since we have passed major legislation to strengthen the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act to deal with obvious dangers to public health? Still waiting!
Fourth, the EPA authority is most easily translated into regulating emissions from new sources. Obama has already announced the strongest regulations ever for tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. That mostly leaves new coal, which was already starting to collapse, thanks in part to the renewables and efficiency in the stimulus package
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Tuesday, 23 June 2009 21:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
Waxman-Markey set to pass the House
― Suckanoosik Chamber of Commerce (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
Is there a handy guide to what is actually in Waxman-Markey, I am assuming it is substantially different from what was originally presented and pretty watered down.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
seems like its changing daily
― Suckanoosik Chamber of Commerce (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
What's sad about the GOP talking point about Waxman-Markey being too complicated and long to understand is that its complexity is at least partly a consequence of near-total incompetence and inaction on climate and energy over the past (GOP dominated) decade.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
this also seems to be getting rushed because the Dems fear 1994 all over again and want to cram as much in before the summer in Obama's first year in office. I'm sure something will come out of this but I am sure it will be a mess riddled with loopholes, exemptions and boondoggles.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:52 (5 years ago) Permalink
that GOP thing is hilarious (I like how energy companies, utilities, and oil companies aren't even on there lolz)
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
but also what Ed said.
nonetheless I'm absolutely convinced its better than the alternative, which is nothing
What's also frustrating is that several of the points highlighted at the top of that chart can be so easily refuted.
FAMILIES > Higher Prices > Power Bills & Heating and Cooling Bills- An analysis of Waxman-Markey recently released by the EPA found that by 2020 electricity bills would be LOWER (7%, to be exact), even if electricity prices were higher. Why? The energy efficiency provisions in the bill would help to lower household demand enough to more than offset the rise in rates, resulting in a lower overall monthly bill for the average American.
FARMERS > Higher Prices > Food Prices- Unless GMO crops miraculously save the day (and I don't think they will), we've got an impending global food crisis, which is bound to drive up food prices even without climate legislation. The combination of rapidly growing populations, rising affluence, a lack of additional suitable cropland, water scarcity and erosion have already made the prospects of feeding 3 billion more people by 2050 bleak. Climate change, while possibly marginally increasing crop yields for the part of the world that shifts into more favorable temperature range, will almost certainly be a huge net loss for farmers because of increased drought, severe weather events, disruption of summer mountain meltwater than many farmers depend on, desertification, and on and on and on. Attempting to halt climate legislation to "help" the farmers if fucking absurd.
DRIVERS > Higher Prices > Gasoline Prices
Again, the writing on the wall about gasoline prices has been evident for many years. We are likely at peak oil already, with only a global economic crisis to temporarily dampen gas prices. Options: Vastly revamp public transportation systems so that owning a car isn't mandatory in most of the United States at it is now, improve fuel economies of vehicles to match those of Europe and Japan, invest heavily in electric powered vehicles and electric battery storage capabilities. Or...be like the GOP and pretend that the Earth's resources aren't finite.
WORKERS > Lost Jobs- uuuuugh. Can anyone point me to a credible source that DOESN'T think that clean energy jobs will one of the most important industries of this century? If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
Also, this from the ACEEE:
June 24, 2009
Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Changes to ACEEE’s analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule’s Committee version of the bill released yesterday.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.
this newfangled contraption is going to completely decimate the horseshoe industry!
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
Watching this House debate on C-SPAN is absolutely tearing my stomach up. Take me to the hospital, fuck.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 19:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
Livebloggin' the appearance of Boehner's awesome chart at the ACES debate
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
he is a complete douchebag.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
so irritated at the Republicans' refusing to satisfy my twisted, radical environmentalist desires
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
Hawaii thing is crazy. we've done some work there (and tried to get more) but omg it is such a nightmare dealing with them
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 June 2014 23:03 (11 months ago) Permalink
I mean this is just insane:
MECO had been curtailing 28 percent of the output from three wind farms in deference to its own, more expensive, oil-fired generation. This was wasting almost 16 gigawatt-hours of power a year -- a number expected to rise to more than 54 gigawatt-hours.
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 June 2014 23:08 (11 months ago) Permalink
Without knowing more I can't be exact but it is not always possible to curtail the output of a thermal plant below a certain value and stopping and starting a thermal plant can be expensive and time consuming. This is the nature of base load power. Without large scale energy storage we are going to see more and more of these anomalous situations where power at essentially zero marginal cost is being dumped in favour of power with significant marginal costs because of the need to provide a reliable network.
Islanded grids like Hawaii are the canary in the coal mine, the current grid model does not suit renewables and highly distributed generation. Now we have renewables that are at parity, if not cheaper, than traditional fossil options we have to rethink the grid. The grid was designed as a hierarchical centralised system to maximise the efficiency of a few large generators. It needs to transition to a peer-network of smaller distributed generators, storage and loads. Theres obviously the massive issue of incumbent monopolies holding on sunk capital that they expect or have been promised a return on. The model that drove those investments is no longer fit for purpose.
For MECO to move beyond the above situation they would have to write off/down significant assets which is finically untenable and make massive new capital investments in storage so they can dispense with the oil plant. In the mean time more and more customers will discover that they can meet their own needs partially or wholly from solar, storage and other technologies, diminishing revenues for the utilities. The utilities are in a bind of their own making but most people will still need a network to provide reliability, I'm not sure the utilities are agile enough to move to the new model, but they currently own the infrastructure needed to support that model
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 12 June 2014 00:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
topping and starting a thermal plant can be expensive and time consuming
this is a big part of the problem in Hawaii as I understand it
― polyamanita (sleeve), Thursday, 12 June 2014 00:14 (11 months ago) Permalink
more on Hawaii today:
― polyamanita (sleeve), Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:33 (11 months ago) Permalink
I was referring to their building wind farms before dealing with the tie-in issues, if that wasnt clear. My company was doing some pv feasibility studies for some prospectively huge installations and the big issue we came up against was tying them into the grid, regulatory issues, etc. Their regulatory framework is totally fucked up and outdated. HECO is going to have to eat some capital losses, there's no way around it.
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
somewhere on ILX (I don't think it's in this thread), you discussed the process by which you/your employer were "writing down" oil assets? Can you maybe find that for me?
If anybody else can dig it up, thanks in advance
― sleeve, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:41 (7 months ago) Permalink
kind of bump, because actually i'd be quite interested in that as well, but also to record a chance encounter flying back from Glasgow earlier in the year, that had a slightly Ballardian flavour to it.
Had taken my seat by the window, and a well-groomed late thirties early forties man in a relaxed but expensive suit sat down beside me, having had a short discussion in Spanish with the person in front, and then turned to me said hello, and asked me what I'd been up to in Glasgow, in the accents of 'international English', (slightly soft 'classless' tones and deracinated vowels) which, being expressive of a non-English-speaking background is quite exotic and appealing to me. I explained briefly, wary of a bore, but felt it was polite to ask him also what he'd been doing.
Turned out he'd been setting up an offshore windfarm. He was an an engineer who specialised in renewable energy. This was certainly interesting enough to want to continue, and he told me a bit about the engineering challenge about fixing large windmills in often turbulent seas, and the heavy duty sub-marine structures required.
I said I felt that as an industry outsider it was often difficult to get a sense about the effectiveness of renewable energy from the press and media generally.
He gave me a bit of energy 101 (stuff i could have probably worked out, but which it was useful to be told clearly and by an expert) - that the big problem was not generating energy, it was storing it, and that for anything bigger than a mid-sized house, batteries were unfeasible. He also pointed out that the only large-scale battery or way to store energy available on earth had used the same technology for thousands of years, which was that of damming reservoirs.
The well-known consequent problem for energy sources like windfarms and solar power being that their main power sources are variable and intermittent in force.
The UK energy sector is required to use any resources of renewable energy *before* using non-renewable energy power generation. I need to be careful about my terminology here because, as this person pointed out, renewable energy is not the same as 'clean' energy necessarily, and 'clean' or 'green' energy is not the same as renewable energy. Renewable energy sources include wind and solar power, but also chip-wood burning generators (a quickly growing industrial use a friend of mine who started out as a woodcutter and woodland manager is currently making a sizable amount of cash from). 'Clean' energy can, I believe, also include nuclear energy, which is not renewable. Some of this categorisation is ignored or confused in much media coverage I think.
I asked if we'd reach a stage where we could rely totally on renewable energy (let's stick with that phrase for the moment). He said that in fact there have been numerous days in recent years where 100% of the UK's energy requirements had been sourced using renewable energy. However, at times of high levels of usage, the amount generated wasn't sufficient for national requirements.
There is a slogan, he said, being used in the industry and in government, which is 20 by 20 - that is to say, 20% of yearly energy use being provided using renewable energy by the year 2020, and I believe that a 25% level was being set for 2025.
What were the biggest challenges? He asked me how long I expected a power plant to be in use for. I suggested a couple of generations. He said it was about 25 years. He then asked what sort of time frames banks looked at when investing. 7 years? He said it was actually more like 14, but with a 7 year break/assessment point. Then he asked how long governments tended to plan for, and I laughed and said 'an electoral cycle?' and he said 'right.'
He explained the challenge they had was securing the large amount of funding required to set up a windfarm, and his job, which was in part salesman (unsurprisingly, given his smooth but not unpleasing conversation), was to secure funding from lots of different places.
There are some more details, which were probably interesting, but which I've forgotten, but we moved on to talk a bit about my work and some of the challenges there, and also about his family, and it was here that I felt something almost sinister sitting to one side of him, something in the way he talked about his wife and children. It was very proprietorial, there was a strange sense of anger and need to control that seemed to come from frustrations with his father. They 'won't do' this, of course 'they don't understand the details'.
We disembarked at City airport, but happened to meet again on the tube from City, and he struck up conversation in a more jocular tone, about what men could expect from women - something along the lines of 'you've got to know how to get what you want, right?' followed by a wink. I found all this allied with his general bland approachability and appearance, and clear intelligence, unpleasant and irritating, especially as I've always been terrible at knowing how to get what I want, or even what I want in the first place, and perhaps slightly naively dislike generic assumptions about men and women, or me for that matter. The sinister configurations or disjunctions of his personality, which had been only latent or possibly even projected earlier in the journey, had now become more clearly visible - these configurations being unreformed personal beliefs as hidden components of his futuristic manner and job. It was this that reminded me of Ballard.
He gave me his card and said I should get in touch as it had been pleasant talking to me. I think I may have thrown it away, though it may be buried in with the heap of other business cards lying around in drawers at home. I felt both repulsed and intrigued - I have no desire to see him at all again, and am at the same time curious to know more.
― Fizzles, Saturday, 11 October 2014 14:10 (7 months ago) Permalink
What in the world is Lockheed Martin smoking
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 19 October 2014 22:19 (7 months ago) Permalink
The annoucement seems premature, as all Skunk Works® has announced to date is a plasma chamber where the plasma provides most of the magnetic field confinement, structured so the field increases as particles depart the high pressure/fusing zone. LM is speculating the small size and short development cycles of its design will permit ramping up pressures and energy payback in a way that's not possible for massive tokamaks of the traditional magnetic confinement approach.
A talk from Charles Chase on LM's design from last December.http://www.youtube.com/JAsRFVbcyUY?t=4m37s
― TTAGGGTTAGGG (Sanpaku), Monday, 20 October 2014 01:04 (7 months ago) Permalink
― TTAGGGTTAGGG (Sanpaku), Monday, 20 October 2014 01:05 (7 months ago) Permalink
There's no discussion from LM on how they'll deal with the 14.1 MeV neutrons flying out at 0.173 c from the deuterium-tritium fusion cycle. These cause all sorts of problems like transmution, embrittlement and cracking in reactor materials. Nor how they'll source their tritium, a rather expensive material. They're probably planning on breeding it by irradiating a lithium blanket within the reactor with all those neutrons, but even ITER isn't sure how that will pan out.
Most of this stuff is well beyond my expertise, but I've been casually following fusion research since I first learned the word "tokamak" in a 1980 Omni magazine article.
― TTAGGGTTAGGG (Sanpaku), Monday, 20 October 2014 01:33 (7 months ago) Permalink
Man this sounds promising.
― schwantz, Monday, 20 October 2014 01:41 (7 months ago) Permalink
most of the reaction I've seen is people acting like this is totally bunk, but would Lockheed fucking Martin just come out with something silly like that?
I know there's other things in the news but this seems like a big deal.
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 20 October 2014 21:31 (7 months ago) Permalink
I like the part where every revision doesn't require a bunch of different governments to pony up billions of dollars.
― schwantz, Monday, 20 October 2014 22:31 (7 months ago) Permalink
The more I look into it, the more I think tritium supplies will be the obstacle to D-T fusion. The ITER project (alone) will use most of the world supply, and I'm not convinced breeding tritium in a lithium blanket (basically, use molten lithium as the plasma chamber coolant, and pull ditritium gas from it) will work. And of course, if it does work, everyone with one of these can turn any fission triggers in their arsenal into much higher yield H-bombs. So much for powering volatile Africa or South Asia.
― TTAGGGTTAGGG (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 00:39 (7 months ago) Permalink
Tesla Powerwall is back-ordered through the summer of 2016 already:
Forbes is not impressed:
― sleeve, Thursday, 7 May 2015 17:52 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
somewhere on ILX (I don't think it's in this thread), you discussed the process by which you/your employer were "writing down" oil assets? Can you maybe find that for me?
― sleeve, Wednesday, October 1, 2014 8:41 AM (7 months ago)
― sleeve, Thursday, 7 May 2015 17:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Its basic accounting - the assets in question are judged unlikely to be worth the value they're carried on the books, so some or all of the "book value" is removed from the assets column on the balance sheet, and becomes a loss on the income / P & L sheet. Its a paper loss, not representing a current unrecovered cash outflow, but because it reduces income a write down can be used to reduce tax liabilities.
― The Painter of Blight™ (Sanpaku), Thursday, 7 May 2015 20:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink