|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. First paragraph: "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:54:03 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. First paragraph: "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy." .... "some startups say..." Yup, sounds like a business pitch to me, too... \Paul A |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 19:54:00 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. First paragraph: "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy." Exactly. Like I said, a business news story reporting on the claims of some businesses. The claim is not being made by the reporter. And while the estimates of the businesses may be wrong- very likely are wrong- it's still news. I'm interested to know that there are private companies out there trying these things. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishesrubbish
On 16/11/2018 15:28, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in : On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say" XXX say is standard journalise for "we don't believe it either" but these folk were daft enough to say it on the record. It is a bit like "The jury were told" as a way round strict UK contempt of court rules... The same as they've been saying for 50+ years. Not quite - they have been saying we are just a mere 50 years from having fusion power and electricity too cheap to meter for more than 50 years. They have always been hopelessly optimistic about how easy it would be to tame thermonuclear fusion. Even the best kit so far barely makes break even on a good day and getting the energy out in a form where it can be used to generate electricity remains a challenge. No doubt it will be used to power the self-piloting flying cars that run on desktop Linux, justl ike everything else. Android for droids - please. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishesrubbish
On 18/11/2018 03:54, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. First paragraph: "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These are the weasel words. It isn't any different in principle from any other start-up promising amazing returns if you invest in their bubble. that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy." ^^^^^ Again note the wording carefully. It promises a lot and will in all probability deliver absolutely nothing. There is another very effective free energy scam been doing the rounds that has taken in some agencies that I would have expected to be smart enough not to fall for it. https://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ssis-black-box LENR aka eCat whose CEO is a known con-man called Rossi - you couldn't make it up but someone was daft enough to pay good money for a license. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...thout-success/ -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Even relatively honest but left-wing BBC sometimes publishes rubbish
On Monday, 19 November 2018 04:47:05 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2018 03:54, RichA wrote: On Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:17:50 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Friday, 16 November 2018 09:57:39 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:28:17 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46219656 What's "rubbish" about it? It's a legitimate news story about something that some businesses are claiming they can do. That's what good reporting looks like. Parroting, with no criticality. Lets say they find out that much smaller designs (which is what the article dealt with) made sustained fusion possible. They shut down the NIF and ITER, billions wasted. Now how, given the difficulty of just confining the plasma, are they going to siphon off power from it? Will it consist in just wicking away heat to convert to electricity, as they do now with fission reactors? Fusion is still inevitably 50-100 years in the future, best case. Worst case, it never happens. Reality; fission reactors are here and perfected. The fuel they use, the cost is one the least costly components of the plant, unlike with oil, gas. There is no upside to replacing huge, efficient fission plants with some kind of speculative fusion power. It's just a news story about a business. Not about fusion. In the business section, not the science section. First paragraph: "We're just five years away from harnessing almost unlimited power from "miniature suns", some start-ups say: nuclear fusion reactors ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These are the weasel words. It isn't any different in principle from any other start-up promising amazing returns if you invest in their bubble. that could provide abundant, cheap and clean energy." ^^^^^ Again note the wording carefully. It promises a lot and will in all probability deliver absolutely nothing. There is another very effective free energy scam been doing the rounds that has taken in some agencies that I would have expected to be smart enough not to fall for it. https://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ssis-black-box LENR aka eCat whose CEO is a known con-man called Rossi - you couldn't make it up but someone was daft enough to pay good money for a license. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...thout-success/ -- Regards, Martin Brown It isn't really much different than the stuff I read on science sites like phys.org. The number of prognostications of near immediate promises of wonderful things to come on that site that actually turned into anything is very small. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any comet images beside this rubbish from left-wing Guardian newspaper | RichA[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | November 14th 14 04:45 AM |
Left-wing envirokooks better not oppose this | Rich[_4_] | Amateur Astronomy | 72 | December 11th 10 12:27 PM |
not for left wing loones | David Staup | Misc | 62 | February 4th 10 12:35 AM |
Shuttles Left Wing Again??? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 7 | December 24th 06 08:14 PM |
Discovery's left wing STS-114 | Alan Pretre | Space Shuttle | 11 | October 21st 04 06:57 PM |