Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » FogerRox » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
FogerRox's Journal - Archives
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jun 29th 2009, 06:09 PM
This is part 3 of a 3 part series. Part one is here
& Part two is here If you like what you read please consider recommending all 3 parts, thanks. Roger Fox.

The giant donut shaped fusion rector being built in France, an international effort to harvest the energy of a star called ITER has been rethought, a slower more deliberative construction process has emerged, as cost go up and the completion date gets pushed back. All for something that'll be run for 500 seconds and shut down, fore ever.

All for something that I believe will never yield a watt of commercial generation.

Tokamaks became all the buzz after a Soviet breakthru in the late 1960's. In the US, Robert Hirsch became Director of the US Atomic Energy Commission, and picked Dr Robert Bussard as his number 2 man. Together the 2 men lobbied Congress for a US Tokamak program, as well as funding for other plasma/fusion projects.

Both men have since voiced their doubts on the commercial viability of the Tokamak design, Dr Bussard going as far as publicly saying the Tokamak wont work, and spending the last 15-16 years of his life working on an alternative to toridial fusion.



Originaly some 11 or 12 billion, 14 or 15 billion seems to be the number we hear today. I think an operational ITER will cost 25 billion by 2026.

Four years ago, ITER was priced at around 10 billion euros (13.8 billion dollars today), spread among its stakeholders, led by the EU, which has a 45-percent share.
physorg.com/news

ITER fusion experiment faces three-year delay

Fusion falters under soaring costs

Smaller reactor design for fusion may work in a "pinch"




This is a bad time for ITER proponents, I remember when we thought the Polwell was dead in the water. It was the pits.

The nadir for Polywell & Dr Bussard was in early 2006 when he was invited to make a tech talk at Google. Bussard's last test reactor had had a short circuit, he had to clean out the lab quickly as his contract had ended. All his equipment in storage, no job, a Phisyst on the lame, if you will, Bussard gave the talk at Google, and a video was posted of the talk.

An Enviromental group approached Dr Bussard with 3 million in VC, but they couldn't come to terms, it seemed like a year went by without any interest.

Then the Navy steps back in with 1.8 million bucks to build a new reactor just like the old reactor to see just what was going on on, before the experiment was cut short by the short circuit. Works starts with a core of followers on the internet following the project, most after finding Bussard's Google TechTalk video. Then Dr Bussard died, he had cancer.

So what do you do with a project that more resembles a vacuum tube from the days of radio, before even TV became popular, when all the experts are in their 80's or 90's? Well over at Los Alamos they decide they could spare a certain Dr Richard Nebel , Rick took over the team after Dr Bussards death and finished WB-7, adding lots of measuring instrumentation that there never was time for on WB-6. All that good test data went in front of a Navy peer review panel. And now Polwell has gotten the attention of the Obama Administration, and 2 years worth of contracts should keep the team at EMC2Fusion busy for a while.
Part 3 of a 3 part series on Polywell, Part one in here,
Part two is here.



In 2 years Dr Nebel says he'll know if Polywell will work on a large scale. At that point he wants to build a net power Proton Boron-11 fusion reactor. If Polwell works, great, it'll replace coal plants. All of them. Fission nukes? Yep. A one way trip to Mars in a QED Polywell ship: 38 days. And lots of electric cars.

Top Polywell Comments from last week:

Paul Goodman:

Do you mind if I don't hold my breath?

Kafkanada:

Dr Bussard is awesome.
For a tour de force presentation of detailed scientific exposition, you can't beat the video below which I saw referenced in your previous diary and thought worth touting again. This is Dr. Bussard speaking to a group of Google people about fusion and Polywell. What a ride! He delves into wizard like insights about some on the edge physical processes. It's one and a half hours, but worth the journey to a realm most of us never go.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...

Read entry | Discuss (9 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jun 29th 2009, 05:24 PM
Everyone in the Polywell fusion forum, talk polywell.org has been very excited over the last few months, as details have emerged on a 2 year program of building test Polywells to flesh out how plasma behaves in a Polywell.

In a nut shell D. Nebel @ EMC2Fusion in Santa Fe says he will will know within 2 years if Polywell is boom or bust. Net Power Proton Boron fusion by 2015. Commercial rollout 2020.


And now let me put aside the scientific mumbo jumbo and break it down for those non geek sciencey types.

Dr Bussards development of the Polywell started after he begain to have doubts about the Tokamak fusion research that he and then Dir. US Atomic Energy Commission, Robert Hirsch had advocated for in the early 1970's. Dr Bussard passed away not too long ago, but his work has continued @ EMC2Fusion under Dr Rick Nebel.

Polywell fusion is spherical instead of the donut shape of the Tokamak. Polywell accelerates particles so fast, when they hit, they cause fusion. Anyway, do you remember how 2 magnets can repulse or attract each other? Well Electrons and magnetic fields can do the same, heres how:

We start out with 6 ring shaped magnets like this:



We then put that core in a vacuum chamber:



And we squirt some electrons into the middle as we apply electricity to the magnets, the magnetic fields squeeze down on the electrons, who huddle together in solidarity... and push back at the magnetic fields.

Now electrons are wild and crazy particles, they are just filled with energy, always moving and spinning around and stuff. Lets call that kinetic energy. But the Magnetic fields are squeezing down so hard on the electrons, the electrons can hardly move, so the kinetic energy becomes potential energy. This is called a potential well, and it behaves like a gravity well.

So on to the fusion. If we now inject our fuel ions (in gas form) just inside the magnetic fields, the ions see the potential well and are attracted to it, they race from the edge to the center, if an ion doesn't crash into another ion, the ion just ends up shooting across to the other side, where it sees the potential well and starts its plunge all over again. When the ions do crash into each other you get fusion.

To be clear this is a disruptive technology. Polywells can replace the 75% of our electricity we get from coal and fission nuke generation. By 2050 liquid fuels will be quaint, petroleum reserves supplying the plastics industry and niche transportation needs. Electricity's role in transportation will grow as liquid fuel's role shrinks.

Polywell fusion plants on the Moon, La Grange point stations powered by Polywell's. Fusion powered space ships, Mars in 38 days, Saturn in 76 days.



Top Polywell Comments 6/21/09

Bob Guyer from 6/21/09:

If this works and then is rapidly deployed to eliminate coal, and then liquid fuels, it would obviously make a big difference in our ability to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Top Polywell Comment for May 2009

By TylerFromNE

We know the physical economics of fusion.

Namely, that it's the most powerful known reaction in the universe other than matter-antimatter annihilation. Of course, since antimatter almost certainly doesn't exist in nature (as an aside, the reason why there's matter at all, and why matter and antimatter weren't both annihilated in the first seconds of the universe's existence, is a rather perplexing unanswered question in physics), nuclear fusion is the most energetic source of power known to exist.

It is therefore a certainty that, at a large enough scale, nuclear fusion is the most economical form of power generation.


And finally here is the Fusion for Dummies video from the Polywell fusion wiki:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmp1cg3-WDY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

This is part 2 of a 3 part series, part one is here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

I just posted part 3:



Thanks for the recs.
Read entry | Discuss (62 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jun 29th 2009, 05:09 PM
Yeah I know Fusion is 50 years away, right? And Fusion makes lots of radioactive waste anyway, right? Stellarators, Focus, Pinch, ZEE. Whatever.

Not anymore.





The great big international effort at donut shaped fusion in France:ITER, is slated to use Deuterium and Tritium fuel, creating insane numbers of neutrons, radioactivity.

There are many different types of fusion fuel.

Helium, Lithium, Deuterium, & Boron 11 can be used, resulting in different levels of power and radioactivity. Some fuels like Helium (He) or Proton Boron 11 (PB-11), create exponentially less radioactivity (100k-1mill) than a typical Fission nuke plant. Pre solicitions have gone out to EMC2Fusion in Santa Fe to build 2 more Polywell fusion reactors including one to use PB-11 fuel. Right, the Proton Boron-11 reaction, unheard of you say? Thats pretty much true, I think PB-11 fusion has only been done once in a lab back in the 1950's, so its quite rare.


In Santa Fe the EMC2Fusion team is working on Polywell fusion research, led by Dr Rick Nebel, they hope to lead the way to practical everyday fusion that becomes the main source for electricity on our little planet.

Dr Nebel says 2 yrs boom or bust, then he will know if Polywell works and will be ready to build a net power reactor, one that uses Pb-11, thats right, Dr Nebel is talking about a PB-11 Net Power reactor by 2015. I suspect that by around 2015 we will know if coal plants and fission nukes are obsolete. Yes this is Dr. Bussards Polywell, if only the Doc could be here, (He passed about a year ago)

Dr Bussards development of the Polywell started in the 1980's with DARPA funding, and then more recently under Navy funding. The Navy wants Polywell as a replacement for shipboard fission nukes, 100,000 to a million times less radioactive, and at as little as 30 ft across for an entire plant (1000-1200MW) using the PB-11 reaction. And in some circles, folks relish the idea of a compact 1200MW to power some laser or something, but thats a whole nother diary or 2 or 3.

Time line Refresher:

1. 2005 Bussard shorts out WB-6

2. Bussard made his Google Tech Talk video.

3. .Got a contract for WB-7

4. Dr Bussard Passes.

5. Nebel joins team, finishes WB-7.

6. WB-7 Peer review.

7. Contracts for WB-7.1 are let.

8.2009 Contracts for WB-8, WB.1 and then WB-9, WB-9.1 pdf.

From the Nebel interview over at Next Big Future.

Question: When is the earliest that an actual fusion plant based on your concept could be built?
Answer: The project that we hope to have out within the next six years will probably be a demo, which won't have the attendant secondary equipment necessary for electricity generation. Hopefully the demo will demonstrate everything that is needed to put a full-scale working plant into commercial production. So if the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020.

Question: What do you estimate a kilowatt hour from your fusion reactor to cost?
Answer: We are looking at 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour. That should make electricity generation less expensive than any alternative, including coal and nuclear. So if this technology works it will be like a silver bullet, and be fundamentally superior to any competing technology. The issue is whether it works or not.



Can you say: "Liquid fuels will be quaint by 2050"?

Part 2 can be found here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
Read entry | Discuss (67 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in New Jersey
Sat Oct 25th 2008, 07:49 PM
Tom Wyka is making his second run against neo con Rodney Frelinghuysen, Rodney votes with Bush 88% of the time. Tom's fundraising has been good enough to make some tv buys, and buy 60 slots for this radio spot, you can help pay for more radio time for this ad.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMmHFBV3F8

Act blue for Toms radio spots:

http://www.actblue.com/page/wyka2008
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Oct 20th 2008, 12:55 AM
NYT

Bob Bauer, general counsel for the Obama campaign, sent a letter to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Nora R. Dannehy, who is investigating the attorney firings, requesting that Ms. Dannehy also look into the whether F.B.I. investigations of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, were politically motivated.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10... /
>>>>>>>>>

Fox News

Bob Bauer, the campaign's general counsel, said on a conference call that it seemed law enforcement officials were in cahoots with the Republican operatives.


Bauer referred to the Associated Press report Thursday that quoted officials as saying the FBI had opened an investigation into ACORN. The report said the FBI was looking at recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for evidence of a national scam.

The campaign's letter to Mukasey suggested the "leaks" were allowed as part of a Justice Department "collusion."


ACORN says:


"We call on the McCain campaign to directly answer whether they, the Republican Party or their operatives have been conspiring with the Bush Administration to misuse the Justice Department in order to suppress voter turnout in 2008,"


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/17/ob... /
>>>>>>>>>


CNN's Drew Griffin reversed his line of reporting right after the Obama campaign wrote to the DOJ. Prior to the Bob Bauer letter to the DOJ, Media Matters had cited 54 examples of CNN not telling the whole ACORN story,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/18/1...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810160020
>>>>>>>


Now the AP decides to get its the facts right:


Tova Wang of Common Cause. "But it doesn't get reported that ACORN finds these registrations errors themselves. They flag them as being no good, but they have to turn them in anyway." "They don't get processed," she said. "And Mickey Mouse is not going to vote."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_...
>>>>>>>


I think there are those in the media that do not want to run afoul of the Obama Administration. One letter from Obama's lawyer, and Bush stenographers CNN, Fox News, and the Associated PRess reverse course and actually do something called.... journalism.


One can buy into the horseshit, or even spread the horseshit ones self, but one will be remebered by ones actions, and posts.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Oct 19th 2008, 06:20 PM
My last day at work was thursday, I'm doing 80 hrs a week for Barack Obama and Tom Wyka for Congress (NJ-11). I will be running canvasses 6 days a week, dropping off phonebank from home kits for people that dont or cant canvass. Delivering lawn signs, making up canvass packets for the next day. I bought a case of paper for my printer, I just bought another box of ink cartidges for my printer. I got my cell phone, my laptop & printer, & my minivan. I dont need an HQ, I am a rolling HQ. I got my own clip boards, pens, OBAMA & WYKA lapel stickers for the Volunteers. I am the campaign, WE are the campaign. 3.1 million donors for Obama, average donation $86 over 22 months, raising 150 million dollars in Sept alone.

In 1932 FDR won by 18%, he swept 97 dems into the House with him, along with 12 more dems in the senate, I'm not just working to win, I'm working to win big, I'm working for the landslide. I'm not leaving anything on the table, I have a little money saved, but I have no job until Nov 5th, that when I go back to work.


I need to ask a favor of all my fellow DU'ers, donate for me, nothing would inspire me more than to see DU break not just 125k, eff dat, make it 150k.. while I organize here in NJ for the change we need NATIONWIDE. When our grandchildren are reading the history of the 2008 Presidential race, we will tell them we were there, in the trenches with Obama, standing shoulder to shoulder, working hand in hand, brother and sister, mothers and fathers demanding the change we need. Those history books will be written, we have to make it happen, we have to write those history books.


I think DU can do better than 100k, better than 125k.

DO I hear a YES WE CAN in the house ?

WE only have 3 more months of George Bush, do you think we can make it ?

YES WE CAN ! !

John McCain has only 3 more weeks left, do you think we can make it ?

YES WE CAN ! !


Can DU break 125k ?

YES WE CAN ! !

PS, show my man Tom Wyka some DU Love, 8 bucks in 2008, help defeat a republican who votes with Bush 87.8% of the time:

http://www.actblue.com/page/wyka2008



Do you think we can make it ?




Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Oct 05th 2008, 11:15 PM
http://keatingeconomics.com /

Read it and weep John McCain, you are toast.

Right time, right place, watch and learn. We need to work like we want to be 20 pts up. In 1932 Dems picked up 97 seats, thats right 97 seats in the House, and 12 in the Senate, thats what Obama is fighting for, the down ticket races and the Super Majority in Congress.

Doood, got your back.






1930: Dems pick up 51 seats in the house. Wiki. Republicans hold onto the majority by 2 seats. In the Senate Dems picked up 8 seats. Wiki. This was the first of four consecutive Senate elections in the Depression in which Democrats made major gains, achieving a cumulative gain of 37 seats.

1932: FDR is elected. On his coat tails, a 97 seat DEM pick up in the House, flipping the House to the Dems. Wiki. And 12 seats are picked up in the US Senate. Wiki. 59 seats in the Senate, plus Minnesota's Henrik Shipstead from the Farm/Labor party.

2004: George Bush reelected, brings 3 republican House wins on his coat tails. Wiki. As well as 4 republican senators. Wiki.

2006: Dems pick up 31 seats in the House flipping the House to the Dems. Wiki. Republicans lost 5 seats in the senate. Wiki.

2008: ?

Dem vote:
2004: 50/48
2006: 52/44
1928: 40/58
1932: 57/39

FDR won 57/39 on 52.5% turnout in 1932, but had significant coat tails.

I think thats how its going to end Obama 57%, McCain 39%.

Now lets get to work...

EDIT:

I looked for recent posts, and saw all the hints and rumors, of this, but I have the actual web site, which might be a scoop.

Sun Tzu: On Dangerous ground maneuver, on deadly ground fight.
Read entry | Discuss (30 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Oct 04th 2008, 08:31 PM
Its about winning big.

Some people say we have to work like we are 10 pts down, well no, I disagree, we have to work like we want to be up by 20 pts.

1928: Republican Herbert Hoover won the White House 58% to 40%, and republicans won 32 seats in the House. Wiki.
Senate republicans gain 7 seats. Wiki.

1930: Dems pick up 51 seats in the house. Wiki. Republicans hold onto the majority by 2 seats. In the Senate Dems picked up 8 seats. Wiki. This was the first of four consecutive Senate elections in the Depression in which Democrats made major gains, achieving a cumulative gain of 37 seats.

1932: FDR is elected. On his coat tails, a 97 seat DEM pick up in the House, flipping the House to the Dems. Wiki. And 12 seats are picked up in the US Senate. Wiki. 59 seats in the Senate, plus Minnesota's Henrik Shipstead from the Farm/Labor party.

2004: George Bush reelected, brings 3 republican House wins on his coat tails. Wiki. As well as 4 republican senators. Wiki.

2006: Dems pick up 31 seats in the House flipping the House to the Dems. Wiki. Republicans lost 5 seats in the senate. Wiki.

2008: ?

Dem vote:
2004: 50/48
2006: 52/44
1928: 40/58
1932: 57/39

FDR won 57/39 on 52.5% turnout in 1932 but had significant coat tails.
LBJ won 61/38 on nearly 62% turnout in '64 while Dems gained 32 in the House to pad an existing majority.

Take a look at the Research 2000 daily tracker courtesy of D-Kos, it is clear that there some similarities between the 1930 midterms and the 2006 midterms. It should be clear the opportunity we have facing us, in 1932 we won 97 seats in the House and 12 seats in the Senate. What is 2008 going to be like?

FDR had a Super Majority, Obama is going to need a Super Majority too, this is what is at stake. FDR's legacy paved the way for the course our country took from 1932 to 1980. Thats 50 years. And right now, the course this country takes over the next 50 years is what we're working for. So yeah, sure, we're 5-10 pts up, but we need to be 20 pts up.

60% of the House is 261 seats, called it 262+ and we need 60% + in the Senate too, call it 62 seats, for a veto proof majority. We need to be up 20 pts come November 4th, we need those coat tails Mr Obama. We need to work like we have to be 20 pts up. Failure is not an option.




And now for the snark portion of our broadcast:

And I have good news for all dems at DU, this January I was in New Hampshire the weekend before the primary. Myself and 3 very good friends drove up Friday afternoon, it turns out the hotel we stayed at was filled with Ron Paul and McCain staffers. And they left McCains bus unguarded..... you know, the Straight Talk Express ?





Lets just say that the "repairs" we made are just now taking effect.
Read entry | Discuss (26 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Sep 27th 2008, 12:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdmywc39XD0

One of 2 really good comebacks by Barack Obama last night. Excellent timing, Obama said I've got a barcelet too . . . . . . . and paused just long enough to let it sink in.

The other good comeback was the comment about McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran".
Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Sep 10th 2008, 11:58 PM

You know the real important stuff...

HELLO DU, they want us to behave like this. When do we get back to the real issues of our day..

When > Nov 5th ?

Does DU and D-kos need a Palin Patrol... sure, but not to forsake these issues of our day. DO we need to keep up the pressure on the Main Stream Media to cover the hypocrisy of McCain & Palin, sure.. most certainly.

I drive a taxi, today I had a unaffiliated voter with a big Libertarian streak in my cab, a regular customer. She told me she was impressed by Obama saying he wont go after Palins family..

She said "it would be nice to have that for 8 years".




Vigilance & restraint.

Roger Fox
Essex field coordinator Tom Wyka for Congress.




EDIT :
I prefer going after the repubs on all fronts, all the issues, Palin included.
Read entry | Discuss (16 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Jul 30th 2008, 06:54 PM
If you're an oil man, taking a look under the surface of ANWR, means looking at drilling reports and seismic reports. Inspite of the quality results from seismic studies, nothing beats drilling samples brought up from the rock you suspect bears oil. A 3-D seismic test, is conducted by vehicles that "shake" the ground the ground and uses thousands of geophones to read sound waves below, can create a sort of stereo seismic computerized image, of the oil-bearing strata under the surface. This technique is responsible for reducing the number of dry wells.
But Seismic test vehicles used by the US Geologic Survey have left long straight scars across the tundra.


So just what do the oil companies know about ANWR ?



Only one well has ever been drilled in ANWR
KIC was drilled in 1985, by the Kaktovik Indians, near the coast of ANWR. Kaktovik Indians drilling report is proprietary, a secret. The Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) then shut the well down & capped the well.
This is ANWR:





Taking a closer look:


To the west of this map is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The little red marked box is an area thought to be an extension of the Pt Thompson reservoir. The 2 big oil fields on Alaskas North Slope are Kuparuk is the 2nd largest oil field in the United States at 20 miles by 15. Prudhoe Bay is the largest at 19 miles by 40 miles.

ANWR's Geology and Potential Petroleum Resources.
Parts of Alaska's North Slope (ANS) coastal plain have proved abundant in oil reserves, and its geology holds further promise. The oil-bearing strata extend eastward from structures in the NPRA, to the 2 billion barrel Kuparuk River field, past the Prudhoe Bay field (originally 11-13 billion barrels, now down to about 4 billion barrels),
and a few smaller fields, and <strong>may continue through ANWR's</strong> 1002 area. Further east in Canada's Mackenzie River delta, once promising structures have not produced significant amounts of oil.

Source.





So there is Prudhoe Bay, the super big oil field, and as you head east you cross the Canadian border and then run into the MacKenzie river. The Canadians have drilled in this area, and as far as I know, no commercial production resulted.

These are 2 good maps





that shows as one moves east, the oil fields get smaller. And here is a composite image on page 3 of this pdf


http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/product...






Even the Energy Information Agency uses lots of qualifiers when speaking about ANWR:



ANWR Production Uncertainties

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. .... based largely on ... neighboring State lands. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil ... in ANWR. ... ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.
Oil field sizes.
The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor....if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.
The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation.


Ok, ya'll following things so far ? Heres the kicker:


This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field.


ANWR is not Prudhoe Bay.



The north west corner of ANWR is said to be home to 4 to 11 billion barrels of oil, not a lot of oil in the larger scheme of things. Oil companies hold 68 million acres in leases, estimated to contain 100 billion barrels of oil, enough to nearly double domestic oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. Three quarters of those 68 million acres lie idle. The Interior Department has estimated 18 billion barrels of oil can be pulled from waters off the U.S. coast that are currently off limits.

But in existing leases there are 100 billion barrels. SO fuck it, lets drill in ANWR and get those 8 or 9 billion barrels, and ignore all the other oil we know is there.


Further reading:

175 to 500 billion barrels in the Dakotas:

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...

90 billion barrels north of Arctic Circle

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?I...

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/product...
Read entry | Discuss (24 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Jul 01st 2008, 08:34 PM
I've been following developments in Polywell fusion for about 2 years. Dr Nebel is running the Polywell program after its founder DR Bussard passed away last year. In short all the critics have been swept away over the last few years, as each new machine brought forward new positive developments. The lab in Santa Fe is home to a small Polywell test fusion rector undergoing test runs over the last 6 months. THe US NAvy has funded this reactor to the tune 1.8 million bucks, and they maintain a publishing embargo on data. But Dr Nebel has been blogging, and recently dropped a bombshell in 2 parts"

1) We're getting data.
2) We might as well build the next one in that size range


The size range DR Nebel is talking about is a 1.5 meter 100 mw net power fusion reactor.

I really thought much more research was in the works, but I now understand where Dr Nebel is coming from. But let me backtrack:

Currently the fuel is "puffed" in gaseous form, there is no carburetor. The fuel ions are puffed in, the plasma lights up, some fusion occurs, and the magnets get very hot. All this occurs in under a second. It takes hours for the magnets to cool down for the next run. Superconducting magnets would solve this problem, but at a much higher cost.

Theory says if you scale up the 35 cm magnets to 2 meters, you will have a 500 mw net power reactor. THis scaling theorrry is unproven. A carburetor also needs to be built. and there is a possibility that slightly different designs can be more efficient.



To address these concerns I thought these 3 should be built simultaneously

1)WB-8, 35cm LN2/carburetor/steady state
2)WB-9, 70cm pulse mode
3) WB-10, 35 cm truncated dodecahedron

Bussard thought the truncated dodecahedron might be better than the truncated cube of WB-6. Reason, the cusps are smaller, the triangular corners of the "cube". THe electrons would have a tougher time escaping, in essence, the electron gyro radius is the same, the little spiral the electron makes as it travels, while the cusps are smaller in the truncated dodec.




truncated dodecahedron



Just thinking out loud here... (do the each of coils have to be a perfect torus?


Good thought, a perfect torus, maybe not.



Lets squeeze it, and the cusps are even smaller now. Since Polywell recirculates the electrons, this sort of thinking is no longer paramount. But ya never know, and for 3 million, why not build one to see what the difference in performance might be.


or is the shape of the well the really important part?)


Yes bigtime.

Todd Riders masters thesis says IEC/Polywell cant go to net power, because of maxwellian thermalization. THis was based on a square well, like at the bottom of this graphic



This means a wide well, not good for Ion focus, as the ions will see a wide target, as they fall to the center. A Parabolic well coaxes the ions to a smaller target, a spiked well would really focus the ions to a single point. Bussard had been working to get a parabolic well as far as I know. Lots of things about polywell seem to be compromises between many factors/issues, in this case we have a square well at one end, at the other a spiked well, and in between the parabolic well.


Nebel is that enthused by the data they're getting? Just the fact that he's willing to mention building a full-size device that generates net power is more than I expected to hear from him at this point.


I had read Nebels comments about going for the 100mw net power size, but it took a week to sink in. He said hes getting data.
Due to the publishing embargo we knew he couldn't tell us WHAT DATA. (neutron counts)


TallDave

so a machine about 1.5M in diameter would in theory be able to produce something around 100MW of net power."


Dr Nebel

Our contention is that since our projections for a power producing device only require a machine like the one TallDave described, we might as well build the next one in that size range and accept the risk.
---
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph...


But even though Nebel can't yet talk about the data, he's proud that he and his colleagues at Emc2 have gotten so far so quickly.

"By God, we built a laboratory and an experiment in nine months," he said, "and we're getting data out of it."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...




If it works, it would completely trump- well, everything else.




WB-7 in its vacume chamber during a fusion run earlier this year.



WB-6 in 2005, ready to go in the vacume chamber.

Schematic video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=67...

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

The cure for peak oil & global warming, in one shot. Cross your fingers, I am.

EDIT: Please rec for visibility.
Read entry | Discuss (73 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Jun 24th 2008, 12:10 AM
College students in Peninsula College, Port Angeles, Washington have built a small IEC nuclear fusion device. An IEC fusion reactor is the predecessor to the Polywell fusion reactor being tested in Santa Fe NM.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/6/224...

Thats right, college kids made fusion.

For those of you who haven't been following the Polywell story, Polywell is being funding by the US Navy, to the measly tune of 1.8 million dollars. I believe that Polywell fusion is the short road to fusion power that can provide cheap abundant power on a scale to replace oil.

Those Tokamak people have been working on magnetic torus's since 1938, and still dont have a demonstration unit, ITER will not be proof of concept.

IEC fusion, or Polywell fusion is simple and elegant. Fusion occurs in a sphere (the sun) not in a torus (donut). Its simple enough that college students started last December to build an IEC fusion reactor. Their 1st test run was June 21st, 2nd run June 22nd.

Jesus Christ, we have got to get this Polywell project the funding to continue. This is no 30 year project, we will know in 3 to 5 years if Polywell will work. For 200 million we need to know. Please write oyour congress folk a letter like this one:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/22...

College kids can make fusion. The Japanese know about it, as well as India & China. WTF are we waiting for ?

Here are the students:


Here is the reactor, yes its small, probably under 1 ft high.

Here is the inside view of the plasma:



For the latest ploywell news we all hang out here:

http://www.talk-polywell.org
Read entry | Discuss (25 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jun 23rd 2008, 12:52 AM
The report is owned by the Indians, its proprietary, not in the public domain. THe USGS has only used seismic data in its studies. Seismic data that shows a very fragmented field.

Back to the EIA
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anw...

Quote:
ANWR Production Uncertainties

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

* The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.
* Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.
* The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.


Thats what you get from KIC#1, drilled in 1985, results never made public.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01a...

Remember Badami ? Turned out to be a a fragmented field, with heavy oil
fficial&hs=fk6&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Badami+arctic+oil&spell=1" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=...

And Badami is what 30 miles from ANWAR ? Low porosity and heavy oil means low production.

Badami 8 rsevoir penatrations:

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/36...
BP said they would get 35kbpd

newsbank - really long url
But Badami produced 5k bpd, then declined to 1350bpd, then shut down

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/36...

Only 30 miles away Anwar is supposed to produce 1.4bpd ? Based on a USGS survey that never pushed a drill bit 5 inches.....frick brilliant citation.

This is why I laff my ass off when someone mentions Anwar as some sort of cure all, I'll start with Aurora.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/document...

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/product...

As you can see Aurora was an off shore well, quite close to KIC.

Quote:
However, since ANWR was established in 1960, exploration in the region has been restricted to surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85). No exploratory drilling has been accomplished in the area except for one well commenced in the winter of 1984-85 on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kaktovik on the Coastal Plain.
http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html


The only drilling data the USGS claims to have is from slant or offset drilling, because the only 2 wells ever drilled in Anwar, are private, the USGS cites recent offset drilling in the 1999 report. Your guess is as good as mine which off shore rig they used. Warthog, Stimson Aurora, I dont know. I cant find any indication any of these rigs are even still there.

Its clear Anwar at best is fragmented, and of low quality, API as low as 19.
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/product...

Compounding production problems are the numerous fractures, meaning water injection cannot be used, as the water will follow the cracks and destroy the ability to any reasonable production.

The case for drilling is that the same formations at Prudhoe Bay continue into area 1002.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...


Fractured anticlines and fingering says this isnt so. Badami maybe an example of this.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by FogerRox in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Jun 08th 2008, 12:59 PM
You've all seen the elusive Ceiling Cat poking its head out of the ceiling, to see whats up.



Ceiling Cat has been a voracious critic of Cheney's double super secret Death Star:



BREAKING NEWS !

Ceiling Cat has left the Ceiling, has come out for Obama. He will be walking the country to unite all cats:





Never before seen video of Ceiling Cat, who has spent 7 years in the has left the ceiling.



Cats across the country will taking the fight to John McCains face.




"McCain's campaign is doomed"
Al Gore commenting on Ceiling Cats endorsement of Obama.











Me and my friends "tuned up" McCains bus for him in NH, back on Jan. 5th. LOL. It gets poor mileage and the fuel gauge is wrong, so the bus will run out of fuel by October.




Obama has captured the attention of cats across the nation. Never before have so many young cats been involved in politics.




Super star cat, the "Artist Formerly Known as Tiger" at a news conference Sunday morning announcing his band will perform at 6 Obama events this summer.




Singer/songwriter John "Cougar" has asked the McCain campaign to stop using his music at events.




Robert Terrier, Chairdog of the National Democratic Canine caucus says " No dog or cat should be caught dead voting for John McCain.
Read entry | Discuss (119 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.