### JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).

### Handbooks

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

Think it has been debunked? See here.

# Laser Boron Fusion — What if it works? (Forget “climate change”)

#### Here’s another “breakthrough” fusion claim. Thing is, one day, one of these will work.

Something like this: Boron Hydrogen, Fusion, click to read about aneutronic fusion.

In the meantime, knowing that the future is nuclear, and the only question is when, we should burn all the coal we have while it is still worth something.

UPDATE: Everyone knows that fusion is the perennial baby of Hype-n-Hope. It’s easy to criticize, but why miss the chance to crush a few mantras instead? The renewables industry talks about how inevitable renewables are, so lets talk about the inevitable Fusion-Future that makes the “renewables” surge a temporary blip that will be superseded. The Fusion-Future adds urgency to coal use now — a real use-by date (albeit with blurry print).

PS: Yes, The Greens are going to hate it. A private energy generator, outside government control, not needing hand-outs, and one that solves “climate change” but without subsidies and strings. These companies might say what they think! They’re a power threat to global parasites. Remember: a dependent company is an obedient company — one that cheers for big-government.

Australia spends $5 billion a year installing inefficient, non-competitive renewables. Instead, we could be spending that money on gene technology and nuclear power research. How much would that change the future for our children? We’re vying to be the top ranking self-sacrificing global sucker that strives for importance by offering to cripple its own economy to appease Climate Gods. Or we could lead the world in nuclear power and medicine. (They’re asking for$20m. Are we a quarry or a leader?)

At least this hopeful idea is an Australian production. Heinrich Hora has been working on this for decades. (See this from 1981). The caveat: As long as “they don’t uncover any major engineering hurdles…” Yeah. But when fusion does work, the entire climate industry, renewables, panic-merchants and co. becomes an ant-hill in history.

#### The Australian: Laser tech advances hailed as way to clean, cheap electricity

by Graham Lloyd:

The paper said simulations had shown 14mg of hydrogen boron could produce 300kWh of energy, opening the way for “an absolutely clean power reactor producing low-cost energy”.

“Now, in eight to 10 years I would expect to have small-scale reactors made from present-day technologies.” Professor Hora said solar panels and battery ­storage were a viable solution for outback regions.

“But for the big centres our ­reactors would work to replace present power generation,” he said, adding that about $500,000 was needed for seed capital, a ­further$20 million over two years and “if all develops as ­expected” a further $100m to complete design of the reactors. The press release: # Laser-boron fusion now ‘leading contender’ for energy ## A laser-driven technique for creating fusion that dispenses with the need for radioactive fuel elements and leaves no toxic radioactive waste is now within reach, say researchers A laser-driven technique for creating fusion that dispenses with the need for radioactive fuel elements and leaves no toxic radioactive waste is now within reach, say researchers. Dramatic advances in powerful, high-intensity lasers are making it viable for scientists to pursue what was once thought impossible: creating fusion energy based on hydrogen-boron reactions. And an Australian physicist is in the lead, armed with a patented design and working with international collaborators on the remaining scientific challenges. In a paper in the scientific journal Laser and Particle Beams today, lead author Heinrich Hora from the University of New South Wales in Sydney and international colleagues argue that the path to hydrogen-boron fusion is now viable, and may be closer to realisation than other approaches, such as the deuterium-tritium fusion approach being pursued by U.S. National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor under construction in France. “I think this puts our approach ahead of all other fusion energy technologies,” said Hora, who predicted in the 1970s that fusing hydrogen and boron might be possible without the need for thermal equilibrium. Rather than heat fuel to the temperature of the Sun using massive, high-strength magnets to control superhot plasmas inside a doughnut-shaped toroidal chamber (as in NIF and ITER), hydrogen-boron fusion is achieved using two powerful lasers in rapid bursts, which apply precise non-linear forces to compress the nuclei together. Hydrogen-boron fusion produces no neutrons and, therefore, no radioactivity in its primary reaction. And unlike most other sources of power production — like coal, gas and nuclear, which rely on heating liquids like water to drive turbines — the energy generated by hydrogen-boron fusion converts directly into electricity. But the downside has always been that this needs much higher temperatures and densities — almost 3 billion degrees Celsius, or 200 times hotter than the core of the Sun. However, dramatic advances in laser technology are close to making the two-laser approach feasible, and a spate of recent experiments around the world indicate that an ‘avalanche’ fusion reaction could be triggered in the trillionth-of-a-second blast from a petawatt-scale laser pulse, whose fleeting bursts pack a quadrillion watts of power. If scientists could exploit this avalanche, Hora said, a breakthrough in proton-boron fusion was imminent. “It is a most exciting thing to see these reactions confirmed in recent experiments and simulations,” said Hora, an emeritus professor of theoretical physics at UNSW. “Not just because it proves some of my earlier theoretical work, but they have also measured the laser-initiated chain reaction to create one billion-fold higher energy output than predicted under thermal equilibrium conditions.” Together with 10 colleagues in six nations — including from Israel’s Soreq Nuclear Research Centre and the University of California, Berkeley — Hora describes a roadmap for the development of hydrogen-boron fusion based on his design, bringing together recent breakthroughs and detailing what further research is needed to make the reactor a reality. An Australian spin-off company, HB11 Energy, holds the patents for Hora’s process. “If the next few years of research don’t uncover any major engineering hurdles, we could have prototype reactor within a decade,” said Warren McKenzie, managing director of HB11. “From an engineering perspective, our approach will be a much simpler project because the fuels and waste are safe, the reactor won’t need a heat exchanger and steam turbine generator, and the lasers we need can be bought off the shelf,” he added. #### REFERENCE VN:F [1.9.22_1171] Rating: 8.6/10 (71 votes cast) Laser Boron Fusion -- What if it works? (Forget "climate change"), 8.6 out of 10 based on 71 ratings Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ya8apjal ### 158 comments to Laser Boron Fusion — What if it works? (Forget “climate change”) • # el gordo The beauty of this technology is that there is no radioactivity involved. • # Will Janoschka “It is a most exciting thing to see these reactions confirmed in recent experiments and simulations,” said Hora, an emeritus professor of theoretical physics at UNSW. This crap was discarded how many years ago at the LL National Ignition Facility,. Please el gordo: “The beauty of this technology is that there is no radioactivity involved.” There has never been any nuclear (ionizing) radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion. It is only folk too lazy to turn off the TV and attempt to learn something\anything that blindly accept such utter nonsense! All the best!-will- • # Roy Hogue The “most exciting thing” will be to see such a plant running and producing a commercially useful amount of power for, say, a month. That’s the test, not laboratory results and simulations. Those may be a necessary step but the pudding has to be served up and eaten regularly to be pudding. The proof requires eating. I’m this doubtful because I remember several other technologies that were just about ready to go public from a few years ago, only to never be heard from again. This has been the holy grail of power generation since Einstein but we still don’t have it. So forgive my “show me” attitude but we do need to actually have it in hand ready to use before we spend all our superlatives on it. • # Roy Hogue If the research can be kept from getting out of hand, then good. But how many times has the world wasted it’s money, billions, on a pig in a poke called global warming? I hope it does work. We need it. • # Will Janoschka This has been the holy grail of power generation since Einstein but we still don’t have it. So forgive my “show me” attitude but we do need to actually have it in hand ready to use before we spend all our superlatives on it. Al is theoretically correct in that E= mc² Likely we\usns only gets to use 1/2 of that E!! E= mc²/2! OTOH From an engineering standpoint 1/2 Holy Sh*t is still precicely Holy Sh*t!! • # Anton Livermore uses only heavy hydrogen isotopes, not boron, and now that more powerful lasers are being developed, older possibilities are worth revisiting. Your contempt does you little credit. • # Will Janoschka 1 – H – Hydrogen metal 2 – He – Helium noble gas 3 – Li – Lithium metal 4 – Be – Beryllium metal 5 – B – Boron ??? 6 – C – Carbon neutral 7 – N – Nitrogen reactant 8 – O – Oxygen reactant 9 – F – Fluorine reactant 10 – Ne – Neon next noble gas We gots H to fuse to He without totally blowing ourselves up; but just barely! This was done by folk whose existence was on the line; not by some ignorant academic re-searcher, that never bothered to search! Why pick Boron the ??? except that it rhymes with Moron; the 5th sub-atomic virtual particle. All the best!-will- • # Anton What target to use will depend on the energetics and on the ease of harvesting of the resulting energy, which will depend on whether alpha, beta or gamma radiation is emitted. All possible combinations were checked out long ago. Some are also harder to initiate but with more powerful lasers they are worth revisiting. Boron turns out to be promising with the new technology. Your contempt does you no credit. • # Will Janoschka What target to use will depend on the energetics and on the ease of harvesting of the resulting energy, which will depend on whether alpha, beta or gamma radiation is emitted. All possible combinations were checked out long ago. Some are also harder to initiate but with more powerful lasers they are worth revisiting. Boron turns out to be promising with the new technology. Your contempt does you no credit. I express contempt for your academic BS only when needed. Please demonstrate any physical evidence of your claimed B11 isotope (with a neutron) Beggone EVIL Satan ! • # Anton Take the trouble to familiarise yourself with Hora’s paper and the references in it. Your contempt reflects only on you. • # Do you Childlike Anton December 18, 2017 at 12:00 am Have anything except your obvious contempt of yourself? • # Anton People resort to insult when they have no reply. • # Gordon AHEM! You do realize that the green crowd would hate this technology. Remember that both the UN and Naomi Klein have both stated it is not about the carbon, IT IS ABOUT DESTROYING CAPITALISM! The last thing the green/left movement wants is clean energy. • # UPDATE: Everyone knows that fusion is the perennial baby of Hype-n-Hope. It’s easy to criticize, but why miss the chance to crush a few mantras instead? The renewables industry talks about how inevitable renewables are, so lets talk about the inevitable Fusion-Future that makes the “renewables” surge a temporary blip that will be superseded. The Fusion-Future adds urgency to coal use now — a real use-by date. Added to the post. There is a strategic win here waiting for the taking… PS: Yes, The Greens are going to hate it. A private energy generator, outside government control, not needing hand-outs. One that solves “climate change” but without subsidies and strings. These companies might say what they think! They’re a power threat to global parasites. A dependent energy company is an obedient company — one that cheers for big-government. • # Gordon There is also Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, or what was once called Cold Fusion. Steven Krivit has written Hacking The Atom which covers LENR. A good read. Will LENR ever be a viable energy source? What if fossil fuels is all we really do have? What if solar, wind,thermal, fusion, fission, light and whatever else they come up with really is useless and we really have only fossil fuel? Maybe we should be spending all this money on making oil & coal super clean instead of spending it on wild technology that has never produced anything. • # Anton Er, fission reactors already produce abundant electricity and have been doing for decades. • # Gordon That is true Anton, BUT! Uranium is a fossil fuel, yes there is a lot of it. But it is not going to create magic. There have been how many magic pills on high tech energy? Nuclear is obviously the way to go for now. But how much toxic waste does it produce? Where do we put it? Supposedly cold fusion or LENR can make radioactive waste benign. True /false. I don’t know. Maybe fossil fuel is all we really do have. What about abiotic oil? • # sophocles Uranium a fossil fuel? Well, yes, it’s the remains of a massive Super Nova which dumped it’s synthesised products all over the Earth several Billion years ago, so it’s fossilised in that sense. Nuclear doesn’t need to use the reactor technology developed fifty years ago. While it’s fissile rather than fossil technology, there doesn’t need to be any nasty byproduct at all as you allude. Modern Molten Salt reactors are here now. They can burn their own fuel and also the nasty solid fuel waste by burning it all down to non-radioactive ash. That makes them very useful. They’re a lot cheaper than the fossil fissile solid-fuel reactors. Explore Terrestrial’s website. It’s interesting. As for Fusion: The problem with all Fusion proposals is that everything is always at least ten years away. It has been every year since 1955. That’s a lot of promised decades. Every time I read or hear ten years away I know I will be extremely surprised to see it in my lifetime. So far, I haven’t. Just another promise. Now, I’m not shooting down the proposition. This may well be a very promising technique and it deserves its research. It’s the ten years away promise. Yawn. Another one to join the 62 other ones … • # Gordon Sophocles that is a good one. Never even thought of it! There are several companies already designing them. The Chinese are looking at 2024 for the first one to be operational. • # Roy Hogue Jo, Given the long and difficult road to fusion so far with nothing in hand to show for it I wonder if we can be so sure it will happen. I’m as ready as the next guy for something better than what we have and certainly I’m ready for something that will permanently shut the mouths of the climate change prophets. I’ll agree that we should spend some money on it. Hell, it’s money better spent than on the Lewandowski types. But we need eggs dripping down the other guy’s face, not ours. • # Roy Hogue But I suspect, as does everyone else, that there will be something not to like about fusion and there will still be a fight to stop it. • # Roy Hogue My word here is hope, not certainty. • # Will Janoschka My word here is hope, not certainty. Hope is the bestus of all feminine virtue. Combined with masculine ‘courage’ now (ferocious) The key to ultimate ‘success’! Please remember to remain “horny” for the sake of the children! • # Roy Hogue Will, I’ll take that last part under advisement. • # OriginalSteve The climate scare is all about CONTROL. The big govt crowd need a crisis to control the population with. Any form of energy independence is a good thing, as it creates a population with freedom and liberty, not a generation of smart phone enabled milk sops….. • # Anton Don’t worry, there’ll be another world war along sometime. • # Roy, I’m suggesting a$20m R&D spend and putting no timeframe on the prediction. This is strictly egg-proof.

• #
Roy Hogue

Only $20m? I would gladly give it every dollar that will be spent from now to eternity chasing climate change around Robin Hood’s barn, down the garden path and through the looking glass. My only stipulation would be that no money goes to climate change. What they would get would be diverted to something useful. How much money would you guess that would give the research team? And now I already hear yelling and screaming all across the globe at even the suggestion of putting their boondoggle money to actual usefulness instead of, well, never mind, I won’t say it but everyone will guess correctly. Merry Christmas Happy and prosperous 2018. • # Roy Hogue And someone stick a period between “…climate change,” and, “what…” Then capitalize “What…” before I kick my own behind for my carelessness. [You're in luck. I saw this and fixed it for you. We don't want anyone getting hurt on Jo's blog. But moderators should charge a fee for editing services. And I know, Jo, fat chance.] AZ the too willing moderator • # Will Janoschka [You're in luck. I saw this and fixed it for you. We don't want anyone getting hurt on Jo's blog. But moderators should charge a fee for editing services. And I know, Jo, fat chance.] AZ the too willing moderator I agree! Perhaps this one time, Joanne will share some newly found chocolate. Do not be greedy • # Will Janoschka PS: Yes, The Greens are going to hate it. A private energy generator, outside government control, not needing hand-outs. One that solves “climate change” but without subsidies and strings. These companies might say what they think! They’re a power threat to global parasites. A dependent energy company is an obedient company — one that cheers for big-government. A very important point Joanne Thank you! OTOH Why not send it back to the, ‘GUILTY’, your neighbors that refuse to turn off the TV and never instead; attempt to observe the obvious! All the best!-will- • # Ted O'Brien. The only good reason for not switching to nuclear power right now is that if fusion technology gets up, all other technology, no matter how much it cost to install, will be immediately obsolete. Is that really a “good” reason? Maybe not! • # Lionell Griffith Yes. Anything that really works is against their plan to destroy mankind. That is why they support only projects that cost many times more than the benefit received is worth. It is that way by willful design. • # Dennis The destroying capitalism message has not reached the apathetic voting public and I have yet to discover any politicians talking about it. • # Yonniestone In the eyes of the apathetic voting public capitalism still exists even if its just a fading crony illusion. • # Will Janoschka In the eyes of the apathetic voting public capitalism still exists even if its just a fading crony illusion. Capitalism remains strong! The local honest merchant willing to share sales (profit) with honest employees (selling). Please discuss the one word that now seems to be missing!! • # Ted O'Brien. Debt! Make that public debt. • # Manfred “You put in 30 kilojoules and get 1 billion joules out,” (this would be an exceptional fusion energy gain Qe=3.33 x 10^5) Give the team the funding and the institutional encouragement after suitable scrutiny. That would be the logical thing to do. Logic however pales in the face of a UN/UNEP eco-marxist Green ideology that claims mankind is unfit for the benefit of ‘limitless’ power such as this. Now, in the event it was successful, the ideological justification for the global ‘carbon’ shackles and constraints would evaporate overnight. The MSM to boot would find themselves run aground with nowhere to turn. Make it so. There’s not a minute to waste. The due date for the UN/UNEP “Transformational Agenda” is 2030. • # Robert Swan Give the team the funding and the institutional encouragement after suitable scrutiny Who are you urging to scrutinise and fund? The government? OUR government? That mob who have shown time and again that they couldn’t organise a chook raffle? A technology like this needs to be evaluated by people with a real stake in the outcome. That’s the way it used to be done here and, more so, in the USA — the home of the “robber barons”. That’s right: leave it to capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism has become enfeebled in its historical home — largely through everyone looking to the government. Oddly enough, rescue may come from that great enemy of capitalism: “communist” China. Still a command economy, but are they not running that country more like a hyper-mega-conglomerate that Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al wouldn’t have dreamt of? If Prof. Hora truly believes in his idea, maybe he should try convincing the Chinese to help him. Then again, maybe he would just like a half-mill salary for the next few years with the chance of the prestige of running a 20-100 mill lab. In that case, the failed chook rafflers are probably his best bet. I agree that we should stop squandering money on stupid things like windmills, but that’s mostly because I’m not keen on squandering it at all. • # Will Janoschka Who are you urging to scrutinise and fund? The government? OUR government? That mob who have shown time and again that they couldn’t organise a chook raffle? A chook raffle? What is that? Many mama chooks protect offsprouts best they can, but now understand many more infants are but young fryers. We needs huge grieving fund for momma chooks! • # Lawrie We just spent 400 million on a RC where the final report could have been written in the first week as it was intended to attack the Catholic Church and Christianity. How much better for all if a quarter had been spent on this research instead. Where is the minister for energy when he should be here planning the future instead of making excuses for the renewable fiasco? • # Leo Morgan As someone raised Catholic, I understand how fundamentally flawed the recommendations are. But how to convey that to the proposers. The example that immediately occurred to me was “Consider practising science while ignoring the scientific method”. Then I realised that that would also mean nothing to them too. • # yarpos Not really a great analogy, however yes the church could well benefit from some evidence based thinkibg and a willingness to change based on what it discovers. Medieval practices dont really seem a strategy for growth. • # Ted O'Brien. The recommendation coming out of that report seems to be that the rules for evidence are going the same way as the scientific method has on AGW. This one has a way to go yet, with much gnashing of teeth. • # mal Turnbull preached the technology revolution, yet leads us down the path of useless windmills. Lets see him put our (taxpayer) money where his mouth is. Such a small price to pay if it works. By funding this research and patenting the technology would provide rivers of gold back to australian tax payers for decades to come. • # el gordo Anthony Watts is treating it as a joke and most of the comments give this theoretical technology the thumbs down. • # I guess some Americans would be annoyed if a foreign team got there first. I expect the US teams have a hundred times the funding and a much better chance. My point is that someone is going to get it to work someday. Then everything changes… We should be funding this kind of research instead of building windmills. • # Will Janoschka We should be funding this kind of research instead of building windmills. No Joanne; disagree, ask your hubby! We are truly stuck. The nuclear (fission) reactions can supplement\replace oxidation reactions for a while yet. The fusion ignition reactions require gas pressure molecular density for ignition near that of our star (Sol)!! Saturn, Jupiter, while good; are not good enough! The Vast Entropy mess, known as Asteroid Belt is but previous failure; or future opportunity to somehow\when accomplish a proper EMR action\construct for such possibility. All the best!-will- • # el gordo Will this is different …. ‘More than 30 countries are participating in ITER to build the world’s largest tokamak, a magnetic fusion device designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy based on the same principle that powers the Sun and the stars.’ China Daily • # Will Janoschka ‘More than 30 countries are participating in ITER to build the world’s largest tokamak, a magnetic fusion device designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy based on the same principle that powers the Sun and the stars.’ I wish them all luck! May actually work some what now what? • # el gordo Uh oh …. ‘….the time ITER starts running late next decade its total cost will likely exceed$20 billion. That’s a big jump over the roughly $12 billion ITER was estimated to cost in 2006, when China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States agreed to build the machine. ‘ Science 2016 • # Will Janoschka What keeps it from blowing everything away? We were very lucky\in Gods grace with that TZAR BOMBA! Scared even kitten SHADOW who generally is interested only in edible or not! • # Mall Australia has produced many inventions in the past for a fraction of the funding America and Europe had. I remember when the CSIRO was a true scientific research organisation as well as developing technology. Now it’s become a political science organisation supporting government agendas. Is it possible to recreate such an organisation again in this political climate? • # sophocles Just like the IPCC … • # Ted O'Brien. Getting there first. What are the benefits? With fission, it ended a war, with getting there first determining the victor. With fusion, could it allow total social domination? A return to slavery? Or annihilation of potential opponents? Suppose fusion does get up. What side issues could come with it? Technology for real star wars? I expect so. And it would be managed by the same people we see now. • # William On the other hand, we already have thorium reactors. They exist and they work. All they need is a government with a couple of functioning brain cells to allow them to be built. Oh. Sorry. • # Curious George Link, please. • # William https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power Are you suggesting that thorium reactors are somehow controversial? Color me puzzled. • # KinkyKeith It was probably the functioning brain cells bit, • # Curious George Not controversial. They simply don’t exist – yet. • # Will Janoschka Not controversial. They simply don’t exist – yet. But they do exist, everywhere! They remain commercially un-viable, only because of GreenBlob combined Communistic\Bankster Propaganda. Please wake up! • # sophocles They simply don’t exist – yet. Yes it does. Not commercial, yet, but underway. • # It’s fine for an advancing culture to spend millions and even billions on experiments which ultimately fail. It’s NOT fine to spend trillions on peashooter tech. It’s not fine to bring a butter knife to a gunfight. Whatever replaces coal power will have to be pretty good, because coal has not just potency but real splendour. Coal will one day be outdated, but it will always have splendour and that lustre of a grand old resource which outlasted many generations of humans while enabling the Machine Age. It’s like the aged athlete who’s retiring but still good to go round again and show the punters how it’s done. The mainstreaming of non-hydro renewables has been an insult as well as a waste. All I can say to the people working on new tech like laser-boron fusion: Remember that you are stepping into the shoes of a great champion. • # Robert Rosicka Given sea water is sooooo acidic couldn’t we pump some into a pool that’s segmented by lead plates ? • # AndyG55 30-40 year , I’d say.. PLENTY of time to build the atmospheric CO2 level up to a respectable level. • # ‘Whatever replaces coal power will have to be pretty good, because coal has not just potency but real splendour. Coal will one day be outdated, but it will always have splendour and that lustre of a grand old resource which outlasted many generations of humans while enabling the Machine Age. It’s like the aged athlete who’s retiring but still good to go round again and show the punters how it’s done.’ Now that’s a comment, mosomoso, that relates to Henry Vaughn’s, ‘I saw eternity the other night Like a great ring of pure and endless light, All calm as it was bright.’ - Energy is life. • # “Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves.” • # J.H. Sounds like Sampson. • # Graeme No.3 The comments to the article indicate that neutrons may be formed as a side reaction. Nor do I see a way of extracting the energy in a usable form. Nevertheless the money asked for is equivalent to two and a half days subsidy for renewables, so hardly exorbinant and worth a gamble to see if it works. After all, we know that renewables don’t work and would require enormous sums spent on storage to (sort of) make them work. • # James Murphy Neutrons are also a byproduct of current tokamak / toroidal systems. I’d say it’s only really an issue in terms of the wear and tear caused on all the materials they pass through, and water absorbs their energy pretty well. • # Kneel The p + 11B reaction is aneutronic – it doesn’t require neutrons to work nor does it produce them. Neither input is radioactive. The “waste” product is helium, also not radioactive. Neither input nor output products are toxic either. The “output” is velocity applied to the alpha particles – fast moving helium nuclei (ionised helium). There are several ways to extract the velocity as energy, most of which are highly efficient in turning that velocity into energy – about 90% efficient direct to electricity conversion is possible. Nor is the laser method the only one – Bussard’s inertial electrostatic confinement fusion is still plodding along with a handful of US Navy research dollars. Another one uses electric arcs to “push” LENR fusion. Both are capable of p + 11B usage. Both require, like this one, several steps to validate the engineering and scalability – a couple of million up front, if all goes well, a couple of hundred million to build a full scale test version of about 1GW or so, then likely a few more hundred million on commercialisation efforts to reduce costs and extend lifetimes and reliability. Boron 11 is common in seawater and dirt – it’s everywhere! Hydrogen is of course easily available from water. The beauty of these aneutronic LENR systems is that close to zero radioactivity means less issues with materials engineering, and no threat to humans or the environment. These LENR p + 11B systems cannot get to a runaway state like a fission reactor – too much or too little fuel, a control systems loss, a cooling system failure etc all lead to a “fizzle out” not a “boom”. Except perhaps the sort of boom you would expect from any machine generating or using MW of power (ie, nasty, but as easily containable as, say, a fire at a fossil fuel plant). One of these systems will be made to work sooner or later – it’s engineering now, not science. We could know for sure about at least 3 of them by spending less than Australia spends on renewable subsidies in a single year. We could fund this one for less than the NSW Govt want to spend “renewing” two sports stadia in greater Sydney. But it won’t be done here – we’ll let someone else do it, then import the tech. • # Kneel “about 90% efficient direct to electricity conversion is possible.” Ref please • # Will Janoschka The p + 11B reaction is aneutronic – it doesn’t require neutrons to work nor does it produce them. Neither input is radioactive. The “waste” product is helium, also not radioactive. Neither input nor output products are toxic either. The “output” is velocity applied to the alpha particles – fast moving helium nuclei (ionised helium). What total unmigitated Scammer BS Please demonstrate any 11B thingy (2 Boron atoms plus a Neutron) except for the 1/2 pico second drunken interval examining terlit for ratio of floaters to sinkers! • # Boambee John If it even looks like working, watch the gerbil wormers mount the mother of all scare campaigns! • # Yes, using the Green-Index-of-Hate as a radar it does not look like this project poses a near-term threat to Sustainable Gravy Trains. • # Another Ian O/T https://thepointman.wordpress.com/ Turnbull still ahead in Prat of the Year but Hillary coming up on the outside a head in front of Merkel • # Will Janoschka Turnbull still ahead in Prat of the Year but Hillary coming up on the outside a head in front of Merkel We can count on Pointman to be somewhat\somewhen\somewho honest (maybe)! • # Robert Rosicka OT but anyone seen this notice from AEMO ? Market Notice 60366 AEMO ELECTRICITY MARKET NOTICE AEMO’s weather service provider has issued forecast temperatures for the SA region that are equal to or greater than the Generation Capacity Reference Temperatures: On 18/12/2017: Maximum forecast temperature 43?C at Adelaide for the Adelaide area Also, please note that higher temperatures are forecast for the following days in the NSW and VIC regions. NSW: On 19/12/2017 and 20/12/2017: Maximum forecast temperature 40?C at Bankstown for the Sydney area VIC: On 18/12/2017: Maximum forecast temperature 36?C at Melbourne for the Melbourne area Further updates to this advice may not be provided. AEMO requests participants to: 1. review the weather forecast in the local area where their generating plants are located and, 2. if required, update their offered capacities consistent with the forecast temperatures. Details on Generation Capacity Reference Temperatures can be accessed using the following link to AEMO website: http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/Related-Information/Generation-Information Generation Capacity Reference Temperatures: QUEENSLAND – BRISBANE AREA 37 ?C. NEW SOUTH WALES – SYDNEY AREA 42?C. VICTORIA – MELBOURNE AREA 41?C. SOUTH AUSTRALIA – ADELAIDE AREA 43?C. TASMANIA – GEORGE TOWN 30?C. BASSLINK- (Latrobe Valley Airport 43?C AND GEORGE TOWN 33?C) Daniel Ghantous AEMO Operations • # Just Thinkin' I noticed that earlier today about Adelaide (there is nowhere else in SA) and thought, “This should be a fun day.” It probably also means there won’t be much wind. A VERY interesting day for the southern states. As long as Queensland can disconnect their inter-connectors they should be right. I reckon us people in WA will be pretty safe; and have a good laugh, as well. • # Robert Rosicka Did we have this problem this bad when we had ample coal fired generation? • # Robber Of course we didn’t have this problem Robert, and we had wholesale prices of 4-5 cents/KWhr instead of the current 9-10 cents. But our suffering is to save the planet no? AEMO is forecasting peak SA demand of 2800 MW on 18/12,compared to normal 1500 MW – will be interesting to see if they use their new diesel generators. Yesterday afternoon they discharged up to 100 MW from the big battery for several short periods, no doubt still testing its capabilities. Vic has forecast peak of 8500 MW on 18/12, up from normal 6000 MW. NSW has forecast peak of 12,900 MW on 19/12 up from normal 9000 MW. So those interconnectors will be working hard, based on coal in Qld and some hydro. What a pity we can’t build more dams. That’s the best battery there is. • # manalive AEMO’s weather service provider has issued forecast temperatures for the SA region that are equal to or greater than the Generation Capacity Reference Temperatures: On 18/12/2017: Maximum forecast temperature 43?C at Adelaide for the Adelaide area … The current BoM prediction for Adelaide on the 18th is 40C. The maximum temperature recorded in Adelaide was 46.1C on 12 Jan 1939; if the GCRT is what I think it is, it is clearly inadequate. The same applies to the other capitals mentioned. • # Keith L The article in the Australian mentions a mysterious substance of ‘Hydrogen Boron’. I am reminded of Mock Turtle, the thing that Mock Turtle Soup is made from. • # Dennis You reminded me of this, in my opinion Australia has several of them in political circles; An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a “post turtle”. The young man doesn’t understand and asks him what a post turtle is. The old man says, “When you’re driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle. You know he didn’t get up there by himself. He doesn’t belong there; you wonder who put him there; he can’t get anything done while he’s up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.” • # Will Janoschka Very nice! • # Andrew Richards Fascinating and sounds promising. Will be interesting to see if it scales-up successfully. “hydrogen-boron fusion is achieved using two powerful lasers in rapid bursts, which apply precise non-linear forces to compress the nuclei together.” From a start-up perspective, I guess would want to know a bit about the costs and freq of replacement of the lasers. In particular, do the non-linear forces generated show a tendency to damage the lasers at high intensities? Burning coal to generate cheap reliable power for people and businesses, and that greens the planet is a very sensible approach in the meantime. All that ecological production. CO2 driven higher yields of crops (partic in more arid soils). Cheap energy and low costs to consumers and businesses… Since the real world is clearly largely insensitive to atmos [CO2] in terms of its temperature response, I can only see major positives in burning coal so long as the particles are stripped (ie. done cleanly). Everyone’s a winner except the green blob and its many cronies. • # PeterS Yes there are many new technologies around being theorised; some are being tested. They will take a long time before any one of them becomes viable. Meanwhile let’s do what everyone else is doing and get off our behinds and start building new generation coal fired power stations! Pronto!! • # Joe … but I can’t see how it turns the global warming scam on its head. This is coming from the UNSW which is famous for its promotion of the scam, in fact the promise of this new technology seems to go hand in glove with the promotion of the world-about-to-melt meme but lucky we have a great alternative for you. I think if we got too excited about this latest panacea we would be just buying into the whole warming scam. The technology has not promised cheap electricity, just a reduction in CO2, so why all the excitement? At least anybody can burn coal, drink water and breathe air, but this patented technology means we have to pay some extra pipers and why would we be encouraging that? • # In the long run, a working fusion reactor would blow away paltry efforts to cut CO2 with windmills or solar. The coal industry would shrink but so would every other generator. The urgency to move way from fossil fuels “because we might run out” would disappear. Billions of dollars of renewables investment would be rendered redundant. • # PeterS True Joe. In the meantime every nation of importance except Australia is building nuclear and/or new generation coal fired power stations. We on the other hand are gradually destroying our coal fired power stations one by one. Very soon we will be at a critical point of not being able to provide reliable and stable electricity. As for the cost, well it is already far too high, and it’;s getting higher. New technologies will no doubt come on line in the future but it’s too long to wait. Meanwhile the global wamrists are pushing ahead with more and more renewables at the expense of coal only here in Australia. Soon something has to break. Either Australia breaks and the economy collapses, or the global warming mania breaks and we start building new generation coal fired power stations, and perhaps even nuclear. Talk of new technologies for now although interesting is superfluous to our immediate needs. • # Allen Ford Depressing prospects, Peter, but entirely due to the bone headedness of the current crop of pollies and bureaucrats through all levels of government throughout Oz. Tony Abbott is the only one making sense, but he is voice crying in the wilderness. • # PeterS Allen, yes it is indeed sad to see so many brain dead people in both major political parties. I wonder what will happen when the big crunch comes. Will the people finally wake up and refuse to ever vote for either major party, or will Australians push their heads even deeper into the sand and pretend nothing is wrong. It will be very telling of their intelligence, or lack thereof. • # Hanrahan My pilot friends tell me the three most useless things are runway behind you, altitude above you and fuel in the bowser. To quote: In the meantime, knowing that the future is nuclear, and the only question is when, we should burn all the coal we have while it is still worth something. Are the three most useless things for Australia coal, gas and oil in the ground? Can someone tell Andrews and Weathernut about this? • # KinkyKeith After reading all the above comments and wondering where the functioning small scale demonstration version of this process is located I believe that we don’t need another distraction from the real deal. Get on and build modern coal fired generators. This will fix the immediate problem of a collapsed/knobbled system that is currently failing badly. We then have time to develop the nuclear alternative that will provide flexibility and keep us in touch with what the rest of the world is doing. KK • # Yonniestone Hear hear KK, from strength comes courage, its blindingly obvious that “renewables” have hamstrung economies and will only worsen if increased which personally I think was the grand plan initially. • # Will Janoschka KinkyKeith December 15, 2017 at 10:40 pm After reading all the above comments and wondering where the functioning small scale demonstration version of this process is located I believe that we don’t need another distraction from the real deal.”Get on and build modern coal fired generators.This will fix the immediate problem of a collapsed/knobbled system that is currently failing badly. Thou shalt not futz with GOD! OTOH God must necessarily futs wid ussins as that is what GOD must do! IT be your insane concept ‘of ‘rational that need be discarded”! • # KinkyKeith Will I haven’t watched TV, particularly the news for about 5 months now except for yesterday. Currently in the land of the long white cloud I succumbed and turned on the motel tv. The “news” seems to be a constant assault on the senses and designed to damage your thinking processes so that you only accept what you are being told. No wonder the world is in such a mess: modern media is all powerful. KK • # Will Janoschka No wonder the world is in such a mess: modern media is all powerful. Not so fass! Modern media are but punkers ‘gainst modern Roaches wid better looking Roach ‘cheerleaders’ I hab da popcorn concession. • # James Buchanan Interesting, use a laser to heat. Who would have thought of that? I have always wondered why no one has thought of converting a laser to heat an old coal plant steam generator. Such as, a small laser aimed thru the water tubes to heat them, not to eliminate or hole them, powered by a battery array, till the steam generator restarts, then controlled to just create heat, enough, to power the laser, and keep the steam supercritical. Talk about cheap power? Reusing what was, I wonder how many generators could be returned to service. But, that’s not the idea, create profit is the idea, line their pocketbooks. Scare the public. • # Will Janoschka Interesting, use a laser to heat. Who would have thought of that? I have always wondered why no one has thought of converting a laser to heat Our modern engineering (not academic science BS) every day uses a CO2 laser to selectively elevate outer steel gear temperature to maximum hardness (wear resistance) while preserving maximum steel toughness at a lesser radius. Every single day! All the best!-will- • # Eric Worrall If Boron fusion is almost within reach, why not prove the system with much easier tritium fusion? Granted Tritium fusion spits out vast ugly clouds of radiation, but a net energy gain tritium demonstration would be an instant Nobel Prize and a bottomless research budget for whoever cracks the problem. Focussing on the more difficult problem when the easier stepping stone should be within reach in my opinion stinks. • # This does not seem to have progressed beyond some simulations based on some experimental results. That is a long way from practical application. The latest paper is behind a paywall but earlier papers are open access. https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=H.%20Hora&eventCode=SE-AU Perhaps someone better qualified than me, could read and comment. • # Sunshine Lank The downside? It operates at 3 billion degrees centigrade or 200 times hotter than the core of the sun. Peoples – I suggest this is EXTREMELY unlikely to become anything other than a theoretical research project. • # el gordo What do you think of Helium 3? Its been called ‘moonshine’ by its critics, but the Chinese are plowing money into it. If they can get the idea to work, then mining the moon will be top of the agenda. • # Sunshine Lank Helium 3 is unlikely to be a significant energy contributor even if technology is developed by the Chinese (unlikely) because of the tine amount of H-3 on earth. Yes, moon is best bet to feed H-3 for fuel but even there is is at only very trace amounts (<50ppb, usually <5-5ppb) so how are we going to mine and process on the Luna surface at these trace amounts then get it back home? Not this century I expect. • # el gordo Thanks sunshine, on further reading it appears H-3 mining is a pipe dream. • # OriginalSteve I have no idea why they dont just build some nuke reactors and use the heat they generate to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then use the hydrogen either direct or in a fuel cell. Yes you would have to build the infrastructure to distribute it etc, but pretty much problem solved using existing tech. • # Zigmaster I think that the cheapest solution is staring the world in the face. Use coal fired power. The issue isn’t CO2 emissions . In fact the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere are indisputable. The solution is to direct resources at reprogramming the minds of the global warming brainwashed population. If we could somehow get Trump equivalents elected in UK ,France ,Germany and Canada the global warming scam would be over leading to an immediate increase in global GDP and reduction in the global cost of power generation. Countries such as China, India , Indonesia and Russia containing most of the global population already behave as if AGW was a scam anyway. They pay only lip service to its message whilst the idiot other major nations including Australia sacrifice their economies to the Global warming God. • # If we change the mindsets of the crowd and get them to imagine a fusion future, then there is an urgency to use our coal while it still has value. • # Geoffrey Williams I’m with you on this one Jo. Admittedly it sounds like some kind of science fiction stuff, but if could be made to work then it could become a game changer as you rightly say. Also the cost is relatively small, and who knows what spin offs may eventuate from such science. I say give it a go. GeoffW • # Will Janoschka Coal as in coking coal remains invaluable a a reducing agent. Like remaining Petro deposits are invaluable as lubricant. Fissionable Thorium is cheap and easily converted to any needed power requirements. Remember fusion ignition remains but a fantasy; a fantasy still as remote as rubbing two sticks together to start a fire. How long did that take? All the best!-will- • # Timo Soren I sense a boron limitation. • # KinkyKeith I had the same initial reaction Timo but it may be that although it’s relatively scarce, it could be highly concentrated and handy. Perhaps one of the resident geologists can tell us. Regardless, coal HELE is a proven clean technology; why aren’t we using it? CO2 is really the gas of life. It just shows the power and influence of the modern manipulators that they can convince the public otherwise. KK • # TdeF If you suggested$15 Trillion dollars had been spent worldwide so far in trying to control CO2 levels could have been spent on fusion energy research, we would have it by now.

The $1,500,000,000,000 a year currently being spent would see it become a reality. The world would change forever. Wars over oil and gas and water and living space would stop. We could change the planet. Infinite energy means the deserts could bloom. People could stay where they are. Meanwhile we Australians are paying foreigners billions to build windmills and solar farms so we can pay them again for our wind and sun. The only thing renewable is the eternal payment to others. However judging by the self serving opportunists in every parliament who push this incredibly expensive nonsense, we may be the lucky country but we are not the smart country. • # Will Janoschka we may be the lucky country but we are not the smart country. Tommy Jefferson wrote: A government sufficient to provide all; is but a government sufficient to steal all! BEWARE! • # pat 15 Dec: The Federalist: Mollie Hemingway: Trump Admin To Remove Climate Change From List Of National Security Threats The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft… “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”… As for climate change, the draft report says “The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while growing its economy. This achievement, which can serve as model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains –not from onerous regulation.” http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/15/trump-admin-to-remove-climate-change-from-list-of-national-security-threats/ 13 Dec: WSJ: The Trump Regulatory Game Plan Message to businesses and families: It’s OK to plan for the future By Neomi Rao (Ms. Rao is administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget) Within 10 days of taking office, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, which directs agencies to reduce regulatory burdens by eliminating two existing regulations for each new one issued. This announcement was met with a healthy dose of skepticism, as the steady expansion of the regulatory state traditionally has been a bipartisan affair. No longer. This week, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released a status report on agencies’ progress on regulations. In only its first 10 months, the Trump administration has far exceeded its promise to eliminate two existing regulations for each new one—an unprecedented advance against the regulatory state. By comparison, in his final eight months, President Obama saddled the economy with as much as$15.2 billion in regulatory costs, while hiding from the public a needlessly “secret” list of more than 600 regulations. Reversing this trend sends a clear message to families and businesses: It’s OK to plan for the future without the looming threat of red tape.

On Thursday OIRA will publish the administration’s first Regulatory Plan and Agenda, which covers all federal agencies for fiscal year 2018. The plan calls for the administration to drive already substantial reductions in regulatory costs even further…

Some regulations legitimately address important health, safety and welfare priorities identified by Congress. The Trump administration respects the rule of law and will not roll back effective, legally required regulations. But in the previous administration, agencies frequently exceeded their legal authority when imposing costly rules…

Agencies are now expected to regulate only when explicitly authorized by law—and to follow the proper procedures. The same standards now apply to regulatory and deregulatory actions…
Regulatory reform not only promotes individual liberty and a flourishing economy, it also supports constitutional democracy…

The Trump administration remains confident in markets and the American people’s ability to make responsible choices. Our agenda for the coming year reflects that spirit and commits to a regulatory policy that actually works.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-regulatory-game-plan-1513210177

• #
pat

15 Dec: AP: Matthew Lee: Trump’s security paper offers stark vision of global rivalry
President Donald Trump’s “America First” vision is a stark worldview that sees rivals battling each other for supremacy or relevance and has little use for alliances, treaties and other international agreements unless they directly benefit the United States, its industry and workers…

(SCROLL DOWN) The early draft of the strategy lamented that America had put itself at a disadvantage by entering into multi-national agreements, such as those aimed at combatting climate change, and introducing domestic policies to implement them. That draft downplayed the national security risk of climate change and emphasized the costs to the U.S. economy of environmental and other regulations aimed at mitigating it.
It was not immediately clear if the climate change language would be in the final version of the strategy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-security-paper-offers-stark-200401230.html

(anonymous source) “Over the last few administrations of both parties, we’ve pretended that our nation’s economic security is a less important thing than say, climate change or in the number of parties running for parliamentary elections in the Middle East. This National Security Strategy is a much-needed corrective, largely because it returns us to common sense and away from ideological abstractions.”…

15 Dec: Townhall: Katie Pavlich: Document: Deregulation is Part of Trump’s National Security Strategy
During an event at the White House Thursday, Trump detailed the administration’s year of regulation slashing and revealed that for every new federal regulation put in place, 22 were taken off the books…
The full NSS report will be released Monday in conjunction with a speech from President Trump on the issue.
“Competitiveness with respect to regulations on businesses is something that Trump has been talking about for 30 years,” a source close to the White House says. “It’s perfectly natural for this to be a major focus of this administration’s National Security Strategy.”…

• #
pat

14 Dec: WashingtonFreeBeacon: Elizabeth Harrington: Bernie Sanders Hits Trump as Commander In Chief Over Climate Change
Socialist says climate change ‘could severely jeopardize our military readiness’
In a press release Wednesday, Sanders, who took his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, said climate change is the biggest threat to military readiness.
“With President Trump as commander in chief, the Department of Defense, which previously called climate change a national security threat, now questions the science linking increasingly common extreme weather events to climate change,” Sanders said. “This is unacceptable and could severely jeopardize our military readiness.”…

“The Department of Defense should be doing all it can to fight the causes and prepare for the impacts of climate change to prevent threats to our national security, not questioning virtually the entire scientific community,” Sanders said.
The Vermont senator has claimed climate change is the greatest threat to national security before.
Sanders returned to the subject again after the recent release of a Government Accountability Office report that revealed the Pentagon does not track the costs of weather effects on overseas installations because “there is no requirement” to do so.

Sanders’s office said the report shows the Pentagon’s “rejection of established climate science.”
“After reviewing mounting evidence from the Government Accountability Office that climate change has reduced military readiness, President Donald Trump’s administration rejected the science attributing extreme weather events to climate change as well as recommendations to monitor the effects of climate change,” Sanders’s office said…

The Pentagon “noted that currently, associating a single event to climate change is difficult and does not warrant the time and money expended in doing so.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/bernie-sanders-hits-trump-commander-chief-climate-change/

• #
Lawrie

SE Australian windfarms are currently (1115 Sat) producing about 10 percent of nameplate. I thought I should tell Josh Frydenberg and ask where the rest of our needs were coming from.

• #
el gordo

The steady state blocking highs are responsible for the lull, wind should pick up around Tuesday for a day or so.

• #
Dennis

It’s not Nameplate, that is the design maximum output under perfect conditions of operation, as the website describes;

“Each generator on this map is colour coded by current output in proportion to registered capacity (i.e. capacity factor). Larger icons represent larger registered capacities: large >250MW; medium > 100MW; small ≤ 100MW.”

Registered capacity is a calculation of a number of factors including estimated wind availability likely to be achieved on average over a given period to deliver electricity to the grid. A particular design of wind turbine would have different registered capacity based on each wind farm location.

As I understand it.

• #
John F. Hultquist

Anything new is too late.
I have it from on high that we only have 10 days, or weeks, or years to save Earth. I can’t remember who that was, but it was someone high.
Whatever. Repent.

• #
pat

China apologists support silly CO2 emissions trading scam…oops plan:

15 Dec: Scientific American: China Set to Debut the World’s Largest Carbon Market
But the country has limited emissions monitoring and verification capabilities
by Jean Chemnick, E&E News; Reporter Debra Kahn contributed
China is set to introduce its equivalent of U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan next week, even as the Trump administration prepares to discard its electricity rule for the carbon sector.

China will debut an emissions trading system as soon as today that will begin by covering coal- and natural-gas-based power production. The program will eventually expand to a variety of manufacturing and industrial sectors.
“It is important to bear in mind that the first phase will be embryonic,” said Li Shuo, senior global policy adviser for Greenpeace East Asia, who has been briefed on some details of the coming plan. He stressed those could change before the launch…

The plan initially will include 11 different emissions baselines for power plants based on whether they run on coal or gas, their size, and other details, Li said.
“This means gas plants would be competing with other gas plants with similar scale,” he said, adding that the trading component of the program would initially be limited. It’s unclear what the starting price for emissions allowances will be.
It’s a slower start than the Chinese government initially promised, but environmentalists say that’s prudent. The world’s second-largest economy and largest global emitter of greenhouse gases has limited monitoring and verification capabilities…

“It is precisely the lack of transparency that has worried investors in other Chinese markets, and carbon markets are known for being notoriously tricky,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser. China must also build the legal infrastructure that will allow it to hold companies accountable for noncompliance…

“China has this saying that ‘We have to cross the river by feeling one stone at a time,’” said Barbara Finamore, senior attorney and Asia director for the China program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “When the president of China announces a program like this, he’s putting his personal reputation behind it.”
The limited rollout “is a sign that China is taking this seriously and wants to make sure they’re doing it right,” she added…

“This is like the pyramids of Giza for climate policy,” said Nathaniel Keohane, vice president of international climate at the Environmental Defense Fund… “It will be the largest emissions trading system in the world, even if it only covers the power sector.”…

Earlier this year, officials said they planned to start with three sectors—electricity, aluminum and cement—but next week’s plan is expected to include only electricity…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-set-to-debut-the-world-rsquo-s-largest-carbon-market/

• #

As much as I hope something like this can be made to work, it’s still a long way off now.

Keeping that in mind, the vast masses think that coal fired power is a dinosaur which has had its day, and that is just not true.

While endless research bucks are spent on these emerging technologies, coal fired power is also researching the future.

Coal fired power has come a long way.

From primitive sub critical, to sub critical, to critical, to SuperCritical, to UltrSuperCritical, and now on to Advanced UltraSuperCritical.

That’s six advances in technology, and that’s in the here and now.

What started out as 2MW to 5MW inefficient Units is now 1200MW highly efficient Units, and they are not stopping there.

You can get in your car and drive from Sydney to Melbourne, cruising at around the same speed, and it’ll take you around 8.5 to 10 hours or so.

They fire up a coal fired Unit and run it flat out, and the record so far is a tick over three years, (the Stanwell Plant here near Rockhampton, and that’s only a Critical Unit) flat out without missing a beat. That’s where those advances in technology have already got us.

This is technology that we already have and is working so very well.

We can hope that there will be these advances in the future in new technologies, and we should be exploring them, but we really should be going with what we already have, technologies that HAVE been proved.

I’m all for new things like this, but they are a long long way off, and we cannot just tap our fingers waiting in the meantime.

Tony.

• #

Coal fired power started before the turn of the Twentieth Century with those tiny and inefficient plants.

Wind power is currently delivering the same power 2MW to 5MW with a similar efficiency and Capacity Factor as those first basic coal fired plants.

This isn’t Back To The Future, it’s Back To The Past.

Tony.

• #
Dennis

Those US Navy aircraft carriers would in trouble if sails and wind were still the propulsion system.

lol

• #
PeterS

Nuclear also has come a long way. But given our ample supply of coal there is absolutely no reason we should not be relying on it as our only power source let alone our primary one. It not only makes good economic sense, our economic competitiveness and ultimately our survival are dependent on it.

• #
Will Janoschka

Nuclear also has come a long way. But given our ample supply of coal there is absolutely no reason we should not be relying on it as our only power source let alone our primary one. It not only makes good economic sense, our economic competitiveness and ultimately our survival are dependent on it.

There is every reason to replace fossil fuel power generation with Thorium based nuclear power generation as rapidly as possible! It is only the Communistic\Bankster propaganda\rhetoric for illicit profit that impedes such development for benefit of all (others)!

• #
doubtingdave

Hi folks , kept away from comments lately due to family tragedies and the influence that has had on my unnecessarily angry comments , sorry folks . Sat up late tonight watching the Ashes and want to make an observation as regards this article . The advocates of global warming promote producing energy from wind , solar , tidal sources etc in order to prevent a warming world , BUT isn’t it ironic that that those sources that they promote would actually benefit from sea level rise , a hotter , windier , wetter climate , producing energy in a more cost effective and efficient way . All the best everyone , now backed to watching England try to survive your hostile angry Aussie bowlers .

• #
Robdel

To say that the pB reaction does not produce radioactivity is a bit misleading. How are they going to slow down the alpha particles to slow well behaved He? My guess is that the decelerating alphas will create radioactivity by impact with the moderator targets. All I know is that the alphas from decaying Ra are quite damaging.

• #
Curious George

They want to generate power directly by slowing alphas to an almost zero energy, forcing them to charge a positive electrode of a generator. Theoretically possible – with plasma. Not with a solid boron target and a proton beam.

The devil is as always the total efficiency. If you have to heat 10,000 atoms to a million degrees, and only ten of them fuse, can you break even?

The damage alpha particles from Ra do is mechanical, notan induced radioactivity.

• #
• #

The 16,000 panels on the farm have the power to light up an area almost twice the size of Tasmania….

True, it needs to be read in context, but nine out of ten readers will read it as verbatim. (cue Gee Aye)

This plant has a Nameplate of 5MW, and people will also read that verbatim as well. Total generation under even the best of situations will not see that total of 5MW being reached, and the average daily generation across a year of just the daylight hours alone will only be a little under 1.4MW, if that.

Currently, Tasmania is consuming almost 1000MW.

Then after shaking my head by reading the article, I read the comments, and I actually despair ….. at the total lack of knowledge by the people making those comments.

You just cannot argue against something like this. I could leave a comment there, but it would not be posted there. People read those comments and they consider that (as the reader) they don’t know enough to leave a comment themselves, so they trust that those who actually ARE leaving a comment do in actual fact KNOW what they are talking about, otherwise why would they be leaving a Comment there in the first place.

This is exactly why $h!t like this gains so much traction. It is without fraction of a doubt the ONLY subject that the ABC treats as so lax. If you were to leave a comment on ANY other subject with such a complete lack of understanding, it would be moderated out of existence. It’s probably the ONLY thing the ABC does not fact check. Tony. • # Dennis Thank you Anton • # Dennis The former motel owner consulted many engineers. And accountants no doubt. And worked out that taxpayer subsidies would guarantee a return on investment well exceeding bodies on beds. • # toorightmate The former motel earner was given 40% of funds from the Renewables Fund (my money). The remainder came from O/S investors. I suspect those well meaning investors were also subsidised. But, boy Oh boy, don’t they pick some dandy locations. • # Antoine D'Arche I just made the mistake of reading through the comments. Sure, it’s only about 20 stupid people’s comments chosen and there may have been a lot of more critical comments blocked by ABC staff. But bugger me!? I’m no longer certain that the coming black outs and shortages will be enough to convince some of these people….. We need this website disseminated absolutely EVERYWHERE. • # joseph ‘It’s probably the ONLY thing the ABC does not fact check.’ Not so Tony. You want to fact check what they have to say about Dr. Wakefield, and vaccines. • # pat 11 Dec: CBS San Francisco: Phil Matier: California Considers Placing A Mileage Tax On Drivers California is moving closer to charging drivers for every mile they drive. The state says it needs more money for road repairs, and the gas tax just isn’t bringing in enough revenue. The state recently road-tested a mileage monitoring plan… State Senator Scott Wiener and others are saying that when it comes to road taxes, it’s time to start looking at charging you by the mile rather than by the gallon. “If you own an older vehicle that is fueled by gas, you’re paying gas tax to maintain the roads. Someone who has an electric vehicle or a dramatically more fuel efficient vehicle is paying much less than you are. But they are still using the roads,” Wiener said… One idea would be installing devices that would clock your mileage every time you pull up to the pump or electric car charging station. Or put a tracker on every car. “The reality is that if you have a smartphone your data of where you are traveling is already in existence,” Wiener said… Randy Rentschler, of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said one answer is to raise the gas tax and up the vehicle registration fee for electric cars. “If you buy a small car that gets great fuel economy, we don’t get enough money to repair the roads … but the fact of the matter is people are buying trucks,” Rentschler said. However, raising vehicle registration fees and taxing people with fuel-efficient, hybrid or electric vehicles could also discourage people from purchasing such vehicles. Fuel-efficient, hybrid and electric vehicles are key to reducing vehicle emissions and improving air quality around the world. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/12/11/california-considers-mileage-tax/ • # pat behind paywall: 15 Dec: MetalBulletin: Costlier domestic coking coal in China triggers interest for seaborne materials Trader-driven buying activity continues to send seaborne coking coal prices higher, and a strengthening domestic market in China has resulted in a bullish outlook for the entire segment of the steel complex. A cargo of premium low-vol hard coking coal was traded around$224 per tonne cfr China on Friday, sources told Metal Bulletin on Friday December 15. The shipment’s laycan is set for early February. Domestic coking coal prices in China strengthened this week amid higher transportation costs and healthy demand.
“Prices for low-sulfur domestic coal are rising rapidly in China…
https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3775742/Costlier-domestic-coking-coal-in-China-triggers-interest-for-seaborne-materials.html

15 Dec: Deutsche Welle: China u-turns on rapid end to coal heating
Plans to rapidly cut coal use in China halted after households were left without heat. But air quality appears to have improved despite the setback.
by Arthur Wyns, Katharina Wecker
Valerie Karplus, assistant professor of global economics and management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, said the u-turn wasn’t a major set-back for the country’s efforts to cut CO2 emissions, but showed the transition would take time.
“The current short-term shortages do not undermine the long-term goal of reducing coal in China’s energy mix,” Karplus told DW. “They highlight how the energy system cannot turn on a dime.”…

Hasty construction of gas infrastructure and a range of renewable energy megaprojects are underway in all 28 cities. But not nearly enough was ready to cope with temperatures dropping to an average of -2°C in December…

Oliver Sartor, senior climate and energy research fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations said public health was also an important factor in properly planning the shift away from coal.
“They are still giving priority to gas over coal where they can in these cities,” Sartor told DW. “They simply have adopted a policy very quickly and building appropriate gas infrastructure for heating takes time. They can’t do it overnight, nor should they – the risks to health of leaky gas pipes are bad for health and safety ***and potentially worse than climate for coal to the high global warming potential of unburned methane.”
http://www.dw.com/en/china-u-turns-on-rapid-end-to-coal-heating/a-41816867

***is there something wrong with this wording?

• #

pat,

I think that they’re talking about household heating. China is making the conversion from using coal for home heating to using Natural Gas, hence the construction of piping to residences.

Tony.

• #
Graeme#4

Would like to know how much of China’s current pollution problems is caused by domestic heating/cooking and how much by coal power stations.

• #
el gordo

Up to three million households will be forced to give up coal heating and replace with gas or electricity.

This is good practice and should reduce winter smog in northern China.

• #
tom0mason

The problem in China is that many people using coal fired heating and cooking were left without coal and not connected to the gas lines because of a shortfall in gas supplies/infrastructure. This caused such a furor that domestic coal sales were reinstated in some areas.

• #
pat

15 Dec: HellenicShippingNews: Reuters: China boosts gas, coal output in race to heat homes for winter
by by Meng Meng and Josephine Mason
China’s coal miners and natural gas producers ramped up output last month at their fastest pace in months to meet surging winter heating demand as utilities and households scrambled for supplies amid a fuel supply crisis, data showed this week…
Major gas fields such as PetroChina’s Yanchang and Changqing have been running at full capacity to cope with demand for the fuel for heating since many northern cities reported shortages in November as part of Beijing’s drive to cut coal use and curb pollution.

China’s coal output last month still hit its highest since June at 299.98 million tonnes, and analysts expect demand in the world’s top consumer of the fuel to continue to rise as many homes revert to the commodity for heating due to gas shortages.
Many households are also using electric heaters, drawing on coal-fired power plants.

The data suggests China will need to import more gas and coal to meet extra winter demand, likely adding further support to rallying prices.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices in Asia hit three-year highs earlier this month, while China’s thermal coal futures rose to a record 690 yuan per ton on Thursday…

15 Dec: Reuters: Mongolia suspends coal customs clearance at border checkpoint to end dangerous traffic jam
by Terrance Edwards
“It should last until the long queue at the border crossing clears, approximately seven-to-10 days,” said a ministry spokesperson about the suspension on Friday.
Coal exports have helped lift the sagging Mongolian economy while foreign investment remains cool…

During the suspension, coal miners will not load new trucks with coal for deliveries, the spokesperson said. He added that operations would resume immediately after the road clears…
Hong Kong-listed Mongolian Mining Corp is currently allowed 40 percent of the traffic carrying coal to the border, according to a company spokesperson.
The traffic queues of heavy-duty trucks carrying tonnes of coal stretched as far a 130 kilometres in October…

Data from the National Statistics Office shows coal exports grew only 1.7 times to $2.1 billion in the first 11 months of the year compared with more than fourfold growth for the first half of the year. Coal made up nearly half of the total$4.51 billion earned from mineral exports during January-November this year.
Coal miners say a railway would deliver coal more quickly and efficiently, but the government has struggled to finish a train line between coal country in the Gobi desert and the border…
https://www.reuters.com/article/mongolia-coal-traffic/mongolia-suspends-coal-customs-clearance-at-border-checkpoint-to-end-dangerous-traffic-jam-idUSL4N1OF2HC

15 Dec: SouthChinaMorningPost: Reuters: Chinese energy firm rents 100-truck convoy to help alleviate gas shortages
CNOOC having to transport liquefied natural gas thousands of kilometres from southern China to the wintry north as shortages of the fuel bite
A result of unprecedented government pressure to clean up the environment, the clamour for more gas has led to shutdowns at factories short of supply, even as residents across China’s industrial northern heartland freeze without fuel for their new heating systems…

There are no major pipelines connecting the north with the south.
Reuters calculations, based on the going rate of 1.05 yuan per tonne, per mile to transport gas by diesel truck, point to the firm being willing to soak up costs potentially running into millions of dollars…
Delivering LNG by diesel trucks travelling 2,400km from Zhuhai to Baoding, a major city in the northern Hebei province struggling with gas shortages, would take about two days and cost about 50,400 yuan (US\$76,266) for the 20 tonnes per truck, Reuters calculations showed.

***That is almost a third of the value of a 20-tonne cargo of LNG cargo, based on offer prices of 9,000 yuan per tonne on Friday, trader sources said.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2124497/chinese-energy-firm-rents-100-truck-convoy-help

• #
Robert Rosicka

OT again but ABC is the gift that keeps giving , solar powered trains .

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-16/world-first-solar-train-the-brainchild-of-byron-bay-millionaire/9265522

• #
el gordo

High Speed Rail is out of the question.

• #

‘Our’costly ABC,
more a penance

• #
Andrew McRae

“For those cloudy days we’ve also got 30 kilowatts of solar panels in this [station's] roof here so we can also plug it in.
“On a sunny day like today we can do about four or five trips before we have to plug it in.”

But it might be premature to call this the dawn of an new era in rail travel.
Longer trips than this one — 10 minutes to cover three kilometres or so — would require regular recharging stations along the route, but Mr Flannery said the technology might be suited to inner-city trams.

The solar-powered future is… 18km/h !
Of course it’s “the dawn of an new era” when you can’t go anywhere until the sun comes up.

Perhaps a train in Byron had to be that slow because like that’s as fast as the stoners could handle maaaaan.

• #
clipe

The last section/car is the battery?

• #
Anton

when fusion does work, the entire climate industry, renewables, panic-merchants and co. becomes an ant-hill in history.

Would you consider changing that to dung hill, Jo?

• #
Anton

Here’s another “breakthrough” fusion claim. Thing is, one day, one of these will work.

Well said Jo! Don’t forget “smart fusion” either, the new magnetic confinement schemes that use smarter code implemented on faster computers to control the plasma in toroidal configurations. Those improvements have arguably outdated the ITER fusion reactor torus that is (slowly!) being built at Cadarache in the south of France, and is so large that it is a world collaboration. At least three rival companies building smaller magnetic confinement prototypes little larger than a truck. Good luck to them!

• #
Delaxos

“What if it works?” goes together with “What if it doesn’t?”…

• #
Curious George

It does not work – yet. Possibly never, we don’t know – yet. Worth trying.

• #
Doc

Do you really want renewables replaced by fusion/fission generated power.
That’s an expenditure argument to fix a problem most here would say doesn’t exist. The world is proven to be thriving on the increasing CO2 – a bonus from the inadequacy/failure of renewables. The planet is greening and food production increased to feed the rising multitudes. Besides, the source of the rise in CO2 is multifactorial and the bulk of those factors are not manipulatable by man.

The argument to replace fossil fuels is really one to be had to clean up real atmospheric pollution in overpopulated, underdeveloped nations, or an argument to be held in a millenium when ff’s run out. Fus./Fis. argument implies that, if we must have alternatives to fossil fuels as demanded by government, then it is an argument between renewables and other alternatives. This argument muddies the waters of the argument about Anthropogenic Global Warming and the place of CO2 in it.

Arguing about forms of power generation falls into the trap of the promoters for
the political argument over ‘global warming’. It implies a scientific acceptance of the theory that most here would disagree with. The promoters long ago realised they were losing both the real data measurements foundation of their false theory and the scientific basis of it. Years ago they changed the propaganda descriptors for their theory – AGW became GW, GW is described as ‘pollution’ ( I heard a politician on a Sky panel report she backed the GW theory on the basis of polluted air around the world), etc and the UN is changing its disaster stories used to push their ‘theory’ as they slowly back away from it. Arguing sources of generation gives the ‘theory’ a look of scientific support, that we need renewables or something to fix a non problem.

To defeat the UN based movement, it is imperative that the arguments continue to
be based against the theology of the CO2 basis and the factual nature of whether/how much any global warming that occurs/..ed is related to CO2. To win the argument one has to be precise and persistently aim at the heart of the theory and not be side tracked. Unless one has learned how to plug volcanoes.

• #
Alfred

This technology has no future. The oil needed to run the economy needed to finance it will not be there. All the major oil companies are in deep trouble. They are borrowing to pay their dividends and pensions for heavens sake!