Comments by "Bo McGillacutty" (@Mrbfgray) on "The B1M" channel.

Meanwhile in Ukraine....a dam is removed overnight.
37
It's to harvest unlimited taxpayer funds. Hope it leads to something but net energy output is not even close to economically viable, likely never will be for Earth.
28
@lazymass Depends on the opportunity cost and likelihood of success. Will it ever exceed the economic potential of indirect fusion when solar panels continue to dramatically decrease in cost and increase in efficiency and are already on par with the cheapest electric gen? I doubt it. Government initiatives like this are defined by inefficiencies and waste and take on a life of their own without regard to economics, often well past obsolescence. Hydrogen fuel is a classic example, gov funds STILL flowing into that when it's been obvious for decades it's never going be remotely cost effective. Vastly leaner, cheaper private fusion projects are in the works.
6
I thought this was gonna be 'bout my old lawn mower with busted wheels.
4
@juliuscaesar5270 By solve you mean economically viable I assume, which is way beyond energy break even and won't solve all our problems, not even close. It may help w energy problems but only if it is cheaper than solar coupled w storage. Quite a stretch from here. Our energy issues seem easy compared to other problems we face.
4
@garrettmillard525 What makes U suspect fusion will be cheap? I see being the most expensive ever invented, ridiculously expensive. Certainly as it's being done in these experiments, no one will be able to afford it. Carbon capture probably shouldn't ever happen, more CO2 is better for now and cheaper better options are coming for fossil fuels. Cheap energy will be solar coupled with storage, mostly batteries foreseeably. CO2 isn't remotely THE driver of climate, it's a bit player and unfortunate distraction from a litany of real problems. CO2 is greening the planet and significantly increasing crop yields while reducing water requirements.
4
@carbon5362 Let's hope it stays that way.
4
@daggel True but the customers don't want to wait for perfection, they love 'em anyway and T. rapidly improves the product. "Poorly built" in this case is about fit and finish not power train, safety, functionality, engineering or electronics.
3
@lVideoWatcherl I'm not vilifying anything but government waste, there is zero cost discipline by nature there. YES some basic research only get's done that way and can be very worthwhile. That's fine, ALL of it must be critiqued ALL THE TIME. These things take on a life of their own regardless of the costs or justification. We turn corn into ethanol in the USA which yields as much energy in alcohol as the fuels and fertilizers required to grow it. Shameful fiasco but no end in sight, entire industries built around it see to that. I'm not apposed to fusion research but it's foolish to expect it to be practicle on Earth for centuries, at least the approach used here. Maybe useful on the moons of Saturn some day. Or maybe a cost effective way will be found, hope so, not holding my breath.
3
@xxwookey Do you even know what the gas that accounts for 70% of entire greenhouse effect? It's water vapor Sport.
3
Great to see funded by late fossil fuel wealth. Diversify or die fossils are going extinct.
2
@xxwookey Positive Q is so damn far from cost effective, the way it's being done here will be insanely expensive. Far better off with new generation fission which can actually be cheap.
2
@iCortex1 Sorry it when over your head, but not my problem.
2
@christophresmerowski9327 Example?
1
@christophresmerowski9327 You know this but Tesla doesn't? How about Nissan, MCA, Ford......
1
@christophresmerowski9327 You implied Tesla is comparable to BMW, Merc, VW and the rest what's the difference?
1
How'd they get the cranes up and down on the buildings?
1
@xxwookey Here in Commifornia we should be focused on such as expanding the Diablo Canyon nuke plant from 2 reactors to 4, or the 6 it was originally designed for. It's some of the cleanest cheapest power we have at current 9% of state total. Electric production needs to triple over next decade, we can't be fooling around.
1
@garrettmillard525 Climate is not driven by CO2, false narrative not backed by evidence, it's not exactly trivial in general but often is. We are still in the Ice Ages which have been horrific for last 2.5M yrs, a brief warm period for us to thrive in subject to switch back, without notice, to growing ice sheets devastating half the N. hemisphere which is the dominant condition. Methane is a silly concern, it only last about 15 yrs in the atmosphere, unless there is somehow a 100X increase which would be a short term problem, forget about it. Weather and climate have always been terrifying having nothing to do with humanity. The rhetoric that severe events are increasing IS NOT BACKED by actual science. It's hype media fabrication. Have you bothered to delve into the actual science and data? I have, most have not, they think hyperbolic headlines are reality, they are clickbait, nothing more.
1
@ameunier41 Can't argue much with that. It all must be scrutinized and criticized to keep it honest with ROI in mind. (Return On Investment--difficult to gauge as it is) Been arguing for half a century about our Moon landing spin offs ROI.
1
@ameunier41 No one wants fusion to work more than I, for the long range, century plus forward. Not required on Earth for thousands of yrs, least of our problems is running out of solar and fission fuels. Also not likely cost competitive for century or more, at least not using THIS approach. It's a great achievement already even if proving insanely uneconomic in the end. To exist in outer solar system or beyond arguably requires fusion.
1
@xxwookey I edited out the "way", lol, just cheaper.
1
@xxwookey Have U ever actually studied the science and data? Do U even know what science IS? You are a science and data denier. U get your fake science from BS msn media headlines and have NO IDEA what the real science indicates. Do better for your own good.
1
@xxwookey What caused the Younger Dryas when temps swung 10 to 20C in a matter of a century or so. What caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period which peaked about the same temps as now? Why was the coldest time in last 8,000 yrs around 1880? Pretty sure you have NO IDEA what you are talking about bc U get your "science" from bullshit headlines.
1
@xxwookey IF CO2 was the driver of we'd never escape a glacial max which have repeatedly (as best we know will continue to repeatedly) devastate half the N. Hemisphere over last 2.5M yrs, bc that's when albedo is at a max and CO2 is dangerously low, below 200ppm. We'd simply become "snowball Earth" and stay that way. And if CO2 dropped to around 150 to 100ppm, as it might in a snowball Earth scenario, that would be the end of everything that matters as all plant life would go extinct therefore almost all animal life with it. And where does the CO2 go? Oceans contain 40X more than the atmosphere, warmer oceans hold less colder oceans absorb it.
1
@xxwookey It's complicated enough that no climate models work Explain the Medieval Warm Period, equal to today's temps, the Little Ice Age we are perhaps still recovering from. How about the Younger Dryas 12 to 20C temp swings in a century or 2?? In places like Norway and Switzerland mountain passes are now being uncovered by receding ice that were last passable in Roman times. Yeah they were ice free back then too. Get the point?
1
@xxwookey Cryptically--this eevil plat form suppresses anything out of lockstep w the One True Narrative, IDK if can send link but short vid of real climate science doing real science: https://youtu.be/L1mjG_F8ppw
1
@xxwookey Excellent short vid from real scientist doing real science::::::: https://youtu.be/L1mjG_F8ppw (((if I can escape the propaganda censors here, they suppress reality base content)))
1
@bronnismofo Hate to admit I didn't coin that moniker, it's an oldie. Note the handle of the one I'm interacting with here tho. lol. (wookey as in woke??)
1
@Vento-rb4ho Solar continues to become the cheapest ever electric source while batteries dramatically drop in price and improve in energy density. Right now fusion's price per watt hr is near infinity. That's a big problem, seriously doubt it will ever be cost competitive, sunlight is unlimited too.
1
@Vento-rb4ho A few hundred square kilometers of solar panels in Nevada could power the entire USA today, small chunk of that state, so yes solar can power the world alone. Do similar in the Sahara desert for Europe, etc. Plus all the roof top space available. (not that one would have it all in one place, just perspective) Obviously solar not the only solution but it could do the job alone cost effectively. These fusion science experiments will not be part of it this century if ever. At least not the way they are doing it here.
1
@Vento-rb4ho "Been established", by whom? Meaningless. The solar footprint I mentioned is simple arithmetic, entirely doable coupled with storage. NOT debatable. Do better than "it's been established". The Establishment is wrong about most things.
1
@Vento-rb4ho Everything involved here, at this level of discussion, is based on simple arithmetic which is still apparently beyond your capacity. Storage solutions are vastly cheaper, quicker and easier than fusion. GOOD LUCK, not interested in this thread anymore.
1
@Vento-rb4ho Final point--saying "not by this method" is recognition that other approaches exist. Saying one method won't work anytime soon says nothing about the likelihood of other methods. Logical fallacy.
1
@christhegamerdelima5545 Sure, you are too broke to pay taxes anyway so what the hell.
1
@tylerpeters2624 Petroleum as a fuel is already on trajectory to obsolescence, demand has likely already peaked. This science project won't have any effect on that. Yeah there are worse uses of funds but we have cost effective alternatives including fission. And there are a few private fusion experiments going on for a tiny fraction of this grandiose contraption's cost. Since it is taxpayer funded it must be scrutinized and debated, those funds could do a lot somewhere else.
1
@turzilla Unethical labor definitely NOT required for any mineral, that's easy to debunk myth propagated by fossil promoters. Harmful waste can't be a showstopper, I'm not up on the options there but can't see why the key elements aren't recoverable. Li batteries are high grade ore when they are used up, a car batt pack worth on the order of $1k at the wrecking yard. (highly variable depending on chemistry and size naturally) It may be that solar panels are going to cost more to recycle than the constituents recovered but I can't see why it's a BFD.
1
@Poolrooms-lm3vx HA! It's all good, discussion and disagreements are healthy.
1
Democrats have made cities unlivable.
1
I hope they invested extra to raise the level a meter or two higher than they need today as sea levels will rise.
1
Burring waste in canisters--that's all you need to know, nothing new here.
1
They didn't use much if any TNT. Another children's channel.
1