Lockheed

[Skipjack]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

[MSimon]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

Let us suppose there are 10K years worth of B11 on the planet. I propose we devote 1K years worth to making oil and gas. If necessary. Some where along the way we start looking for B11 asteroids. We don't have to figure it all out by tonight.

[Skipjack]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

Let us suppose there are 10K years worth of B11 on the planet. I propose we devote 1K years worth to making oil and gas. If necessary. Some where along the way we start looking for B11 asteroids. We don't have to figure it all out by tonight.

100 years go by really quickly. 10k years are a lot longer. Plus, we need the oil for a lot of stuff, not just for fuel. It is ruthless to burn such an important natural resource.
Plus, PB11 fusion reactors might enable us to reach asteroids for mining. Oil does not (at least not well enough).

[MSimon]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

Let us suppose there are 10K years worth of B11 on the planet. I propose we devote 1K years worth to making oil and gas. If necessary. Some where along the way we start looking for B11 asteroids. We don't have to figure it all out by tonight.

100 years go by really quickly. 10k years are a lot longer. Plus, we need the oil for a lot of stuff, not just for fuel. It is ruthless to burn such an important natural resource.
Plus, PB11 fusion reactors might enable us to reach asteroids for mining. Oil does not (at least not well enough).

We can use fusion to make oil. Or coal to make oil.

[williatw]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

Thought I answered that in my quote Skipjack:

So between that and the Canadian tar-sands oil (and the fracking of oil shale) we should be sitting pretty energy wise for a good 100 years or so...plenty of time to develop polywell or some other type of fusion and scale it up. Failing that there is also high temperature molten salt Thorium fission reactors. And of course given enough time wind and solar should come into their own as well.

Given another plentiful source of energy (be it polywell or some other type of fusion, Thorium fission, & even renewables) it isn't that difficult to manufacture liquid hydrocarbons endothermically if really needed (Either as a fuel source or an organic feedstock for industry). Thorium for instance is I believe several times more abundant than Uranium, enough to last many centuries by itself if need be. 100yrs +is plenty of time to develop substitutes from the many possible candidates

[djolds1]

We can use fusion to make oil. Or coal to make oil.

The biofuel routes get a lot of contempt, but some of the bacterial synthesis of hydrocarbon routes such as the Joule Energy Process show real promise. Once that gets up and running, the lifespan of the petroleum age becomes essentially infinite. Sunlight + waste CO2 from burned hydrocarbon fuel in the atmo and you have a more or less closed cycle. If anything, the long term danger is reduced agricultural yield as the biofuels processes pull too much CO2 out of the atmo and plant growth suffers.

And I tend to think that more petroleum on this planet is due to abiogenesis than to dead dinosaurs (metaphorically speaking). So geologic reserves are probably FAR larger than the usual estimates claim.

[Skipjack]

Sure and what after those 100 years are over? Then what? Oh does not matter what happens in a hundred years from now, right?
Also what will the price for a barrel of oil be? We need to invest into sustainable energy sources that are cheaper, much cheaper than oil and are not burning a valuable, limited resource.

Thought I answered that in my quote Skipjack:

So between that and the Canadian tar-sands oil (and the fracking of oil shale) we should be sitting pretty energy wise for a good 100 years or so...plenty of time to develop polywell or some other type of fusion and scale it up. Failing that there is also high temperature molten salt Thorium fission reactors. And of course given enough time wind and solar should come into their own as well.

Given another plentiful source of energy (be it polywell or some other type of fusion, Thorium fission, & even renewables) it isn't that difficult to manufacture liquid hydrocarbons endothermically if really needed (Either as a fuel source or an organic feedstock for industry). Thorium for instance is I believe several times more abundant than Uranium, enough to last many centuries by itself if need be. 100yrs +is plenty of time to develop substitutes from the many possible candidates

Then why not do it now, instead of 100 years from now? Oil is already way to expensive and prices will only go up. I am sick of it.

[williatw]

Let us suppose there are 10K years worth of B11 on the planet. I propose we devote 1K years worth to making oil and gas. If necessary. Some where along the way we start looking for B11 asteroids. We don't have to figure it all out by tonight.

Not only Asteroids...but given fusion powered space propulsion systems the moons of the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, & Neptune are fair game as well as the Kuiper belt; all full of recoverable raw materials/resources available for the taking.

[williatw]

Then why not do it now, instead of 100 years from now? Oil is already way to expensive and prices will only go up. I am sick of it.

Uhh..we are in the process of doing it now, takes time; fossil fuels especially oil pretty much run industrial society and have for many decades; replacing them will understandably also take decades. It was only recently when oil became expensive enough that any alternatives really had much of a chance to make sufficient inroads; remember the oil glut and .99 cent per gallon gas as recently as the late '90's? Those who prematurely tried to massively invest in alternatives got slaughtered when oil/gas prices dropped in the late '90's; many still remember that and are somewhat skittish even now. Tar sands and especially shale derived oil aren't new they had been around for years; it was only with the huge increase in the price of so called "conventional" oil that they finally got their change at bat so to speak. The same is true with alternative energy. We still have plenty of oil (enough to keep things going until replacements are ready) but cheap easily recoverable oil is largely gone; that is good for any alternatives trying to muscle their way in; any alternatives (renewables, fusion, even large scale fission) would understandably at least initially be more expensive than the already established technology (oil, coal, natural gas).

[hanelyp]

Upgraded a simulation of my guess of the Lockheed-Martin design, adjusted a couple parameters.

Accounting for plasma pressure and reducing the center magnet strength some the wells merge.

Some work is needed on field magnitude at the boundary.

[DeltaV]

The future of energy is almost here
http://www.aiaa-propulsionenergy.org/Fo ... x?id=24403

The future of energy will be here before we know it, said Alton Romig, vice president of engineering and advanced systems at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, better known as the Skunk Works. He was addressing today’s plenary session at AIAA’s Propulsion and Energy Forum in Cleveland.

Romig discussed the state of the art in energy systems, considered the possible futures, and analyzed the challenges that may prevent such a future from unfolding. His vision included innovations such as compact fusion energy; producing energy from excess heat on aircraft systems; warp drive; reliable hydrogen systems for aircraft; and reliable electric aircraft propulsion systems. His vision also touched on alternative fuels, advanced electrical power sources, energy harvesting techniques, and revolutionary advances in energy storage, such as efficient and larger capacity batteries.

Romig acknowledged that some of these goals are well off in the future. But it’s just a matter of time before we attain them, he said, reminding the audience that it was “only 50 years between Goddard’s first liquid-fueled rocket launches and the Moon landing.” In short, technology advances quickly.

[choff]

In Bussard's Google talk I remember him mentioning Raytheon, did he also mention LM? When you look at the small fusion programs crawling along on approx. $10 million budgets that required a X 10 scale up to get there, you have to wonder if the only reason the big push doesn't happen is because the oil industry wants to keep the monopoly going.

[MSimon]

In Bussard's Google talk I remember him mentioning Raytheon, did he also mention LM? When you look at the small fusion programs crawling along on approx. $10 million budgets that required a X 10 scale up to get there, you have to wonder if the only reason the big push doesn't happen is because the oil industry wants to keep the monopoly going.

I was approached by a co in the oil service industry that wanted to fund a Polywell Experiment. It foundered on the inability to make a deal with EMC2. I think that was a mistake on the part of EMC2. But they were hooked on gmnt at the time. Anyway EMC2 has the contact (all of them that I worked on in fact) as does Ligon. So maybe something will come of it.

[D Tibbets]

The question of funding is weather it is honest efforts to promote the idea for profit or altruism, or if it is to control the technology,not for profit, but for suppression- ie to maintain profits from an embedded technology (fossil fuels). Such an approach may eventually end up in the same conclusion, but only after the current resources are exhausted. And, from a global warming bias, the harm of not aggressively cutting back on fossil fuel use as soon as possible- ideally, without crippling the world economies.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

Concerning boron resources. There are limits on the easily available- "cheap" boron. But more expensive harvesting from sea water greatly multiplies the total available. I think ~ 0.01 grams of boron per KG of sea water may be harvestable. Expensive, but when you are talking about nuclear fusion, a lot of power comes from very little. I suspect it would still be cheaper, perhaps much cheaper, than the cost of enriching uranium for the same energy yield.

And, assuming P-B11 fusion works really well, P-Nitrogen15 fusion may be possible. This isotope of nitrogen is essentially inexhaustible.

And, finally, the D-He3 reaction is also aneutronic (not as good). D-D Polywells or other reactors could produce a relatively lot of He3 directly (and through stored tritium decay). so you could have your cake and eat it too. D-D reactors for grid use, and D-He3 reactors for situations where low neutron exposure and direct conversion is attractive- like ocean ships or space ships, or for use for nonproliferation situations in unreliable countries.

Dan Tibbets