Shiva_TD

Yes we need to get off of oil but you statement needs qualitification. The costs of solar, wind and nuclear are not actually going down but as the cost of oil rises their relative cost to oil are going down.

Gasoline has had an advantage as far as "stored" energy because it is easily portable and has been relatively cheap. While it remains relatively portable the cost going up drives other forms of energy and energy storage to become more financially viable.

Personally I'm looking forward to the introduction of an electric car designed (limited) to about 40 mph with a 40 mile range. It would make an excellent urban commuter vehicle for literally millions of people that don't drive on the freeways and work a reasonable distance from home. It could be produced at a fraction of the cost of even your average car of today. No, it would not be a good vacation vehicle and many would choose to have a second car for such purposes.

My point being, we have a far greater need for economical electric cars than we do for one with 200 hp that can go from 0-60 mph in 8 seconds and cruise at 80 mph. We need one especially designed for local commuting which is the bulk of driving today.

Slartibartfas

Thats not entirely correct. Costs of many alternative source of energy are going down in fact. There can be various reasons for that: economy of scale, technolgical progress, more mature technology etc.

I am pretty sure that wind power for example was able to cut costs in the last decade mentionworthy. Off shore parks might improve that again when they become a mature technology because of the large advantages of such a location.

Having that said, of course the rising oil costs make the alternatives more attractive as well of course.

You talk about a very important idea. Cars in general are today hopelessly overpowered. Not because of functionality but because of a mixture out of testosterone and irrationality. I am not saying we should forbid luxuy goods, I am saying one should start to offer cars that are no luxury goods but functional. People also have to rethink a bit as well. You dont need a car that can drive 200km/h fast when everything above 130km/h is always illegal. Just as an example.

Your city car that never sees a rough road anyway, does not have to be fit to drive in the Sahara, to name another point.

While I am not against electrical cars, I think the same point can made about standard fuel driven cars. One has to think about the feasibility regarding electric cars also regarding the question where all the electricity should come from and what to do with those mountains of used batteries, but when those problems face a solution, I think electric cars sound like a good idea.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Shiva_TD

I have long supported utilizing nuclear fission generators and a conversion to electric cars as much as possible from gasoline. Gasoline and diesel have a place in the energy spectrum but it needs to be different than it is today.

Doctor Webley

Building and designing a fusion reactor is a lot easier said than done.

__________________
High school Extempers are quite possibly the most brilliant people on Earth.

Shiva_TD

One of the things that can reduce its cost dramatically is the use of computer simulations which get better over time. Certainly a Cray computer has the ability to save literally lifetimes worth of hardware development.

So perhaps those that advocate throwing money at hardware development should take a second look at their position. Perhaps a little more work in the theoretical world needs to be done so that when we actually build a fusion reactor it will work as we intend it too. Nothing worse than a government throwing money at a white elephant.

Slartibartfas

Scale up models are highly complex and often difficult to handle. Thats why it seems they need ITER also to work on more reliable computer simulations. Thats at least my guess.

Moreover at the same time there is being an international test facility planned in Japan with heavy invovlement of among others also Europe that is purely built for the purpose to improve the understanding of some physical effects that will take place in such a reactor. Thats quite the theoretical side.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Doctor Webley

Well, a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to control fusion. A fusion reaction must contain a manmade star.

It may not sound like much, but the idea of a fusion reactor is just barely feasible at our limits of technology. Throwing money at the problem won't help us make one (just look at NASA). We need a major scientific breakthrough for this to work.

__________________
High school Extempers are quite possibly the most brilliant people on Earth.

janpor

The ITER-project is an experimental reactor, but the biggest ever built...
The States, UK, USSR (...) have done earlier research beginning in the mid-seventies...
BUt the costs of this program our so high different nations work together (incl. China, India, SKorea and Japan).
You can find more information on: ITER

__________________
"Nos pays sont devenus trop petits pour le monde actuel, à l'échelle des moyens techniques modernes, à la mesure de l'Amérique et de la Russie aujourd'hui, de la Chine et de l'Inde demain. L'unité des peuples européens réunis dans les Etats-Unis d'Europe est le moyen de relever leur niveau de vie et de maintenir la paix. Elle est le grand espoir et la chance de notre époque. Nous aussi, nous allons vers notre but, les Etats-Unis d'Europe, dans une course sans retour."

Jean Monnet - Rome 1957

Wheeldog

If it is so simple it's hard to understand why it hasn't happened. The U.S. is certainly not the only country facing rapidly rising oil costs and which is vunerable to shortages. Germany, Great Britian, France, Austrailia, China, India, etc., etc. all face severe energy shortages. Why have they not taken the fusion ball and run with it? Could it be that the problem is far more difficult and complex than we realize? Chances are that fusion will not take the place of other conventional sources of energy for a long time to come.

Shiva_TD

I believe we know how hard creating a fusion reactor is which is why spending money on the theoretical physics might make more sense right now than throwing money at hardware. The question is, where do you get the most cluck for the buck. If you waste your money on hardware then it restricts the theoretical research which is unquestionable where the ultimate solution lies. Eventually you need the hardware but are we there yet? I don't think so.