61

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What to Do with a Failed $5 Billion Experiment?

« on: 31/08/2014 20:36:51 »

So you spent 17 years and $5 billion to build a fusion experiment. You built a facility wider than the length of three football fields. You built a 400-foot-long laser with more than 33,000 optical parts; it is currently the highest energy laser in the world. You've been through more budget overruns and management problems than you'd care to admit.

Now, you finally turn the thing on at full power and carry out your experiment. And it fails monumentally. Now what?

This is the dilemma facing the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Built with the promise of providing ignition -- creating fusion energy greater than the energy needed to release it -- NIF fell 28,000 times short of its goal. No one knows how to fix it. So NIF has now been finding other things to occupy its time.

- What to Do with a Failed $5 Billion Experiment?

62

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / In response to the nuclear fusion interview today

« on: 31/08/2014 19:03:16 »

decades away! I think she really meant centuries away, if never.

• Fusion may not work because the assumptions behind it are wrong! Plasma atoms may quickly become uncharged hence no longer contained.[1]
• Nuclear fission is also carbon free energy. Transatomic power calculate the cost of energy from their WAMSR design at 6¢/kWh[2]
• The kinds of 'waste' one gets in nuclear fission are not nearly as dangerous as scientists tell us. Low dose radiation is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude less harmful than Linear No-threshold (LNT) models predict. The LNT model regulatory agencies use is a fraud, which has been accepted for 58 years.[3,4]
• Renewables are a joke. EROI studies indicate that a minimal EROI factor of 12 is required[5] to sustain industrial civilization[6]. Renewables can't get near that value when energy storage is factored in[7] and without energy storage renewables are carbon intensive (needing gas- or coal- fired generation to make them work without blackouts]

Thanks for answering my tweet. I'm unconvinced by the answer. This is why:

• Why do BBC science shows give so much publicity and time to nuclear fusion and no time to Gen IV fission?
• Has there been a single TV/radio show explaining why Gen IV breeder reactors are so much more likely to provide for our energy needs than pie-in-the-sky fusion?
• Why does the EU fund fusion to the tune of €1 billion / year yet give practically nothing to Gen IV fission research?

I think fusion is politics not science.

Refs:

• Bogdan Maglich : wrong assumptions may explain the failure of sustained fusion.
• NEI Small Reactor Forum, slide 11
• Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response
• 1½ hour podcast from above, ignore initial, annoying, 30 second jingle
• Energy, EROI and quality of life
• My definition of sustainable includes economic growth and increasing wealth because the alternative will be barbaric
• The Catch-22 of Energy Storage

PS: I'm not against fusion.

63

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is required to sustain nuclear fusion?

« on: 31/08/2014 18:16:46 »

Maybe nuclear fusion is just a waste of money? An expensive way to award physicists with their Nobel prizes.

Watch Bogdan Maglich.

64

The Environment / How much damage is a nuclear war likely to cause?

« on: 08/08/2014 23:56:04 »

How much upper atmospheric pollution is likely from a 15 kt atomic bomb?

1. In particular how much black carbon will be released into the upper atmosphere and under what circumstances will it be released?

2. The worst case scenarios all describe a nuclear winter consequent on the after effects of firestorms. Which particular nuclear powers are targeting mass incineration of cities?

3. If a nuclear war was fought but cities were not incinerated, could the same nuclear winter still happen? If so, how?

I must admit to being skeptical over claims that 5 Tg of black carbon will be released into the atmosphere from the detonation of 50 15kt bombs. That's 100,0000 tones of black carbon per 15 kt A-bomb detonation.

Where's the evidence that our governments are planning genocidal wars against civilians in our cities, and that each 15kt bomb will cause a massive fire-storm?

65

The Environment / Re: Is there a better way of desposing of nuclear waste?

« on: 14/11/2013 12:34:28 »

I don't think it's a practical because we can't get political agreement on where to put it.

We could get rid of it by burning it in nuclear reactors. We can process the waste and use plutonium (and other actinides) to power Gen IV breeder reactors. Such reactors are designed to breed their own fuel yet leave no significant long term nuclear waste. Gen IV reactors are fundamentally safer than today's pressurised reactors which use water as a coolant. For example: Well designed Gen IV

• have passive systems designed to shutdown the reactor in an emergency.
• will under no circumstances release radioactive caesium or iodine into the wider environment (as happened at Chernobyl)
• will not melt down
• because they don't use water coolant :
  
  • will not generate hydrogen explosions (as seen at Fukushima)
  • will not operate under pressure, with the consequent threat of loss of pressure leading to loss of cooling and release of steam

66

Science Experiments / Actual Kitchen Science - Plant Micropropagation

« on: 31/10/2013 22:49:20 »

Plant Tissue Culture: Micropropagation (youtube)

Plants from Test Tubes, 4e (3rd ed is good too)

You don't need a laminar flow hood. You can use a DIY glove compartment :- a big box (ply-wood or even cardboard, with a perspex front).

The most important thing you need is sterility, steady hands and patience. Clean your kitchen spotless, with a bleach spray. A UV-light is good too.

It should be easy to order the plant nutrients from a chemical supplier (even in this age of home drug and terrorist lab paranoia!).

Essentials: Pressure cooker (home 5L size is OK), DIY glove compartment, alcohol or gas lamp, jars. Scalpel with replaceable blades and forceps (use proper blades and forceps from your supplier as these are very cheap).

67

General Science / Re: How can economies continue to grow, given a finite supply of resources?

« on: 30/10/2013 20:34:20 »

We have a lot of energy reserves: Global energy resources in ZetaJoules
- chart compiled by 1984 Nobel physics laureate Carlo Rubbia

We'll be fried before we run out of oil and gas.

The slide can still be found on page 7 of : Carlo Rubbia's ThEC13 presentation

68

The Environment / Global energy resources (ZetaJoules) / AGW

« on: 30/10/2013 07:52:32 »

Consider this slide, Global energy resources (ZetaJoules), prepared by Carlo Rubbi (1984 Nobel laureate).

It's scary just how much oil and gas is still left. We'll surely fry the planet before we've gone half way through it.

69

General Science / Re: How can economies continue to grow, given a finite supply of resources?

« on: 24/10/2013 22:11:05 »

Nuclear fission still can still give us plentiful cheap energy for thousands of years to come.

The main factors driving the high price of nuclear fission energy have been bad reactor designs, draconian regulation, and bad (for the customer) business models.

Most of today's reactors are pressurized light water reactors. This design goes back over 60 years. It was developed to power US navy submarines. It is inefficient in many ways.

1) By running a reactor at a higher temperature than the PWR more of the heat produced can be transferred. e.g. LFTR. The PWR is inefficient at using the heat produced.

2) Waste. PWR creates a lot of waste. Fuel must be periodically replaced. Only a tiny fraction of the fuel added is used. The remaining spent fuel is then most likely waste. It would be OK if it could be recycled but there are only 3 reprocessing plants on the planet. The spent fuel just festers away somewhere giving nuclear energy a really bad rep.

Because today's reactors almost all use Uranium as a fuel, they create a lot of plutonium and actinide waste. Very nasty.

A better design, such as a LFTR, would burn up all its Thorium fuel, leaving no spend fuel. At the end of the reactor life the waste would be a tiny fraction of that made by a PWR, and such waste would be low in plutonium and other actinides. It's even waste, as such, because it can just be added to another reactor.

3) Today's PWRs use Uranium as a fuel. Thorium is less damaging to the environment. 1 ton of Uranium needs 800,000 tons of ore to be mined. Thorium is often found in nature with the lanthanides. All the Thorium we need (to power the world with electricity) can be obtained as a by-product of lanthanide mining, with the vast majority left over for the future.

4) The LFTR is far safer than the PWR. It's reaction vessel is not pressurized. It intrinsically safer.  Melt-down is impossible, even if hit by a meteor, earthquake, terrorist attack, your worst nightmare, etc.

Next generation IV GEN reactors are far better than today's obsolete, 60 year old, reactor designs.

Coal and gas electricity plants both emit far more radiation than nuclear plants, orders of magnitude more. Coal also emits particulates responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. We should replace all electricity from fossil fuel with IV GEN reactor designs.

Recommended: Thorium remix 2011.

70

Just Chat! / Fake, fluff : is this the consequence of "publish or perish"?

« on: 19/10/2013 20:04:08 »

This leading article in a leading magazine has 300+ comments.

The Economist: How science goes wrong

71

Physiology & Medicine / Re: 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 09/10/2013 19:31:58 »

I think when we've begun to identify which genes do what we'll be closer to knowing. That seems decades away.

GWAS studies seem to estimate too low (2%). GCTA studies have potential flaws too: Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the "Missing Heritability"

72

Physiology & Medicine / Re: 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 10/09/2013 23:28:55 »

If you look at it in the context of UK eduction policy post-1945 to late 1960s it makes sense. At secondary level there were supposedly Grammar schools, Technical schools and Secondary Moderns. Children were selected for these at age 11. Kids at Grammar School got by far the best education, but no more than 25% of children were allowed in. My Secondary Moderns were academically crap. This was all justified on the grounds that only the best could benefit from a good education because they had better natural ability. That, and constant attempts to justify IQ as some kind of natural variation with a 'Bell curve', normal distribution. It was like an echo of 'The Mismeasure of Man' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man 

73

Physiology & Medicine / Re: 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 10/09/2013 15:52:53 »

Once thing I noticed about this study was that they had narrowed it to 3 specific SNPs. I'm shocked they only found 3. I guess the effect of these 3 far outweighs effects from the rest of the genome. I'd assume that the next stage is to go after the genes, to discover the specific physiological pathways and to figure out how and why some of us are better at learning and problem solving. This is at the heart of the IQ debate that's been so fiercely debated all my life.

You've raised 4 huge problems there.  Yes. There definition of educational attainment is clearly too crude.

As for piano playing. Not everyone has the opportunity to learn. For those that do, piano students spend vastly different amounts of time practising. They fall into 2 main groups. Those spending minimum time and those voluntarily spending more time. The latter group have a much better chance of becoming professional musicians.

74

Physiology & Medicine / Re: 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 09/09/2013 09:31:41 »

I bumping this because my detractors posted no counter evidence.

Science article: http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/9199265/GWAS_of_126_559_Individuals_Identifies_Genetic_Variants_Associated_with.pdf

Supplementary Materials (171 pages): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/05/29/science.1235488.DC1/Rietveld.SM.revision.1.pdf

They claim that 2% of educational attainment is due to genes.

alancalverd says the claim seems bizarre but posted no alternative evidence.

evan_au defers to 'twin studies', but posts no links: 

Political biases can distort reports like this in either direction. It is easy to show (with biased arguments) that educational outcomes are almost 100% genetic or 100% environmental.

I don't believe evan_au. If it's easy to show why did so many researchers agree on 2%. Why stick their necks out by quoting 2% when the prevailing orthodoxy says 50%?

Over 100 researchers took part in this study of 125000 individuals.  It looks like a massive study to me.

PS: The only Twin study I could find is from 23 years ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120227061723/http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring05/hicksb/psy3135/bouchard_1990.pdf

It claimed that 70% of educational attainment was due to genetic factors. Elsewhere people have flatly told me the number is 50% and they seem quite certain about it.

The evidence says 2%, but scientists are certain that it's actually 50%.  Is it another case of science progressing one funeral at at time?  I hope not.

Just out of interest. How long before we're able to identify the specific genes which code for most of the difference in educational attainment. Which genes? Which mutations? What might the incidence of mutation be? How long before we can agree on whether it's 50% or 2%?

75

New Theories / Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?

« on: 04/09/2013 09:06:57 »

I personally think the scientific method may have been independently invented by several people in several places prior to its take off in Renaissance Europe. The scientific method is a very useful invention. What allowed it to take off in Europe, from 1543 onward?

1) It's utility.
2) The printing press.

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

76

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: The Exclusive Biological nature of Evolution via the natural selection :

« on: 04/09/2013 07:51:26 »

Why then is the theory of evolution extended to cultures, societies, religions or spirituality , politics, philosophy, economics, intellect, psychology, human consciousness, ....?

If you use a term like evolution in a biology forum it means something very particular: evolution by natural selection.

When you use evolution in a political forum the term is open to many meanings because the word evolution existed before the concept of biological evolution. In this context, you can hardly even accuse the author of misusing a word.

I think people extend it because they don't really understand it.  Also, because evolution is widely accepted in science, a paper called The Evolution of Hairdressing seems to have more credibility than one called The History of Hairdressing.  I'm sure the author of the first would justify their title by claiming to write about how hairdressing had changed (aka evolved) over time.

cheryl j described it above. I think writers are falling for the "naturalistic fallacy" by misusing the word evolution (with the implication of 'evolution by natural selection').

77

General Science / Forensic experts 'biased towards side which pays them'

« on: 04/09/2013 07:35:36 »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10276672/Forensic-experts-biased-towards-side-which-pays-them.html

I'm not in the least bit surprised by this but how could we explain it using scientific reasoning?

78

General Science / Re: Why is there no Human Sciences forum?

« on: 04/09/2013 07:28:40 »

What do you mean by human science? Sociology? Anthropology?

Yes Cheryl. Sociology? Anthropology, Psychology, even Economics if it's done well.

79

General Science / Why is there no Human Sciences forum?

« on: 29/08/2013 19:13:19 »

Are human sciences not science?  They are certainly not "General Science"

80

Physiology & Medicine / Re: 98% of all variation in our educational attainment is non-genetic?

« on: 06/08/2013 17:29:42 »

Here are the supplementary materials.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/05/29/science.1235488.DC1/Rietveld.SM.revision.1.pdf. 160 pages excluding citations!

To answer the critics above.
1. They seem to discount previous research

To date, however, few if any robust associations between specific genetic variants and social-scientific outcomes have been identified likely because existing work has relied on samples that are too small.

2. They acknowledge that this study is out of skelter with received wisdom

Estimates suggest that around 40% of the variance in educational attainment is explained by genetic factors.