×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1 MW Cold Fusion Plant Supposedly To Come Online

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the free-enegy-time dept.

Power 828

First time accepted submitter Jherico writes "Andrea Rossi (covered here a few times before) is scheduled to bring his 1MW plant online Oct. 28th. This will likely either be the point where 'unexpected technical difficulties' unmask this for the scam it is, or the presence of an actual 1MW plant with no chemical fuel source will silence a lot of skeptics. What would you do if it were real?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

828 comments

First comment! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866332)

First comment!

suicide (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866336)

I'm afraid ritual suicide would be my only option.

Re:suicide (0)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866666)

What would be the way most befitting a nerd?

Re:suicide (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866710)

What would be the way most befitting a nerd?

Excellent question. Death by bawls? Choking on a cheeto? Drowning in mom's basement?

Personally, if I were to go, I would want to be like those Korean Starcraft guys that died after a marathon session of their favorite video game. They literally played themselves to death. That's a nerd's suicide!

Re:suicide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866832)

Heat stroke in your furry costume.

What would I do? (2)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866340)

I guess I'd have to start paying attention to self-published papers after they were rejected by peer review.

Re:What would I do? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866798)

That's a load of nonsense. If there's anything to the claims, and if the writer isn't completely incompetent explaining them, there's no reason a paper shouldn't pass peer review. Peer review isn't some kind of insurmountable obstacle to getting radical ideas published. It's more challenging than if something is more conventional (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), but, sheesh, we just had research published that makes the audacious claim that neutrinos might be traveling faster than the speed of light, and I've seen some pretty bold and silly things appear in peer reviewed journals (it's not *that* harsh a filter).

When someone making a bold claim can't get their work published in a peer reviewed journal, it tells me that either their claim is bogus or they don't know how to put a series of decent sentences together into a logical explanation of what they have done.

I'd love it if these claims were valid. But the fact that a paper couldn't get past peer review is a very bad sign and always will be.

Re:What would I do? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866824)

*whoosh*

Re:What would I do? (2, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866902)

there's no reason a paper shouldn't pass peer review

Right.

""Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"

CC.

Re:What would I do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866914)

Uh...I think you're missing the point. Yeah, all you say is pretty much true, but the point was....if this turned out to be real and not a scam (yeah, I know...not gonna happen...but this is just a thought experiment), then obviously peer review rejection wouldn't mean nearly as much. I mean sure, it's generally (almost universally) right. But if it missed what would be one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs ever...that would be pretty bad.

Why didn't you just wait 24 hour before publishing (1)

emj (15659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866354)

Blah, I've followed a blogger who seemed to have a good grasp of how things works, and then he publishing something gushy about free energy I felt sad for him.. Now my standards for slashdot must be much lower, this doesn't surprise me I'm just disappointed. Ignore them. Please.

dear moron (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866454)

'free energy' or 'zero energy' is something that have come out of the gatherings einstein et al made in their day. its not some fairy tale. it is a theorized state in physics that the technology has not been able to formulate or approximate yet.

Re:dear moron (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866520)

If you're thinking of the zero-point energy, quantum mechanics actually makes it pretty clear that it's completely unavailable, even in principle. If you could extract the zero-point energy - hypothetically - you would cause a vacuum metastability event, which would destroy the observable universe.

Re:dear moron (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866532)

"Free energy", when used in a scientific (not pseudo-scientific) context, refers to a thermodynamic quantity, basically an entropy-corrected energy. It doesn't mean "Energy for free".

"Zero energy" means just that, an energy value of zero (depending on the context, it doesn't need to mean the minimal energy, e.g. for bound systems the energy scale is usually taken so that the bound states have negative energy).

Maybe you meant "zero point energy", which is basically the energy of the vacuum. Since effects like the Casimir effect can locally suppress some vacuum fluctuations, some people dream of extracting that energy from the vacuum. But generally the vacuum state is considered the lowest-energy state possible.

Re:dear moron (2)

meglon (1001833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866662)

"But generally the vacuum state is considered the lowest-energy state possible."

I'm pretty sure a couch potato playing Farmville is the lowest energy state possible.

Re:dear moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866840)

It is one thing to be ignorant of science taught at the high-school level (the education system sucks), but to then take on airs and call other people stupid is a bit rich.

Look up "free energy" in a physics textbook or Wikipedia. While you're at it, read through the "Laws of thermodynamics" article.

Re:Why didn't you just wait 24 hour before publish (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866622)

Why didn't you just wait 24 hour before publishing

Because there's still time to rip people off?

Upsetting the market with cheap copper (2)

Circlotron (764156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866358)

Big Copper will probably kill it off.

Re:Upsetting the market with cheap copper (0)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866458)

Nah, he'll get protection from all the redneck scrappers so they can sit at home and drink beer while making copper in their reactors instead of breaking into construction sites and foreclosed homes to tear out pipes and wiring.

I guess... (1)

danimrich (584138) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866360)

I guess I'd use it to wirelessly power my flying electric car.

Better link (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866368)

The discussion for events happening today has been moved onto its own thread:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/e-day-thread-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-plant-tested-by-first-customer/ [e-catworld.com]

PES Network is going to be tweeting about it:

https://twitter.com/#!/PESNetwork [twitter.com]

Prepare for some real-time cognative dissonance from Rossi et al.

Re:Better link (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866432)

So, now the Twitter feed says they've been asked not to report until the test concludes. Which is midnight. Allegedly that's also when the video of the test will be released but I'm going to have to assume that we won't hear anything at all until they come up with an excuse and get their story straight.

With any luck the AP will write something informative about it, but maybe they'll be kicked out.

Re:Better link (2)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866608)

This will certainly mark the most important day without conclusion. Enormous investors will have enthusiasm which will not be unbridled as a new dawn is heralded by the coming of the next chapter in these events. Surely those that did not believe will come to the crucible and be altered before God with unsavory tenderness!

Re:Better link (1)

pinfall (2430412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866816)

Prepare for some real-time cognative dissonance from Rossi et al.

Real time as in never and cognative as in imperceivable?

New world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866370)

If the test would be positive it will mean the end of Putinomics.

Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1, Insightful)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866382)

Seriously? Next you'll be posting about water-powered cars, or over unity devices...

Can we stick to real life please?

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866444)

Entertaining scams about pseudoscience are still "news for nerds", IMO. I realised more about the importance of being a good scientist from watching bad ones than anything else.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866478)

I see it as a nice way to get some extra money. I'd be interrested in the guy's exit strategy.
Perhaps he stored some radioactive material to show an temperature increase for a while. There will not be 1 MW, so he can claim he needs to optimise his design (and get some more funding).
How the hell did he convince anyone to fund a cold fusion reactor anyways?

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (3, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866498)

There are a lot of people with money who either have too much ego to defer to expertise, or too little intelligence to even think of doing so.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866742)

And don't forget human greed. People with too much easy money thinking "oh, I'll give this guy venture capital for a 90% cut and if it pans out, I'll be a gazillionaire".

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (2)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866792)

How the hell did he convince anyone to fund a cold fusion reactor anyways?

Why do people buy Powerball tickets? Similar chance of success: both round to zero.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866808)

So, you object to this story being published here, but then you state that you learned from watching bad scientists. Would you care to address your logic on this one?

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (3, Insightful)

black_lbi (1107229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866448)

Sometimes it's desirable to put these scams under a spotlight, don't you think?

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866538)

Sometimes it's desirable to put these scams under a spotlight, don't you think?

Definitely not. Try your best to cover them up so you can keep the conspiracy nuts away from the real truth.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (5, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866694)

"Sometimes it's desirable to put these scams under a spotlight, don't you think?"

Yes, it worked wonders a couple of weeks ago, for the moron who claimed he had discovered quasi-crystals, when everybody knows no such thing exists.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866518)

Seriously? Next you'll be posting about water-powered cars

water-powered car does exist. It's not SiFi.

Can we stick to real life please?

What do you mean by "real life" ? A life ok with what you think is right ? :)

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866758)

No, a real life is one where cause follows effect, where disorder tends to increase over time, where energy is conserved and where you therefore get diminishing returns whenever you do anything.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866558)

Can we have some references of your background in physics and chemistry, please? Or are you too just a "scam", talking with no actual knowledge, but rather just skepticism? Mind you, hundreds of renowned physicists all over the world have reviewed the papers on this thing, and while they haven't been allowed to disassemble the test device, and having expressed doubts about this, they have acknowledged that the numbers and physics on the paper, and the device itself from a functional perspective during the many hours of demonstration, is legit and a-ok. How come you know better? Maybe you should shut up until the 29th or 30th, or are you just so keen on being right on this topic without having any foundational knowledge what so ever in physics?

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866730)

Mind you, hundreds of renowned physicists all over the world have reviewed the papers on this thing. . . they have acknowledged that the numbers and physics on the paper . . .is legit and a-ok.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Rossi's papers were rejected during peer review, so he started his own journal to publish them.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

MichaelKristopeitBro (2488396) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866784)

On the one hand, being a scientist is being open to new ideas, how silly they may seem. On the other hand, you don't want to waste your time feeding the trolls that crave for attention. Since nowadays attention means money, there are a lot of people out there just looking for that. Do you remember I2BP? Claiming high res video over 1kbps? You cannot claim it is impossible for sure, because who knows? But you can claim that it is so unlikely that you don't want to spend time on that stuff.

Re:Slashdot is posting blatant scams now? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866806)

Don't you remember all those Bitcoin adver.....stories we had a while back?

It's a scam (5, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866388)

This will not work. There's absolutely no reason not to publish such stuff in respected journals -- if it really works, it will pass the muster. The guy is a scam artist with a long history, it's irresponsible to expect anything else from him without a lot of due diligence. Since he doesn't let anyone do their due diligence, I say it's still a scam.

Re:It's a scam (2)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866556)

This will not work. There's absolutely no reason not to publish such stuff in respected journals -- if it really works, it will pass the muster. The guy is a scam artist with a long history, it's irresponsible to expect anything else from him without a lot of due diligence. Since he doesn't let anyone do their due diligence, I say it's still a scam.

He did let people do their due diligence (i.e. peer review), and his papers didn't pass muster. That's why he had to start his own journal, so he could get "published" anyway.

Rossi is not a scientist (1)

paul42w (693767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866588)

He is a businessman and a tinkerer that has managed to make it work in a commercially viable fashion. He may very well end up being the world's first trillionaire. There are problems, regulatory and safety issues, including thermal runaway. But, it does work. The chief science writer for AP appears to be at the test, so we should hear a lot in the next day or two.

Re:Rossi is not a scientist (3)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866592)

I think "has managed to make it work" is the aspect that people have the most objection to. There is no evidence that this is the case.

Re:Rossi is not a scientist (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866814)

He is a businessman and a tinkerer that has managed to make it work in a commercially viable fashion......But, it does work.

Citation Needed

Re:It's a scam (1)

Silkejr (856308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866916)

Last time I saw the guy come up in the news he was criticized for not starting a power plant, people were saying he's scamming for investor money by putting out info instead of selling power to the grid like anybody else would do if they had a real free energy device. Not saying I believe him, but it is kind of funny the reaction he's got when he takes that criticism to heart and builds a plant.

See it positively on this ad for a crap blog (1)

Khenke (710763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866422)

now my/our expectation on bad topics (or rather ads) from /. can't go any lower. It can only get better. In 10 years from now we will remember this day as the low water mark!
(I so so so so hope at least. Please...)

Have a party (2, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866462)

If it works? Have a party of epic proportions. Or possibly just epic intensity with a few select friends.

Given the history of the man, I don't hold out MUCH hope. But the prize is so great that I can't help but hope a little.

If it works, the future for my daughter will be more likely to be safe and secure. We might even have a stab at world peace.

If it doesn't work... well, it's a shame. It gives the people who are really trying a bad name, and fewer chances at funding.

Re:Have a party (4, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866716)

"But the prize is so great that I can't help but hope a little."

And that is how a truly great scam works. "They more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie," as it says in Mein Kampf. And likewise how religion benefits from Pascal's Wager.

Why Mr Bond, he would have to die! (3, Interesting)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866468)

/me strokes evil white pussy.

And it's not quite true that 'he would have published if it was real'.
If you have sufficiently ridiculous claims, journals may not accept your paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman [wikipedia.org] - as one example of work ridiculed at the time that went on to win a Nobel prize.

Unfortunately, for example, there are also people that write letters like this: http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp [snopes.com]

If it is true, I would send the guy my heartfelt thanks, and not buy the expensive heatpump for this winter.

Re:Why Mr Bond, he would have to die! (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866656)

Unfortunately, for example, there are also people that write letters like this: http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp [snopes.com]

Can you point at someone who actually writes letters like that? I ask since the Snopes page that you linked to says that it's a hoax.

Re:Why Mr Bond, he would have to die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866722)

So hoaxes just spontaneously come into existence without an author? Strange...

I took the fact that it was a hoax, one even slopes can identify, as the point.

 

Re:Why Mr Bond, he would have to die! (2)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866800)

And it's not quite true that 'he would have published if it was real'.
If you have sufficiently ridiculous claims, journals may not accept your paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman [wikipedia.org] - as one example of work ridiculed at the time that went on to win a Nobel prize.

Except that 1, Shechtman was already an established scientist, unlike Rossi; 2, Shechtman was proposing something totally new, not something that has been the focus of several hoaxes over the last few decades; and 3, it only took two years for Shechtman to get his controversial paper published. Many non-controversial papers take longer to get published, just from minor editing and additional research requirements from the peer reviewers. Hell, he won a prize from the APS five years after he first wrote the paper. Initial reaction was negative, but when others reproduce your results, it's hard to ignore them. This douchebag has done nothing of the sort.

It's great that Shechtman won the Nobel, especially after the father of crystallography [wikipedia.org] came down on him so hard and so publicly, but it's not like he was Rosa Parks, overcoming a lifetime of oppression.

They laughed... (4, Insightful)

alispguru (72689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866894)

They laughed at Galileo.
They laughed at Einstein.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

So many nay-sayers here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866488)

You sound like the lot that cried "impossible" on the topic of humans crossing the oceans, flying in the air, leaving the planet's atmosphere, and, may I add, on the topic of nuclear power. Why can't shitheads like you just wait a while longer?

Re:So many nay-sayers here (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866506)

You know who did those things? Scientists.

You know who didn't do those things? Shamans mixing pastes in sheds according to arcane rules.

Rossi's work falls into the latter category.

Re:So many nay-sayers here (2)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866554)

Because the struggle against stupidity is a constantly ongoing battle, and pausing it will give all the scam artists more space to scam innocent people.

Then there is of course the definition of who is the "shithead". Those of us who simply say "prove it", or those who are willing to believe anything that seems only faintly credible by people who have a good long list of false claims?

BTW: Wanna buy a car that runs on water?

Re:So many nay-sayers here (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866660)

Or the naysayers who claim it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light. This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118 [bbc.co.uk] is what happens when scientists make an observation that appears to go against our current understanding of the laws of physics. This level of disclosure and scrutiny is not happening with the cold fusion claim.

I predict.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866548)

It will work for a short amount of time....

and then slowly drop in output and fail.

Because all the AA batteries that are hidden inside all the equipment will have been drained.

Re:I predict.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866586)

But he hid them there for a good reason! He's absolutely certain this will work, he just needs a few more months to refine it--so in the meantime...

Re:I predict.... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866600)

That's exactly the case. If the test doesn't work today, he says his client has given him six months to fix the "problems". I am sure that after those six months, there will just be a few kinks left.

How nicely round numbers... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866578)

“Grams/Power for a 180 days charge
Hydrogen: 18000 g
Nickel: 10000 g”

According to my calculations this would compute to:

100 g of hydrogen, and about 56 g of nickel per day to run a 1 MW plant; OR
4.17 g of hydrogen, and 2.3 g of nickel per hour.

Fuel use would be 0.00417 g of hydrogen, and 0.0023 g of nickel per kWh.

How nice and neat that 1MWh power generation for 1 day = 100grams of Hydrogen used. nice clean round numbers that come out after all the losses have been accounted for.

even for laymen this guy is full of crap, or is lying about what he is doing or using. NOTHING in physics is nice clean round numbers as if they had been pulled randomly out of a hat.

Re:How nicely round numbers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866670)

Yeah, because nobody rounds numbers for the media.

While this one won't work, others do have a chance (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866616)

So the question is legit: how would efficient fusion change our lives?
Personally I don't think it would be good, as a cheap, clean and seemingly endless source would trigger an exponential growth in energy consumption, and when fusion fuel runs out there will be no other source to satisfy those needs. With our current consumption we still have a chance to switch to renewable before fossile fuel runs out, using nuclear as an intermediate solution until we re ready to do it.

Re:While this one won't work, others do have a cha (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866726)

If the fusion fuel is hydrogen, and we use it reasonably efficiently, then when it runs out the so-called renewables will have run out as well. They are just second hand fusion power derived from a fusion reactor 93 million miles away, running on the same hydrogen as we are using for our fusion. Hydrogen has run out, the sun will be cooling as well. There is enough hydrogen in Jupiter that if we fuse it all on Earth, we will have killed ourselves with waste heat and be in danger of melting the Earth.

Not that I believe this particular project is real, but if we did get very cheap hydrogen fusion power, heat pollution would be a problem long, long before running out of hydrogen was a problem.

Re:While this one won't work, others do have a cha (1)

EnsignCrusher (2464930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866818)

Put the reactors in space and beam the power down with microwaves to cut down on heat pollution Also, start sending probes around the sun with Bussard collectors to support our energy addiction.

Re:While this one won't work, others do have a cha (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866876)

The heat pollution results after the power is used. Even if the generating system produces no waste heat at all (thermodynamically impossible), all the energy beamed down ends up as heat after it is used. Your computer needs fans to get rid of the used heat from its operation. And bussard ramjets are overkill - as I said, Jupiter contains more hydrogen than we can safely use.

Re:While this one won't work, others do have a cha (1)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866756)

Fusion fuel in general basically cannot run out, there is simply too much of it.
There are 1.4*10^21 Kg of water in the hydrosphere.
About 1*10^20 Kg of that is hydrogen.
3*10^16Kg of that is Deuterium, or 1.5*10^19 moles, or 10^42 atoms.

In D-D fusion, the energy released per nucleus is about 8MeV, so that's 10^49eV of energy.

4*10^23kWh.
Assuming a hundred billion people, that's 4*10^12kWh, or assuming a hundred kilowatts per person, 4 billion hours from D-D fusion.
Around half a million years.
And this is neglecting hydrogen.

Re:While this one won't work, others do have a cha (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866766)

If you have exponential growths in available energy, that leads to exponential growths in:

- Spaceflight potential (hell, it suddenly becomes a cinch to take a entire power station to the Moon or Mars and back - and while you're there look for fuel, etc.).

- Food, water, heat, light, etc. for humans, which leads to many more productive, educated, "worryless" humans (i.e. we have 7bn productive people learning science instead of most of them trying to scrape a living to earn enough to eat for most of their day).

- Particle physics (which can only help us throw more energy at more subatomic matter and find more possible fusion fuels - this is ignoring the fact that fusion is a quite efficient way of using a fuel, much more so than the stuff we use at the moment - e=MC^2 provides a lot of energy from a little bit of matter if you do it right).

- Computing power. You can now just throw billions of simulations and refinery analysis etc. at a supercomputer that consumes whatever it needs and cools itself to whatever temperature you want. Farms of the damn things, limited only by space.

I don't see that we would have major problems even if we assume that humans are inherently dumb and will just consume whatever they can (and everyone ends up pulling MWh's for themselves all day long).

We really need an "Energy Age" where we solve that problem first, in order to prove that it won't spoil us. But of course, the next week the paper's will be begging us to cutdown because of shortage of X or environmental impact Y.

Quote (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866692)

"Until some hour ago I felt a strong pressure, now, at the eve of the battle, as usual, I am recovering all my coldness and calm. We are ready."

If that doesn't describe the thought process of a sociopath, then I don't know what does.

We'll have to wait for Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866702)

It will be postponed because the loan has not been approved by the White House.

i will believe it when... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866828)

I can go to Home Depot or Lowes and buy my very own Cold Fusion power-plant and take my house off the electric grid and it really works and lasts 10 years or more..

Sadly its not real (4, Interesting)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866830)

I work at a physics lab, and I can assure you that the cold fusion effect is very real, but nobody can explain yet why it works, ...sometimes. It is difficult to reproduce and with varying degrees of energy production. The biggest problem is that nobody will touch the technology with a ten foot pole as far as funding just because the original researchers did such a poor job of their documentation, and others were completely unable to produce anything. Trying to find out why it works, sometimes, is tantamount to committing career suicide. You will loose your funding, even on your other research projects, and most likely your job as well. You are better off researching this technology in your basement if you want a good respectable career.
.

That being said, this one is obviously a scam. Why do I say so? Dig back through the previous stories and you will see a picture of a shipping container full of little black plastic buckets in racks, which is supposed to be a 1MW reactor. Excuse me? You but 1MW of thermal energy in a confined space like that and it will heat up so much that all the liquid would evaporate and the steam would kill anyone attempting to maintain it. The reaction produces heat energy, and plastic buckets aren't going to last very long. These CF reactions have been known to scorch the tables that the apparatus were sitting on. A plastic container is just plain stupid and this photo only demonstrates a man with a limited intelligence at work. Also, where is the generator? The reaction does not create electricity, it produces thermal heat. You need a generator my friend, and preferably a brain containing half a conscience would not hurt either..

geothermal? (2, Interesting)

madbavarian (1316065) | more than 2 years ago | (#37866836)

Is this plant built where one can extract some geothermal energy from the ground? 1 MegaWatt isn't all that much to scam. The only problem would be getting rid of all the sulfur and mercury that comes up with the steam without anyone noticing.

...if it WERE to work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37866888)

If it were to work, I would just leave my computer on all the time. Most likely change electrical companies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...