Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33515 > unrolled thread

Re: A good news

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: A good news Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-01-22 20:33 +0000
    Re: A good news Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:59 -0800
      Re: A good news Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-01-22 22:12 +0000
        Re: A good news Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:22 -0800
          Re: A good news Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-01-26 22:45 +0000

#33515 — Re: A good news

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:06:22 -0800, Ramine wrote:

> Hello...............
> 
> 
> Quantum computing will change lives, society and the economy and a
> working system is expected to be developed by 2020 according to a
> leading figure in the world of quantum computing, who will talk tomorrow
> Jan. 21, 2016 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.
> 
> Professor O'Brien said: "In less than ten years quantum computers will
> begin to outperform everyday computers, leading to breakthroughs in
> artificial intelligence, the discovery of new pharmaceuticals and
> beyond."
> 
>
I seem to remember this being said when Josephson got the Nobel for 
Josephson Junctions in 1973. IBM had experimental stuff with running with 
single qubits about the same time and was promising machines based on 
them 'real soon now' - that was 4 decades ago and I've heard very little 
about them from IBM recently. Now D-wave claims to have quantum annealing 
giving super performance but only seem to be getting good results from 
very carefully chosen algorithms.

To me, this is all sounding a lot like fusion power, which was touted as 
solving all our power needs in 30-40 years when ZETA was started up in 
1957. Well, that was 60 decades ago and fusion power is *still* 30-40 
years away.

Anybody else see parallels?
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33518

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> 1957. Well, that was 60 decades ago and fusion power is *still* 30-40 
> years away.

There have been reports of recent breakthroughs, some which suggest viable fusion power as soon as 2020.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33520

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:59:10 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:

> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> 1957. Well, that was 60 decades ago and fusion power is *still* 30-40
>> years away.
> 
> There have been reports of recent breakthroughs, some which suggest
> viable fusion power as soon as 2020.

Is that ITER by any chance? Thats scheduled to be completed by 2019,
but seems to be an engineering iteration rather than new physics: AFAICT 
is basically an embiggened JET, but its completion cost is likely to be 
massive. Three years into construction, which started in 2013 its already 
3x its estimated cost, having burnt through $US14 billion so far. 

I'll believe commercial fusion power[1] when I see it unless its a major 
scientific, rather an engineering, breakthrough - which ITER is not. 
 
[1] commercial = cheaper power than current fission plants can produce 
and preferably no more expensive than wind.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33532

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:15:21 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:59:10 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >> 1957. Well, that was 60 decades ago and fusion power is *still* 30-40
> >> years away.
> > 
> > There have been reports of recent breakthroughs, some which suggest
> > viable fusion power as soon as 2020.
> 
> Is that ITER by any chance? Thats scheduled to be completed by 2019,
> but seems to be an engineering iteration rather than new physics: AFAICT 
> is basically an embiggened JET, but its completion cost is likely to be 
> massive. Three years into construction, which started in 2013 its already 
> 3x its estimated cost, having burnt through $US14 billion so far. 
> 
> I'll believe commercial fusion power[1] when I see it unless its a major 
> scientific, rather an engineering, breakthrough - which ITER is not. 
>  
> [1] commercial = cheaper power than current fission plants can produce 
> and preferably no more expensive than wind.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/fusion-power-could-be-here-2020-u-k-company-says-n475676

Viable by 2020, feeding a power grid by 2030, implemented global by 2050..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33539

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:22:39 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:

> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:15:21 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:59:10 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:
>> 
>> > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie
>> > wrote:
>> >> 1957. Well, that was 60 decades ago and fusion power is *still*
>> >> 30-40 years away.
>> > 
>> > There have been reports of recent breakthroughs, some which suggest
>> > viable fusion power as soon as 2020.
>> 
>> Is that ITER by any chance? Thats scheduled to be completed by 2019,
>> but seems to be an engineering iteration rather than new physics:
>> AFAICT is basically an embiggened JET, but its completion cost is
>> likely to be massive. Three years into construction, which started in
>> 2013 its already 3x its estimated cost, having burnt through $US14
>> billion so far.
>> 
>> I'll believe commercial fusion power[1] when I see it unless its a
>> major scientific, rather an engineering, breakthrough - which ITER is
>> not.
>>  
>> [1] commercial = cheaper power than current fission plants can produce
>> and preferably no more expensive than wind.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/fusion-power-could-be-here-2020-
u-k-company-says-n475676
> 
> Viable by 2020, feeding a power grid by 2030, implemented global by
> 2050..

Sorry, but no.

ITER, experimental, 10:1 gain (50MW in, 500Mw thermal out). This has NO 
power generation capability because it will never have turbines or 
generators fitted. Its thermal output will be measured and disposed of. 
It is expected to start Deuterium/Tritium operation in 2027.

Followed by DEMO, 2-4 GW thermal out, 25:1 power gain, intended to be a 
prototype commercial thermal generator. Its not clear if this will be 
capable of generating electricity, i.e. will probably not have steam 
generation capability or a generator set fitted, but in any case it is 
not expected to be running before 2033. 

That's to be followed by PROTO which has, at earliest a post-2050 
timeline, though it may have power generation capability and is intended 
to be a *prototype* commercial fusion generator, but project plans for it 
seem hazy at best: after all if ITER has bugs, that will push both DEMO 
and PROTO back by an unknown amount of time. On grid by 2080? Who knows. 
Global use of fusion power before 2100? In your dreams most likely.

 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web