Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough - Revision history

82.132.236.58 at 14:17, 31 October 2025

2025-10-31T14:17:37Z

2600:6C67:157F:9A1A:E140:CC84:1399:EBC7 at 13:23, 31 October 2025

2025-10-31T13:23:10Z

172.71.242.188 at 13:01, 28 April 2024

2024-04-28T13:01:24Z

172.70.34.9 at 03:42, 28 April 2024

2024-04-28T03:42:29Z

172.70.35.69: Amazon's 1:1 claim

2022-12-16T00:44:36Z

Amazon's 1:1 claim

ProphetZarquon: Point being, the explanation fails to immediately call out fusion research as speculative; the presenter is seeking funding, not near-term utility; fusion research does the same.

2022-12-15T21:34:21Z

Point being, the explanation fails to immediately call out fusion research as speculative; the presenter is seeking funding, not near-term utility; fusion research does the same.

ProphetZarquon: Solar & wind help now, fusion is a future tech at best; solar is cost-effective even in northern regions; nuclear research doesn't help our environment a today, but solar & wind research do.

2022-12-15T21:07:58Z

Solar & wind help *now*, fusion is a future tech at best; solar is cost-effective even in northern regions; nuclear research doesn't help our environment a today, but solar & wind research do.

172.68.110.142: Edited my comment

2022-12-15T13:15:28Z

Edited my comment

172.71.98.124 at 13:07, 15 December 2022

2022-12-15T13:07:04Z

172.70.111.76 at 07:34, 15 December 2022

2022-12-15T07:34:44Z

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 :You'd need to justify what the "I" could be. (Noting that even in [[2707: Astronomy Numbers]], the 'simple' digit one features ''as well as'' the serifed/tick-marked version for a stylistic digit, but (generally) xkcd "|"s serve as both numeric and alphabetic glyphs.) And there's a clear joke regarding ">1", where there isn't really one here for ">I" without reason to believe it specifically references luminous intensity, moment of inertia, electric current, etc, although with ''some'' additional terms (that Randall'd know to use) you ''might'' be able to justify those equivalences...
 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.188|172.71.242.188]] 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::The I would be for inflow, that is how it is typically used in hydrology. So Q>I would indicate flow greater than inflow, matching the text.
+::The I would be for inflow, that is how it is typically used in hydrology. So Q>I would indicate flow greater than inflow, matching the text. {{unsigned ip|2600:6c67:157f:9a1a:e140:cc84:1399:ebc7|13:23, 31 October 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 31 October 2025
Line 66:		Line 66:

	Is it not Q>I, rather than Q>1? {{unsigned ip\|172.70.34.9\|03:42, 28 April 2024}}		Is it not Q>I, rather than Q>1? {{unsigned ip\|172.70.34.9\|03:42, 28 April 2024}}
−	:You'd need to justify what the "I" could be. (Noting that even in [[2707: Astronomy Numbers]], the 'simple' digit one features ''as well as'' the serifed/tick-marked version for a stylistic digit, but (generally) xkcd "\|"s serve as both numeric and alphabetic glyphs.) And there's a clear joke regarding ">1", where there isn't really one here for ">I" without reason to believe it specifically references luminous intensity, moment of inertia, electric current, etc, although with ''some'' additional terms (that Randall'd know to use) you ''might'' be able to justify those equivalences... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.188\|172.71.242.188]] 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)	+	:You'd need to justify what the "I" could be. (Noting that even in [[2707: Astronomy Numbers]], the 'simple' digit one features ''as well as'' the serifed/tick-marked version for a stylistic digit, but (generally) xkcd "\|"s serve as both numeric and alphabetic glyphs.) And there's a clear joke regarding ">1", where there isn't really one here for ">I" without reason to believe it specifically references luminous intensity, moment of inertia, electric current, etc, although with ''some'' additional terms (that Randall'd know to use) you ''might'' be able to justify those equivalences...
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.188\|172.71.242.188]] 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
		+	::The I would be for inflow, that is how it is typically used in hydrology. So Q>I would indicate flow greater than inflow, matching the text.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 28 April 2024
Line 65:		Line 65:
	[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.69\|172.70.35.69]] 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.69\|172.70.35.69]] 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

−	Is it not Q>I, rather than Q>1?	+	Is it not Q>I, rather than Q>1? {{unsigned ip\|172.70.34.9\|03:42, 28 April 2024}}
		+	:You'd need to justify what the "I" could be. (Noting that even in [[2707: Astronomy Numbers]], the 'simple' digit one features ''as well as'' the serifed/tick-marked version for a stylistic digit, but (generally) xkcd "\|"s serve as both numeric and alphabetic glyphs.) And there's a clear joke regarding ">1", where there isn't really one here for ">I" without reason to believe it specifically references luminous intensity, moment of inertia, electric current, etc, although with ''some'' additional terms (that Randall'd know to use) you ''might'' be able to justify those equivalences... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.188\|172.71.242.188]] 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 28 April 2024
Line 64:		Line 64:
	I'm wondering if this is also relevant to Amazon's claim that their data centers somehow have 1:1 water cooling consumption:production, with a future predicted ratio that is somehow "even higher".		I'm wondering if this is also relevant to Amazon's claim that their data centers somehow have 1:1 water cooling consumption:production, with a future predicted ratio that is somehow "even higher".
	[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.69\|172.70.35.69]] 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.69\|172.70.35.69]] 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Is it not Q>I, rather than Q>1?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 16 December 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:

	The explanation makes it seem like we may already have fusion reaction net energy gain, when this is simply not the case: we may have achieved Q > 1 for the energy put into the hydrogen particle, but this disregards the energy required to power the lasers as well as the energy required to convert the resulting heat into electricity (that would be QTotal > 1). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.124\|172.71.98.124]] 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Gogeta		The explanation makes it seem like we may already have fusion reaction net energy gain, when this is simply not the case: we may have achieved Q > 1 for the energy put into the hydrogen particle, but this disregards the energy required to power the lasers as well as the energy required to convert the resulting heat into electricity (that would be QTotal > 1). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.124\|172.71.98.124]] 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Gogeta
		+
		+	I'm wondering if this is also relevant to Amazon's claim that their data centers somehow have 1:1 water cooling consumption:production, with a future predicted ratio that is somehow "even higher".
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.69\|172.70.35.69]] 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 ::Dams are far from maintenance free & damage local ecologies in ways which can't yet be solved (a fish run lessens only one of these issues & only ''partially''), plus they cost ''way'' more per watt-hour to deploy. Also, the turbines they rely on, require periodic service similar to those used with wind. More importantly though, dams & solar & wind are ''already'' a viable method of public energy production, & research into improving solar & wind return far more improvement in watt-hours per dollar, than nuclear does. Since we're already in the midst of a growing ecological crisis & need cleaner energy ''now'', it makes more sense to research solar & wind, than nuclear. Sure, nuclear energy research ''may'' pay off eventually, but we need society to survive long enough to benefit; solar & wind make money ''and'' energy, right now, & research money spent on solar & wind power has returned far more Watt-hours per dollar, than research into nuclear power. Also, it's very incorrect to presume that solar only works well at low latitudes: Solar is used extensively in nordic regions, & even the energy-per-meter landing at the Earth's ''poles'' is still quite significant; there's so much energy in solar power, that it's almost ridiculous to go looking elsewhere. I agree that some forms of nuclear energy deserve more research funding than they've received so far (US-funded research is so obsessed with highly-fissile materials, that even nuclear energy "experts" are often ignorant of other methods), but at this point ''future'' technologies like fusion & hydrogen power, are effectively siphoning money from tech that ''would help now'' in favor of speculation on tech that ''could'' help ''someday''. Money spent researching fusion isn't necessarily ''wasted'', but spending that money to research solar or wind, helps more people sooner, while we have increasingly little time left to do so.
-::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
+::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]])
 I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.
 [[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 15 December 2022
Line 55:		Line 55:
	ChatGPT may be only barely mediocre at producing good explanations from the transcripts, but it did a fantastic job of reducing 14 absurdly verbose to 5 simple paragraphs (8.3 to 3.6 kilobytes.) I did maybe fifteen words of cleanup, mostly to put the (wiki)links back in. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.124\|162.158.142.124]] 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)		ChatGPT may be only barely mediocre at producing good explanations from the transcripts, but it did a fantastic job of reducing 14 absurdly verbose to 5 simple paragraphs (8.3 to 3.6 kilobytes.) I did maybe fifteen words of cleanup, mostly to put the (wiki)links back in. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.124\|162.158.142.124]] 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

−	The explanation makes it seem like we may already have fusion reaction net energy gain, when this is simply not the case: we may have achieved Q > 1 for the energy put into the hydrogen particle, but this disregards the energy required to power the lasers as well as the energy required to convert the resulting heat into electricity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.124\|172.71.98.124]] 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Gogeta	+	The explanation makes it seem like we may already have fusion reaction net energy gain, when this is simply not the case: we may have achieved Q > 1 for the energy put into the hydrogen particle, but this disregards the energy required to power the lasers as well as the energy required to convert the resulting heat into electricity (that would be QTotal > 1). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.124\|172.71.98.124]] 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Gogeta

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 15 December 2022
Line 53:		Line 53:
	The AWS stuff should all be deleted. It is nonsensical. AWS uses water for evaporative cooling of its data centers. It is spending loads of money on wet lands to feel better about it. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with this comic.		The AWS stuff should all be deleted. It is nonsensical. AWS uses water for evaporative cooling of its data centers. It is spending loads of money on wet lands to feel better about it. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with this comic.

−	ChatGPT may be only barely mediocre at producing good explanations from the transcripts, but it did a fantastic job of reducing 14 absurdly verbose to 5 simple paragraphs (8.3 to 3.6 kilobytes.) I did maybe ~~fiften~~ words of cleanup, mostly to put the (wiki)links back in. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.124\|162.158.142.124]] 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)	+	ChatGPT may be only barely mediocre at producing good explanations from the transcripts, but it did a fantastic job of reducing 14 absurdly verbose to 5 simple paragraphs (8.3 to 3.6 kilobytes.) I did maybe fifteen words of cleanup, mostly to put the (wiki)links back in. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.124\|162.158.142.124]] 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	The explanation makes it seem like we may already have fusion reaction net energy gain, when this is simply not the case: we may have achieved Q > 1 for the energy put into the hydrogen particle, but this disregards the energy required to power the lasers as well as the energy required to convert the resulting heat into electricity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.124\|172.71.98.124]] 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Gogeta

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 15 December 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	More variation: "more water than we fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242\|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)		More variation: "more water than we fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242\|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	A fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes does so by consuming and producing things other than energy. If they're running a hydrogen gas turbine at the site, they could be producing more water (from hydrogen and oxygen gases) than they lose, at least in theory. Of course, producing and shipping hydrogen to the site of a dam would be vastly less efficient under any reasonable circumstances than producing electricity instead of hydrogen in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.76\|172.70.111.76]] 07:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

	If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms.		If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms.