| Pages:
1
2 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm not expecting full schematics, but this marketing pitch is pretty sketchy: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...
I thought Boeing/LM used more benchmarks in their F35 public pitches. But my point is, if the guy who runs the alma mater's nuclear reactor isn't
impressed with the idea, what counsel would an unspecified oil purchaser have? I don't understand the reasoning.
[Edited on 2-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
This link provides more details: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compa...
From the looks of this, they have actually managed to produce
more energy from their test unit than they have put in. Not
huge, given that tokamaks have been doing that for over a
decade. The significant claim is long term containment. Tokamaks broke one second last year. The fact that they are
using a magnetic mirror design rather a tokamak design is
significant. Notice that when they say that it is 5 years to
develop a prototype, they are talking about a unit that actually
puts out usable energy. This is not the same as a unit that
actually produces fusion. Producing fusion for a sustained time
and using less energy than you put in are the key factors.
One important thing to note is that there is no evidence they
even applied for outside funding. There is speculation by people
working on ITER who will be out of a job before their project
is finished if this works. We will know if they received a grant
in a couple of months, since that information is public record.
If they were doing it for funding then we can be fairly certain
this was a funding deadline publicity stunt. If they didn't apply
for funding then we can be fairly certain they think they are
onto something.
Another thing to note is that there has been some underfunded
efforts for this type of research going on for some time. This is
not the same as cold fusion. Lockheed skunk works is known for
producing miracles. Usually 400% over budget and a couple of
years late. but they have been known for their delivery of things
everyone says is impossible.
As for the energy market.
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
Demand has been rising but the opec output has been flat for
the last two quarters. The larger market has climbed somewhat
but the fall in prices doesn't have a good explanation except for
a belief that somehow supply will significantly exceed demand
which it isn't currently doing.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the links. I hope I'm not de-railing the thread too much (OP shut me up if so!)
Energy market first: The way I read your link, it seems to support my statement on energy futures dramatically decreasing, impacting prices and
causing a potential surplus.
"The price of oil continued to collapse into January as rising supplies collided with weak demand growth and OPEC maintained its commitment to not cut
production." According to your link, world oil supply is in fact up, as I stated. 94.31mb/d.
It also doesn't take into account substitutes, as I said, but seems to support my view.
As for substitute goods, coal and natural gas, in particular, have been much cheaper alternatives among late:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/cheap-natu...
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications...
Another issue is the Keystone Pipeline, and various coal export projects proposed frequently by Ambre Energy, subsidiaries, and competitors
(Millennium Bulk Terminals, Gateway Pacific, Longview, etc.) Artificially lowering oil prices with a higher OPEC production than expected demand
(futures market again) might reduce the incentives for these. Additionally, the Saudis can not only exert pressure on rivals Iran and ISIS/ISIL, but I
failed to mention Syria, which is strongly tied to Russia. This has to win political cachet with the U.S. as well.
"The larger market has climbed somewhat
but the fall in prices doesn't have a good explanation except for
a belief that somehow supply will significantly exceed demand
which it isn't currently doing." With respect, this seems to be purely your opinion.
As for fusion, I'm aware of the fact that there are different methods of confinement, and that cold fusion isn't hot fusion... and I'm not sure why
you seem to think underfunded efforts on nuclear fusion necessarily apply to Lockheed's success, or how their admirable history, despite the standard
government cost overruns and rosy estimates, has bearing on a new project. I've worked for plenty of miracle providers, but they all can fail.
Sometimes their success is measured solely by how much money you can throw at them, which translates into who you can hire, resources, writing off
failure, etc. Plenty of people complaining about LM lately who would use what they consider recent failures to argue against them. I'm more interested
in the solid publications than speculating either way, but I see no reason to believe their PR yet.
This line of thinking about reactors being different (as all are, in their own ways) seems to reduce to the design being different, so it is more
likely to succeed... and according to LM, be smaller, cheaper, and have faster production with no contamination, etc. In fact, the link you provided
reads to me as though there is little if any substantial data, and confinement is still being tested.
"Preliminary simulations and experimental results “have been very promising and positive,” McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion
confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma
confinement, and that’s where we are putting most of our effort. One of the reasons we are becoming more vocal with our project is that we are
building up our team as we start to tackle the other big problems. We need help and we want other people involved. It’s a global enterprise, and we
are happy to be leaders in it.” -- your second link. Where are you finding
"From the looks of this, they have actually managed to produce
more energy from their test unit than they have put in."
I see no reason to expect any actual return as no fusion appears to take place yet.... There is certainly no reporting of a Q value of any kind.
Sounds to me like they are putting Kelly's 7th rule over the 10th. If you could point out where you're finding that, I would be appreciative.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
I was basing 'looks like' on the actual picture of it in operation.
Not very scientific I admit. But unless it is all for a government
Grant, I don't think it is that hyped. This isn't as revolutionary
As the announcement seems. More evolutionary. No large
Mirror reactors have been built due to funding cuts, but
Small scale experiments have still been progressing.
In any case, they are saying they will have a working prototype
Before iter comes online. If they are right there are going to be
Some very unhappy governments and out of work scientists.
Could it all be a funding ploy? Yes.
But given the information available I don't think they are
Stretching the truth. Them being honest doesn't mean they are
right. To get venture capital they need evidence.
And my bet is on the venture capital front.
ie big money guys have more information and are driving
Oil prices.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by macckone  |
Could it all be a funding ploy? Yes.
But given the information available I don't think they are
Stretching the truth. Them being honest doesn't mean they are
right. To get venture capital they need evidence.
And my bet is on the venture capital front.
ie big money guys have more information and are driving
Oil prices. |
Who said anything about lying? They projected very vague, idealistic hypotheticals. I'm sure they want private equity and possible subcontractors, but
if anything, they will have some pertinent patent applications on file before somehow colluding with a shadow cabal of oil manipulators while failing
to impress people with reactor expertise. Most intelligence, business or otherwise, comes from open source materials. Why some select oil purchasing
cabal would have inside scoop is inexplicable. Demand is down globally. Futures are down. Production is up, and not decreasing to meet reduced
expectations. You can have another opinion, obviously, but I see no data to back it up.
I know plenty of exceedingly wealthy angel investors, and doubt they drive oil prices that much. Even the moderately wealthy investors I know tend to
want some fundamental analysis prior to taking a get rich quick or game changing deal. The ones who don't tend to lose everything pretty quickly.
The top oil importing countries, the U.S., China, Japan, and India have slowing economies. That alone will offset demand and futures projections.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-gdp-growth-slows-to-5-3-1...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1F0XF20140217?irpc...
They are not alone. Do the math on their global demand. It is huge. Pick any country in the top half of oil consumption... Brazil (oddly reliant on
oil imports despite what was once a very lucrative petrobras stock price), Mexico, Germany. All slow.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mexicos-economy-is-slowing-sh...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-14/german-inv...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA0M04I20140123?irpc...
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21608643-confidence-a...
Europe is switching to some substitutes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-15/eu-gas-tra...
As an aside, there has been a large magnetic mirror built. Lawrence Livermore National Labs Mirror Fusion Test Facility B. It's just that funding
precluded its activation. I don't care who runs the program or how much money they have... I was taught both in school and through work that it's
irrelevant. Absent any data on that front, all the insulation and diversion of loose plasma doesn't necessarily impress. Could new divertors and
insulation theoretically solve leaks in the precursor TMU-X that purportedly influenced the MFTFB shutdown? Any math equation can be written. Doesn't
seem to convince many in the community without published data from trials I don't see listed anywhere per your sources. Some of those same people
taught me a small amount of what they knew, and while many of them are no longer around, their lessons still ring true. No need to tell me about the
theoretical differences in energy production if you can't cite a Q value. No word on confinement times either. I am aware that there is more than one
type of Q value too, so you need to be careful if you do end up citing anything. I've spoken on that kind of conundrum elsewhere. More on TMU-X leaks:
http://inspire.ornl.gov/Document/View/9785458b-33e3-4b8b-aba...
The timing just seems way too convenient to not try and get government money. I don't work at ITER or have a conflict of interest, and that's my
opinion from seeing it in action elsewhere. We'll just have to see, assuming the whole project doesn't go completely black.
[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is some more info on the Lockheed fusor.
www.google.com/patents/US20140301518
And some more here:
www.physicsforums.com/threads/lockheed-skunkworks-fusion-pla...
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
What have they actually done (not simulated, not planned, not projected)?
From the article (after wading through 17 paragraphs of background, biography, and hype, err, "projections") in the very last paragraph:
"Preliminary simulations and experimental results “have been very promising and positive,” McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion
confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma
confinement, and that’s where we are putting most of our effort. "
In other words they have some preliminary physics experiments testing some aspects of their concept. They have no "test unit".
This is an early stage research project, one of hundreds that have come and gone over the last 60 years.
But progress is built on what went before, and the increasing power of computers, and increasingly sophisticated simulation software, continually
brings new tools to the bear.
New designs that will work better than the tokamak are certainly possible. But until this work is much more advanced, it is impossible to say that it
will not be yet another cul-de-sac on the road to fusion power.
It will still face the capital cost problem to be competitive, and the problem of the breeding blanket.*
*The problem I allude to is being able to build one with the necessary extreme neutron economy needed to produce as much tritium as the reactor
consumes. D+T produced on neutron, and one neutron is needed to produce one atom of T. Neutron multiplying reactions exist, but the multiplication
factor is not large (unless it is fission**) and neutron loss is inevitable.
**Non-critical fusion-fission reactors are a plausible approach, in many ways the easiest way to produce power using fusion (it uses essentially free
depleted uranium, a far larger amount of energy is released in the blanket outside of those cryogenic coils, it has a large energy gain that pure
fusion lacks, etc.) but produces radioactive waste just like a conventional fission plant.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
I think what makes people suspect that they are onto something is that it seems a bit "out of character" for Lockheed to pull a stunt like this if
they didn't have an ace up their sleeve. That company has managed to build an image of being miracle workers, but if that's anywhere true I have no
idea.
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
i am tired of all the ooplah about fusion . i used to get excited with the Farnsworth, tokomak and others that never passed the economical barrier,
and/or the break even point.
Fusion is very promissing and attractive but the physics (unless something new comes along) does not support a viable efficient reactor way to cheap
energy.
Thorium reactor seems more promising from an economical stand point than any pure fusion reactor.
nature can afford to do it because nature has the entire universe at its disposal . we do not .
maybe a combination of fusion/fission type of reactor could (and i mean could) work, but we are a long way off...
So i don t see any harm in researching the potential of a fusion reactor , hell we could stumble upon a great discovery ! but most of what i`ve seen
so far is way off the industrial stage.
but what do i know? if anyone wants to spend money on it i say let them!
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | I think what makes people suspect that they are onto something is that it seems a bit "out of character" for Lockheed to pull a stunt like this if
they didn't have an ace up their sleeve. That company has managed to build an image of being miracle workers, but if that's anywhere true I have no
idea. |
The problem is at this self-admitted early stage of research, they can't know if they are really on to something. Plasma physics is extremely
difficult to get to work they way you want it to, and a complete prototype will be needed to confirm their projections, or more likely, point out the
unexpected problems that will then need to be overcome.
Tokamak had early successes, the Russians beat the rest of world to many plasma goals in the 1960s, but it has taken 50 years to get to the current
point where a system capable of Q >> 1 could be designed (ITER), but even a prototype powerplant is still decades away.
[Edited on 3-2-2015 by careysub]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The way I like to look at it is, even in the sun, a self-sustaining fusion reactor, only roughly 1 in 10^22 collisions of 1H+1H results in a
successful fusion, according to my old notes. Pretty sure I've posted that elsewhere before. That's a lot of failure, from one perspective, and it's
not as though the sun has confinement issues compared to labs on earth.
Until LM starts publishing figures like T ~1-3×10^7K or T >= 5×10^6K, and density of ~100g/cm3, anything numerical as a Q (or various aux/input
vs, output power values to calculate this yourself, if they want to obfuscate), etc. their stock photos are just stock photos. All this 5-10 years is
standard hype for any R&D investment marketing. I can't even begin to list all the diseases I've seen people claim are 5-10 years from curing...
and still plague the world in high numbers. And some people claim LM is not above hype, as they have had some serious polarization in response to
their F-35 claims, which actually included numerical projections such as price points.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6324
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
@Chemosynthesis
Wow!
So, what you are saying is that feasible fusion is a seriously uphill climb and despite a lot of hand-waving, Lockheed cannot possibly be there yet
(if ever).
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Hydrogen collisions are much lower success rate than deuterium/tritium collisions. I don't have figures.
LM is well known for their cost overruns.
The F-35 program was only 18 months behind schedule
after 10 years, which is pretty good for them.
Any information out of skunkworks is pretty interesting.
Usually they just show up with the finished product.
That division is not at all like the aeronautics division.
Their most successful product was probably the EMP bomb.
Everyone had speculation but until they started dropping
on Baghdad no one actually knew what they would do.
They proved devastating to the power grid.
In any case in a few months we will see if a grant for
fusion work is given to LM. I doubt it, since that
money is tied up by agreement to the ITER.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1 | @Chemosynthesis
Wow!
So, what you are saying is that feasible fusion is a seriously uphill climb and despite a lot of hand-waving, Lockheed cannot possibly be there yet
(if ever). |
That's my opinion based solely on their lack of claiming to the contrary (with the yet part). I can't extrapolate to the ever attaining the goal.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that they would be there, and then not publish any data. If you have workable fusion in such a small package,
better in every feasible way than anyone else can produce yet without the vast experience in reactor production and maintenance, as well as some
patents coming online, it doesn't make any business sense to me to obscure it and push for a couple five year plans unless you were considering buying
back some of the company stock before revaluation. Hyping stock is the reverse of this, and can be useful to negotiate corporate acquisitions,
partnerships, etc. which LM claims to be looking for. This is good risk diffusion.
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/lockheed-looks-pa...
"The leader of a proposed compact fusion reactor project says that Lockheed Martin’s decision to lift the lid on its secret effort is an attempt to
build a scientific team and find partners."
Big government is one of the most generous partners industry can have in STEM.
"McGuire declined to detail any measurements of plasma temperature, density, or confinement time—the key parameters for a fusion plasma—but said
the plasma appeared very stable." There really isn't any reason to keep that information under wraps if you have a working prototype that you think
you can market relatively soon, while announcing the project and making extremely incredible projections.
Also this video where the lead McGuire admits it's "high risk, high reward" and that you "learn something new [every design cycle]." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM
This is all speculative language. Note how he says "10 years and we have better military vehicles, 20 years and we have clean energy for everyone."
Now all the math is getting fuzzier from that 5 year prototype when it comes to return on investment.
What I'm saying is Lockheed has yet to state that they have attained any fusion anywhere I have seen, shown any data, and that yes... it's a seriously
uphill climb. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't do any nuclear reactor designing or maintenance, or I'm not read into some compartmentalized project
that has a really strange marketing division, and maybe the people who do have reactor experience are masking their conflict of interest with jealousy
despite the lack of data... but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by a sudden panacea for all of humanity than suckered by
promises with nothing backing them up.
More scepticism: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/lockheed-mart...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2jbajc/lockheed_...
People can appeal to the authority that is LM Skunk Works if they so choose. As long as we're all on the same page there is no LM data, and oil demand
is down with supply up (or not down to account for futures). I'm aware, and DT has the highest Maxwell-averaged reaction reactivities at any temperature according to
my charts, but I was talking about the first portion of the proton-proton chain of the sun; however I incorporated deuterium-hydrogen collisions in my
temperature range if you care to verify or cite a different number.
The second reaction I adjusted my temperature for is:
2D+1H -> 3He + 5.49 MeV yields vs the 1.44 MeV of the first chain. Don't have the collision rate on hand, and am too lazy to look it up, as the
energy is likely more important for this discussion given that I have supplied the temperature and density. Seems like it's probably a rough 25 orders
of magnitude higher for DT, but I don't have a specific temperature for that, or density, so I'm not sure what rounding is applied but it seems
reasonable to me glancing at the S factors between the two. I could be mistaken as it has been a long since I have had the joy of looking at these.
I didn't claim that my stellar temperatures were my exact expectation from a reactor (hence the use of "like"), am ware of the lower ignition
temperature of DT fusion, but was giving an example I had on hand with units, and was noting that the sun doesn't have confinement issues like we do
here on earth for sustained fusion, which Lockheed hasn't touched on publicly. No confinement time. No temps.
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone |
In any case in a few months we will see if a grant for
fusion work is given to LM. I doubt it, since that
money is tied up by agreement to the ITER. |
A grant is not necessarily relevant. Grant application is what matters, being necessary and sufficient here. Sadly, one doesn't just get funding for
every grant filed, regardless of what number it has at the top or your name/organization.
[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
There a number of good reasons to delay producing figures.
Probably the biggest one is they have patentable inventions
that they haven't yet applied for. Their stated goal in releasing
the information is to solicit 'partners'. IF they are as close as
they seem to think, then they probably don't want to sign over
rights that the government requires when they become your
'partner'. That is a big IF. A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
Looking back over the information they have and assorted links
it looks like they haven't gotten a sustained reaction yet. But they
are aiming for 10 seconds with breeding in a lithium blanket.
They say the concept has been lab tested, which probably means
they have been able to establish a stable contained plasma
and ignite it. They say they have some kind of lab prototype
but don't really say what problems they are having.
Low Q would indicate a problem that is more difficult to overcome.
Dealing with helium poisoning of the reaction mix is another one
that has not really been addressed by anyone including ITER.
Inertial confinement doesn't have that issue but it hasn't really
been very successful either. Getting ignition is easy but getting
a high Q is really hard with inertial confinement.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Given the patents Lockheed has already applied for, particularly the ones that appear very vaguely relevant here, I doubt they would have that much
difficult in patenting if they have data. The cost of patenting for a large company like LM is miniscule, and if anything, they would be served by
overly conservative patent trolling, as is common in industry. Patenting can be annoying, but LM has plenty of lawyers for that, and their process has
to be streamlined. Failing to apply for a patent, with such negligible cost, on this kind of high risk, high reward project... when you already have
data far in excess of a patent application, and then making an announcement without a pending EPO patent application, and without mentioning various
data to protect them under the U.S. FITF, would be insane. Name one business you know that has done this. If the U.S. still used first to file, that
might be valid, but it makes no sense to me here.
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | Dealing with helium poisoning of the reaction mix is another one
that has not really been addressed by anyone including ITER. |
There are a lot of issues in fusion that have yet to be addressed in any number of reactor designs, but that doesn't mean they are relevant or that
Lockheed Martin has, or is going to, solve them, nor was I discussing ITER, NIF, etc. Of course every reactor design has its own strengths and
weaknesses, as I said before. Until experiments are done and data published, it's an intellectual exercise.
We are definitely not drawing the same conclusions, and so I doubt either of us are going to get anything of this, but I do appreciate our
conversation.
Back more to the original thread, just a week or two ago, Barack Obama mentioned a 2008 agreement with India on nuclear cooperation (the 123
Agreement), and despite reduced Japanese oil use (still third largest users globally), the Institute of Energy Economics Japan continues to push for
Fukushima reactivation as an economic boost to the country, hinting at how important nuclear power is diplomatically for some of these nations.
http://www.cfr.org/india/us--india-civil-nuclear-cooperation...
http://www.cfr.org/india/us-india-nuclear-deal/p9663
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/03/us-india-obama-nuc...
Excellent analysis of global and local markets from Japanese perspective: http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/5911.pdf
[Edited on 3-2-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
Not sure why you are tying electricity to oil - only 4% of electricity worldwide is produced from petroleum, and a similar percentage of world
petroleum output is used for electricity. Almost all consumption of oil for electricity is in oil exporting countries (for obvious reasons).
Electricity is produced by coal (40%), gas (23%), hydro (17%), nuclear (11%), oil (4.2%), wind (2.4%), biomass (1.8%), and solar (0.4%). Nuclear
competes with coal and gas.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's an excellent point. Unlike my previous mentions of coal and natural gas, I am tying oil and nuclear power together in my last statement, in the
context of Japan, due to the shift in Japanese energy markets after Fukushima:
"In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident, Japan's energy fuel mix shifted as natural gas, oil, and renewable energy now provide larger shares
and supplant some of the nuclear fuel. Oil remains the largest source of primary energy in Japan, although its share of total energy consumption has
declined from about 80% in the 1970s to 44% in 2013"
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ja
I understand the global trend (excluding developing, non-OECD countries) is that most oil use globally is for transportation, then chemical feedstock,
and it has lost market share in the energy sector for decades on end, but "After the Fukushima incident, Japan has increased imports of crude oil for
direct burn in power plants." According to the link, oil energy shares in Japan doubled from 2010-14, from 7-14%, in the wake of Fukushima. Still a
minor proportion of total energy, but a relatively large jump.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
