261–270 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$100bn to get to a working fusion reactor doesn’t mean the second one will cost €100bn as well…
Oh for sure. To be clear, I meant the amortized cost, not the initial cost of, say, ITER. I could've stated that better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best storage is no storage at all, it is demand-response. Things like responsive appliances and EV chargers that can schedule their load rather than insisting that limitless power be available instantaneously. I don't care when the dishwasher runs as long as the dishes are clean by tomorrow, you know? Of course right now, putting the word "smart" on an appliance doesn't imply any of that, and the way it ends up i…
Nitpicky, but shouldn’t this pattern be called “supply-response” (as in, appliances programmed to respond to a supply glut) “Demand-response” sounds like it should be used for power sources that only spin up when demand exceeds the production rate.
Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…
I could cite you things like this: ( https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6276900 ) but they will likely be buzzword soup. The simplest explanation is that the fusion reactor's energy output is the _primary_ heat source for a heat engine like a steam turbine. It sounded from your description that your company was targeting so called "waste" heat, which is a lower grade of heat (smaller delta between ambient so a smaller tempe…
Have you? Or you just read about it?
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily-eb...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot wrong with your post. >They are not required to disclose the contents of the fracking wastewater fluid. Majority of water used in hydro fracking is slick water. This is normal water with friction reducers added to it. Typically 1%. Though can change based on the design of the frack. These are maybe not disclosed to the public since they typically are proprietary formulas that each vendor creates on the…
He's also wrong about there being a water *shortage* in California. There is water *diversion*, designed by environmentalists to save animals, that strips farmers of water.
Funny how this story gets posted after soon after Dr Sabine Hossenfelder's debunking and deflate the fusion power hype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY with a genuine Hans Gruber accent :)
It's even funnier how fast you got downvoted. The nuclear band wagon is strong here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We should put more resources into breeding faster horses now, internal combustion can wait." - someone in late 19 century.
Hah, well what was the rate of progress on breeding faster horses vs. internal combustion in the late 19th century? I don't imagine that the progress rate was very high for horses..
I think that that's a better technology comparison because internal combustion was able to leverage the theoretical insights originally derived for steam. There's no shoulders-of-giants effect going on for nuclear fusion, as there wasn't for steam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot wrong with your post. >They are not required to disclose the contents of the fracking wastewater fluid. Majority of water used in hydro fracking is slick water. This is normal water with friction reducers added to it. Typically 1%. Though can change based on the design of the frack. These are maybe not disclosed to the public since they typically are proprietary formulas that each vendor creates on the…
He's also wrong about there being a water *shortage* in California. There is water *diversion*, designed by environmentalists to save animals, that strips farmers of water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sabine actually is completely misleading and misconstrues a bunch of facts. None of these plants are even attempting to have real energy breakeven and spend a ton of energy supplying experiments and unrelated support equipment. They don't even have a method of capturing energy as that's not the point as it would make it harder to test the physics. Additionally these plants have high amounts of "startup energy consump…
> Plasma breakeven is all anyone is really working on. Once you have plasma breakeven you have a self-sustaining heater basically, which then can be used to create energy. The point of an "ignited plasma" is that it's self-sustaining and just pumps out heat, even if most of the energy is used to keep the reaction going. This is dead wrong. First of all, the experiment described here is ICF, in which you have to const…
I thought the neutrons were supposed to take away the heat, to be absorbed in layers of water?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though, when 1 MJ is generated in a fraction of a second, that does mean its instantaneous output was in the MW+ range
Unfortunate, though, that NIF can't do continuous generation by design. It's good for learning from and validating stuff instantaneously, but it's almost certainly an architectural dead-end otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot wrong with your post. >They are not required to disclose the contents of the fracking wastewater fluid. Majority of water used in hydro fracking is slick water. This is normal water with friction reducers added to it. Typically 1%. Though can change based on the design of the frack. These are maybe not disclosed to the public since they typically are proprietary formulas that each vendor creates on the…
He's also wrong about there being a water *shortage* in California. There is water *diversion*, designed by environmentalists to save animals, that strips farmers of water.