A shot of the pulse from within the reactor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMuOaTqdp4c
You can tell when someone didn't read the article, because the video is at the very top of it :)
Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
471–480 of 827 posts
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the British go with 240V because it makes tea faster? I don't know the history... but I want to believe.
I think you mean 230V, but it was picked because it's more efficient and cheaper (you can use smaller wires for the same output).
I think it used to be 240V-ish (back then, IIRC they allowed larger fluctuations) but we slipped to 230V for compatibility with EU?
This corroborates that enough that I'm not checking their sources: https://www2.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=2... moved from 240±6% to 230 +10%/-6%.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
From other comment > I mean, start with why his wife is divorcing him (Jeffery Epstein) and why he's no longer on the board at Microsoft(inappropriate relationships with staffers), then go into how he's screwed up public schooling in the US, then Microsoft under him. That's the easy stuff that you can see publicly.
Even ignoring that, his fortune came from anti-competitive business practices in the 80s and 90s, without which, personal computing would have been in a much better place today.
[deleted]
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#474According to Wikipedia (German) the Wendelstein 7-X already did 150 mega joules of "sustained fusion" [1]. So how is this record breaking? [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
Wendelstein 7-X is for plasma science, it is not intended to fuse anything.
> though this experimental reactor will not produce electricity, it is used to evaluate the main components of a future fusion power plant
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#475As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."
Even that is optimistic; they don't expect any net production of energy before 2055, and I doubt there's any guarantee that that will work, because if there was, they'd be trying that right now.
This was a test to validate what will happen with ITER. ITER will really only start, by their own planning, that has been consistently delayed, only in 2035.
They will start in 2025, then will stop for a few years then will really only start in 2035. ITER is a scientific experiment not the first commercial prototype.
Assuming it succeeds you are looking at a procurement and construction process of 20 years for the first commercial prototype by 2060!
At best, you will start constructing commercial power in 2060 and making in impact in 2080. If its even commercially feasible and not an incredibly expensive toy.
Fantastic achievements from the SPARC (MIT) project are not likely to impact this. Conclusion: Forget about Fusion as a solution to help with the current climate change emergency. The planet will be here, but Gaia will clean us up as parasitic extras, if we don't do something in the next 5 to 10 years.
And no, you wont be allowed in the Belt.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think OP was commenting more on the emphasis, i.e. one of the titles highlighting the name "Oxford" just because it's famous. The UK is still in Europe and will likely be for decades to come.
I'm wondering about what you know that we don't? Is there a project to move the UK physically out of Europe? Or will this fusion go out of control and demolish the UK in a nuclear fireball?
It was tongue-in-cheek, but born from my own paranoia and despair. The last few years have made even the concept of "Europe" feel kind of shaky.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
Activation of the reactor walls. The neutrons don't disappear; they're absorbed, and some fraction of the atoms that absorb them become radioactive themselves. I've seen lifetime estimates ranging from five to ten years for the walls, after which they'll be high-level waste.
Isn't the breeding blanket suppose to prevent that?
The breeding blanket does slow the neutrons, but there needs to be a first wall material that does not ablate into the plasma. You need very little of non-hydrogen material in the vacuum to cause a density collapse. If you made the wall out of liquid lithium then there would be a lot of lithium in the plasma.
Tungsten is a good choice for a first wall material because of its uniquely high melting point, low rate of embrittlement in high neutron flux, and short-lived radioisotopes.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#478Can someone explain something about fusion for me? To make a fusion reactor that's useful you have to solve two problems: First you have to build a working fusion reactor. Second, you have to capture that energy to do useful work. Given that, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on technology to capture energy from the giant, already working fusion reactor in the sky?
We generate electricity with fusion the same way we do with many other technologies.
We heat up water until it turns to steam which moves a turbine to spin some magnets to generate electricity.
Fusion’s advantage over solar is it can theoretically generate unlimited energy in a relatively small footprint. It also doesn’t go out 8-12 hours per day.
But I think the reality is that we need to pursue many options for clean energy.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#479Can someone explain something about fusion for me? To make a fusion reactor that's useful you have to solve two problems: First you have to build a working fusion reactor. Second, you have to capture that energy to do useful work. Given that, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on technology to capture energy from the giant, already working fusion reactor in the sky?
In addition to what others have said, the sun isn't always in the sky.
Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
#480I noticed the waste output is helium. Does this fix the worldwide helium scarcity issue?
No, fusion power plants will likely need helium to run: it's necessary to cool the magnetic coils. Unless there will be a breakthrough in room-temperature superconductivity, helium will still be needed and consumed (through leakages) at a faster rate than the fusion reactions can provide.