41–50 of 71 posts
Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon. Who would you tap to participate in/lead this?
Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon. Who would you tap to participate in/lead this?
Imagine a second Manhattan Project, except this time, it's to produce fusion energy and try to save the world from climate disasters instead of making a weapon. Who would you tap to participate in/lead this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why go through the expense of... Good question. I should have asked strictly about fusion bombs. These being a known-working example of energy production by fusion, why not use them when we can't get 'controlled' fusion working?
From my recollection, even in a fusion bomb, most of the energy comes from the fission. I don't fully remember/understand the physics involved. But apparently the fission reaction triggers the fusion reaction (that part I get) and then that fusion reaction in turns boosts the fission reaction. So my takeaway is that fission bombs are not very efficient to begin with. You're after all trying to extract as much energy…
I don't think fusion will ever be cheaper than solar and wind
I do agree that distributed solar and wind (with battery storage) can take take care of grid base load, but that doesn't mean fusion is pointless.
> Plenty of other obstacles remain than those noted above, too. Current calculations compare energy generated against the NIF laser’s output, but that brushes over the fact that the lasers draw more than 100 times the power from the grid than any fusion reaction yields. That means either energy gains or laser efficiency would need to improve by two orders of magnitude to break even in any practical sense. The NIF’s f…
This basically the plot of the movie ”Real Genius”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why go through the expense of... Good question. I should have asked strictly about fusion bombs. These being a known-working example of energy production by fusion, why not use them when we can't get 'controlled' fusion working?
One of the biggest challenges is that the fusion reaction can't be fully contained. There are particles without electric charge that simply go through your magnetic containment field and smash into the reactor wall, continuously destroying it. You don't really care about preserving the shell of your bomb. You care about preserving the shell of your reactor.
> Plenty of other obstacles remain than those noted above, too. Current calculations compare energy generated against the NIF laser’s output, but that brushes over the fact that the lasers draw more than 100 times the power from the grid than any fusion reaction yields. That means either energy gains or laser efficiency would need to improve by two orders of magnitude to break even in any practical sense. The NIF’s f…
NIF uses inefficient lasers because they were cheap to build at the time and because NIF is a science experiment. Lasers have gotten better. And lasers aren't the only way ICF fusion could be carried out, it may be possible to use ion beams instead[0]. It does not matter if fusion reactions last microseconds if they generate more energy. Using optimistic, but not unrealistic assumptions, it appears feasible for elect…