Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

Post by regularfry » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 6:43 AM UTC

mrterry wrote: post #95

acadien wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finally someone that's actually in the fusion field. Could you say whether or not the NIF research represents a practical path towards a fusion based power source? My understanding is that it would at least be capable of capturing some much needed high pressure empirical data necessary for validating theory. On a side note concerning the NIF funding, the US gov will spend huge sums of money studying Nuclear weapons (…

I've worked in ICF for a nearly a decade. I think NIF research is a necessary step to a ICF based power source. If NIF demonstrates ignition, it can be used to validate our physics models of ICF (turbulence, fusion product transport, thermal conduction, etc). These physics questions are shared by all ICF approaches. However, a fusion power plant will use entirely different laser technology [1], and most likely a diff…

Post by eru » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 6:51 AM UTC

waps wrote: post #71

devx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Soon after, the $3.5bn facility shifted focus, cutting the amount of time spent on fusion versus nuclear weapons research - which was part of the lab's original mission. That was so disappointing to read. Don't we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 10x over already? Why would that still be the focus instead of inventing new sources of virtually unlimited energy??

Without weapons research 1) we never would have had nuclear power in the first place. (or it would have taken decades more) 2) It would even have taken a lot longer to develop oil energy and widespread cars (allied research on oil) 3) We wouldn't know about co2 separation (since the nazi state was cut-off -mostly- from oil, they researched liquefaction and nuclear power) Nobody ever gives cruel losers credit, I guess…

Post by regularfry » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

crystaln wrote: post #137

mquander wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal power creates that kind of crisis every day, so we don't bother calling it a crisis anymore. A total of 240,000 years of life were said to be lost in Europe in 2010 with 480,000 work days a year and 22,600 "life years" lost in Britain, the fifth most coal-polluted country. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-...

"commissioned by Greenpeace International" who I'm sure would back the position that nuclear fission plants are safer than coal. Of course, nuclear power plants are safe short term. Their threat is catastrophe, which given time, is inevitable.

Post by anirul » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 6:55 AM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #98

afterburner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I get the impression billions spent on fusion research doesn't really employ that many more people, it just spends more on expensive resources. Maybe that has a knock-on effect, but using the money on more labour-intensive work (skilled or otherwise) is still probably a better use. Such as, building and installing a heck of a lot of cheap solar panels.

Exactly. Say you go to a fusion laboratory that employs the top ten fusion scientists in the world, with a current budget of a few hundred million dollars, and you say to them "I've got 2 billion here in additional funding for you. You need to spend it in the next few months because I'm trying to stimulate an economy right here." Does that hire you forty more world class fusion scientists? Are there forty more world…

Post by regularfry » Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 7:05 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #17

Shivetya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad shovel ready money wasn't spent on more long lasting impact projects like this. Where has all that money gone from the drawn down of the wars? Where is the investments going in alternative energy? Well that last is easy, groups who contribute politically, hence solar and wind. They receive far too much in ways of support whereas hard science projects like this with incredible payoffs are pushed off because th…

It seems to me that the more plausible explanation is something like "Solar and wind power are proven to work, whereas fusion research is still trying to find something that even looks like it might work." Even after this "milestone," fusion still requires more energy from us than it gives back. Basically, the funding is going toward practical technologies, in the sense that you can actually put them into practice to…