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…
Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
241–250 of 494 posts
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is fusion different? It's not but people don't seem to realize this or maybe just don't want to think about it. Spending $100B to produce 1GW of power (made up numbers) is not an economical source of power. So hydrogen being free (deuterium and tritium are essentially free; Helium isotopes are more complicated) is irrelevant until the capital cost of the plane is much, much lower. And even then you still have t…
> photos created at the Sun's core take ~30,000 years to escape I’m guessing you meant photons but this still seems amazing. Is there somewhere I can find out more about that?
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural gas is only inexpensive because of fracking. With fracking in the USA at least the people involved can set up an LLC that dissolves after the well runs out. They are not required to disclose the contents of the fracking wastewater fluid. It gets pumped back down underground where it could dissipate into the rest of the water system. These people claim that it's safe for decades when our computer models can't…
What a great way to not answer what OP is asking. If you don’t like fracking, that’s alright, but sustaining ourselves without it it’s not really an option. Right now our options are: 1) Use coal, accept the consequences of the increased climate change. 2) Keep using gas, reduce the future costs of climate change, deal later with the speculative consequences you mention. 3) Switch to renewables and drastically increa…
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#244Does this mean you can now build a hydrogen bomb without uranium or plutonium? If not, why not?
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#245Meta-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…
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero.
Is this because the chain reaction is limited by the fuel source?
One of the major problems (arguably the problem) with tokamak or similar fusion reactors is that if the plasma ever touches the edge of the vessel, it immediately cools down and stops being plasma. It can't fuse with itself any more, much less trigger anything else to start. Heavier atoms need more energy to fuse, that's why you see hydrogen, helium, lithium bandied about in these discussions. The amount of energy needed to fuse the atoms in the walls of a fusion reactor is literally supernova-scale. We're not talking "there's an engineering tolerance built in for safety", rather "as a civilisation it's not immediately conceivable how we might generate amounts of energy that large".
Given that the majority of the earth is made out of elements that are inconveniently heavy, runaway fusion is absolutely, definitely, totally, completely not a problem.
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benefits of a car were immediately obvious as soon as supply lines were considered. Feed for horses was something like 30% of all deliveries in a horse-based supply chain. Railroads run off of coal, but steam-engines were huge. ICE engines were miniature engines that also ran off of a fuel source (eventually settling upon oil, but many different fuel sources were considered in those early days, including electric…
" But nuclear is reliable and doesn't need this "natural gas assist". Even if a hurricane sweeps over an area, the nuclear power plants will keep working. " Actually, they don't. " As a precaution measure, the reactor shall be shut down at least two hours before the hurricane’s strong winds arrive at the location. Generally this happens when the speed reaches between 70 and 75 mph (between 113 and 121 km/h). " ( http…
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/27/136920/the-new-s...
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#248I don't know what has happened more, nuclear fusion "breakthroughs", or Voyager "leaving the solar system"...
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benefits of a car were immediately obvious as soon as supply lines were considered. Feed for horses was something like 30% of all deliveries in a horse-based supply chain. Railroads run off of coal, but steam-engines were huge. ICE engines were miniature engines that also ran off of a fuel source (eventually settling upon oil, but many different fuel sources were considered in those early days, including electric…
" But nuclear is reliable and doesn't need this "natural gas assist". Even if a hurricane sweeps over an area, the nuclear power plants will keep working. " Actually, they don't. " As a precaution measure, the reactor shall be shut down at least two hours before the hurricane’s strong winds arrive at the location. Generally this happens when the speed reaches between 70 and 75 mph (between 113 and 121 km/h). " ( http…
Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unpopular truth is that fossil fuels are far too cheap. If the negative externalities were priced in, they would be at least twice as expensive, perhaps as much as ten times.
> If the negative externalities were priced in they would be at least twice as expensive Quotation needed
Findings on the abstract already corroborate the parent comment.
[1] "The hidden costs of energy and mobility: A global meta-analysis and research synthesis of electricity and transport externalities" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...