81–90 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or a swimming pool full of those spicy rocket propellents discussed in the book Ignition! which have combustion products like hydrogen fluoride.
Would love to take a look at your library.
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS
Is that an actual honest photo? The first two seem fully equipped including what seems to be shielded wiring harnesses. #3 looks totally devoid of any electronics. disclaimer: I don't follow this stuff at all. It just looks like a b.s. photo deliberately exaggerating how simplified #3 is vs. the others to this grease monkey.
Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..
The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind. Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind. Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it…
> real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind This is difficult to say when comparing an emerging technology with an established technology in an emerging economy. Based on every historical prior, it would be surprising if there weren't diminishing returns to solar and wind. And I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which power is, in part…
Does it kill the idea of a tokamak as an energy production device? As in a stellarator proving the much more promising design...
Both ideas are pretty old (50s) and in development for a long time. Both designs have their pros and cons. The biggest drawback of the Tokamak however is that it can only be pulsed... which is kind of dumb to actually generate and provide energy in the long run. You really want the Stellarator here, since there it is at least theoretically possible to run "for ever" (not entirely true, but long enough cycles to be us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind. Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it…
> real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind This is difficult to say when comparing an emerging technology with an established technology in an emerging economy. Based on every historical prior, it would be surprising if there weren't diminishing returns to solar and wind. And I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which power is, in part…
For every other way of producing energy you need separate land for PV you don't. You can put them on rooftops, over parking lots or even vertical in a field. The last one increases the crop yield. Crops get less harsh sun, lose less water and the evaporation cools down the panels, which increases their production.
Today we value costs of energy production and tomorrow we will to. Especially if it results in energy independence. You don't need to buy fuel for PV and wind. As with nuclear fuel only a few countries are probably going to manufacturing the fuel needed for fusion reactors. Producing enough of it and in a sufficient purity needs specialized facilities and they will only be profitable if they produce a lot of it.
Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..
Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS
I don't think that applies to Stellarators, so there may not be an incentive to simplify it. [But what do I know; I'm just a simple programmer.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind This is difficult to say when comparing an emerging technology with an established technology in an emerging economy. Based on every historical prior, it would be surprising if there weren't diminishing returns to solar and wind. And I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which power is, in part…
PV Panel production acts more like typical mass production and has therefore much higher cost benefits compared to every other way of producing power. For every other way of producing energy you need separate land for PV you don't. You can put them on rooftops, over parking lots or even vertical in a field. The last one increases the crop yield. Crops get less harsh sun, lose less water and the evaporation cools down…
Turbines are also mass manufactured. (Albeit less than PVs.)
> You can put them on rooftops, over parking lots or even vertical in a field
The first power plant burned coal in Manhattan [1]. You can put turbines on top of buildings. We don’t because we don’t want to.
I think wind turbines are pretty. But lots of people don’t, and many wouldn’t want their rooftops to be shaded by panels, or wide open fields and natural expanses turned into something that looks more industrial. (I personally think looking down on rooftop gardens is far prettier than panels.)
Maybe there is a perfect power source out there, one which justifies a monoculture. I haven't seen it. I don't believe it's solar or wind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nice thing about fusion reactors is that they don’t blow up but just don’t work anymore.
they have fission reactors that have done that since the 60s (CANDU Reactor). They just don't help you produce nuclear bombs...
A better link: https://www.ipp.mpg.de/5532945/w7x?c=5481737 (there is some irony in using the iter.org link for a stellarator announcement) 1.8GJ over 360 seconds, beta of 0.03
Especially considering the total budget of it is $340 millions vs ITER's tens of billions.