Remarkable. It's still nuclear energy, and the sobering part for me is that fusion neutrons are an order of magnitude more energetic than fission neutrons. Add the fact that fusion plants are an order of magnitude larger, and you get orders of magnitude more nuclear waste with order of magnitude higher activation/radioactivity. If you don't like nuclear for these reasons, you'll probably hate fusion.
US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
91–100 of 1001 posts
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#92I'm still a little unclear on the benefits that fusion offers compared to things like wind and solar. I understand that we need to develop better storage technologies for the energy produced by wind and solar, but that seems so much easier than the challenges currently facing fusion. Wind and solar just seem so far ahead of fusion already - they're pretty cheap and very widely deployed on a global scale. In compariso…
Much more compact, less use of land or sea real estate, more power produced per volume and throttleable.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#93Is that a different approach than the Tokamak, some piece to make it works, or some other relationship? What does it mean for existing projects such as ITER? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
For the Fusion the particles need to get close - but not to close. So the particles in the Tokamak get heated up to reach that. Also it's designed to run continuously but the challenge is the magnetic field so the particles won't hit the wall. (And cool down very quickly)
The Inertia based fusion works by providing the heat/energy with lasers, so the fuel would have to be replaced continuously.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#94I like how over 60 years after the nuclear boom, it somehow just happened to happen today. Just when the world is ready to transition to electric vehicles on a global scale, just when oil companies aren't able to make as much money from oil as they used to, just when one of the major suppliers of fossil fuels (Russia) is at war with the West, it has somehow magically happened.
What a coinky-dink.
Throw lots of money at something when you need it to happen and then it will happen. Or have control over the technology and don't let it see the light of day until it benefits you financially and makes your enemies lose their main stream of income. I truly applaud this timing and will err on the side of conspiracy rather than coincidence reading more about this "breakthrough".
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tritium is ridiculously expensive, at $30k per gram D-T fusion almost always breeds tritium in the blanket.
Would that mean that you wouldn't need titium to start with? Or that tritium deposits would replenish? How would it affect the rough calculations above?
Your calculations don’t mention energy (J), only power (MW in your post). Fuel supply and cost correlate with energy produced, not power.
Parent post suggests that tritium is a fixed cost, more like a construction cost than a fuel cost. We can’t answer this question without a lot more information. We’d need to know how much tritium is needed to reach the point the reactor breeds more than it consumes, if at all.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#96I hate to ask this, but have to ... is there any danger of these discoveries being weaponized easily by hostile countries? i.e. does this make unconventional weapons more accessible to countries who otherwise have embargoes on technology and material to make atomic weapons?
Oops, answered my own question I guess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon That ain't good. Although fusion is clearly the future of energy, we have to get our sh*t together on earth so we don't kill ourselves off or devolve with endless wars. Or give up and use fusion to leave the planet efficiently.
So.. we attack our enemies by building large fusion power plants in their countries, and then blowing them up? Why not just build a traditional nuclear fission power plant and blow that up? It seems that would be a lot cheaper.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#97Remarkable. It's still nuclear energy, and the sobering part for me is that fusion neutrons are an order of magnitude more energetic than fission neutrons. Add the fact that fusion plants are an order of magnitude larger, and you get orders of magnitude more nuclear waste with order of magnitude higher activation/radioactivity. If you don't like nuclear for these reasons, you'll probably hate fusion.
Furthermore, fusion does not produce highly radioactive, long lived nuclear waste. “Fusion produces only low level radioactive waste — more than fission does — but this low level waste does not pose any serious danger,” said González de Vicente. Contaminated items, such as protective clothing, cleaning supplies and even medical tubes or swabs, are short lived, low level radioactive waste that can be safely handled with basic precautions.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#98Calling this "ignition" is a misnomer. The correct term, as given in the article (as opposed to the headline) is exceeding breakeven: more fusion energy output than energy input to the target.
"Ignition" means the reaction becomes self-sustaining and does not require any further input of energy to continue.
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#99Ok, so how long do I have to wait to get a coffee-can sized device to power my house?
Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved
#100Let's say this all works out and over the next few decades fusion replaces all other electricity generation, and we're past the point where all the initial infrastructure costs have been paid for.
How much will my electric bill be reduced?