Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article
It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and could get working earlier.
There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in the mix.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I can't judge its merits, but "working with a more advanced prototype at least three times larger..." That is, "We need a bigger machine to get energy positive". Where have we heard that before?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
They'll have it down in ten years. ;-)
Pretty much everywhere, starting with steam engines.
It is worth paying attention to the size they need to get to - which is mentioned in the article.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
+1
With steam engines an actual working prototype showing how one gets usable power out of it was demonstrated at the very beginning. With nuclear fusion, we have exactly the opposite after more than half a century.
Whoey Louie's grasp of reality is decidedly weak. Nuclear fusion - in the sun - has been delivering usable power for the past few billion years.
At present it takes more power to get a hydrogen plasma at the earth's surface hot and dense enough to fuse than the fusing nuclei deliver, but that isn't "exactly the opposite" of delivering usable power, it's just a step along a road to getting there.
The point of the article was that while ITER currently looks like the likeliest route to commercial nuclear power generation, there are others, and most of them look as if they could work on a smaller scale.
Whooe Louie doesn't really understand how technical development works. It's an exploration of possibilities, rather than an expedition down the only possible route.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Just about the same time the world ignites from climate change... isn't that always ten years away?
Don't get me wrong I WANT fusion to work, but one has heard this all before many, many times. One suspects some basic assumptions are wrong.
John ;-#)#
No one with even a minor education in the field has been saying nuclear fusion energy is just 10 years away. They have always known it was considerably hard with many complex issues to solve.
It's just people like you who make ridiculous statements like this.
Not only has this been repeated many, many times, but this is being picked up as a response to anything anyone says that is more than 30 days out.
Sometimes I get tired of reading all the nonsense in this group.
-- Rick C. - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Nevertheless, there has been a specific goal for a long time - obtain usable power from hydrogen fusion on Earth. There has never appeared to be a theoretical obstacle (unlike free energy machines, for example), yet achieving the goal has taken, and is still taking, longer than I believe anyone imagined it would when research on it started.
If one were inclined to be sceptical, one would have history on one's side.
Sylvia.
Yes, that would be true right up to the day the first reactor was turned on to make electricity for a few cities. It was also true for many, many things that took a long time to finally happen, like the Panama Canal.
Do you really think fusion power will never happen?
-- Rick C. + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I don't doubt that an energy positive reactor will eventually be built. Whether it will ever be economic is another question.
Sylvia.
e.
Have you any idea how long people imagined that it would take when the rese arch got under way?
It's the nature of development that nothing works until you've solved all t he problems that stopped it from working. Since it's a process of explorati on, rather than trip down a well-charted path, the only people who make con fident predictions about how long it's going to take to get to the destinat ion are those who don't know what they are talking about.
And that includes the crowd that are happy to assure us that we'll never ge t there.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Well, the predictions about a much worse Australian bushfire season in 2020 as a consequence of climate change were made about 2009.
Nobody is predicting world "ignition", just progressively worse inconveniences.
John Robertson seems to be a sucker for denialist propaganda, which goes to quite a lot of trouble to depict realistic predictions as alarmist.
The energy radiated by the sun is generated by some other process?
The basic assumptions look to be sound enough. The practical difficulties of getting a much less dense plasma that the one at the core of the sun hot enough for hydrogen fusion are considerable.
We've clearly got the plasma hot enough for fusion to take place, but getting enough of it that warm to generate more energy than it takes to get it hot and keep it confined is work in progress.
The point about the article is that ITER isn't the only approach that might work.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The first one built - probably ITER - is unlikely to be economic. ITER was not designed to make money, but rather to be close enough to something that might make money to provide useful design information.
The interesting question is whether it's going to look much like the version that does make money (if one ever shows up).
Useful information - in this context - includes "this approach isn't practical".
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
s not designed to make money, but rather to be close enough to something th at might make money to provide useful design information.
ion that does make money (if one ever shows up).
tical".
Seems like $20 billion is a lot of money to spend if they weren't pretty du rn sure it would result in a viable solution.
I know that climate change isn't caused by the heat released when burning c arbon based fuels. But I wonder how much energy we individually need to re lease before that does become a problem? I suppose that unlike CO2 polluti on, problems caused by releasing too much heat can always be addressed by s imply reducing energy consumption. The problem with CO2 pollution is that even if we cut back on our CO2 production, it won't be enough. We need to reduce our carbon emissions to near zero.
-- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
t.
was not designed to make money, but rather to be close enough to something that might make money to provide useful design information.
rsion that does make money (if one ever shows up).
actical".
durn sure it would result in a viable solution.
Sure. It should result in a viable solution, and we do need to find one.
There's no guarantee that it will be most viable solution by the time it's more or less working.
carbon based fuels. But I wonder how much energy we individually need to release before that does become a problem?
Quite a lot
The planet gets about 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.
Human energy production is about 18 terawatts. Geothermal heat flux from th e earth's interior is 47 terawatts.
h heat can always be addressed by simply reducing energy consumption. The problem with CO2 pollution is that even if we cut back on our CO2 productio n, it won't be enough. We need to reduce our carbon emissions to near zero .
Or work out a way of pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million ton s of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism which soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
seems to have been a greenhouse gas eruption - methane rather than CO2, tho ugh since methane converts to CO2 within about a century this is an academi c distinction.
Recovery seems to have taken 83,000 years - fairly rapidly in the first 33,
000 years and more slowly over the next 50,000 years. Speeding that up migh t be a good idea.-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
y durn sure it would result in a viable solution.
s more or less working.
I expect the $20 billion is planned to be spent over at least a decade if n ot more. So perhaps we will know more about which approaches to continue i n less than that.
I would hope the lion's share of the ITER budget is planned for expenses th at would not be required for a power plant. Otherwise it is unlikely it co uld be economical.
ng carbon based fuels. But I wonder how much energy we individually need t o release before that does become a problem?
the earth's interior is 47 terawatts.
If the temperature is a linear result of the total heat absorbed, then we w ould need to produce around 600 terawatts or more than 30 times our current level of heat to raise the temperature of the surface of the earth by 1? ?C.
That is a large multiple of what we produce now, but if energy were to beco me truly too cheap to meter, what might we use that energy on? Or should I say, waste it on compared to how we use it now?
uch heat can always be addressed by simply reducing energy consumption. Th e problem with CO2 pollution is that even if we cut back on our CO2 product ion, it won't be enough. We need to reduce our carbon emissions to near ze ro.
me Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million t ons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism whi ch soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Sounds to me like a potential example of a law of unintended consequences. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is could be impacted too much by such large quantities.
-- Rick C. -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
tty durn sure it would result in a viable solution.
.t's more or less working.
not more. So perhaps we will know more about which approaches to continue in less than that.
that would not be required for a power plant. Otherwise it is unlikely it could be economical.
ning carbon based fuels. But I wonder how much energy we individually need to release before that does become a problem?
m the earth's interior is 47 terawatts.
would need to produce around 600 terawatts or more than 30 times our curre nt level of heat to raise the temperature of the surface of the earth by 1
It isn't. Radiated heat loss increases as the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiator.
All the heat received from the sun is re-radiated. The temperature at the e ffective radiating altitude is about -18C - about 255K - so if yo want a 1
terawatts.
come truly too cheap to meter, what might we use that energy on? Or should I say, waste it on compared to how we use it now?
much heat can always be addressed by simply reducing energy consumption. The problem with CO2 pollution is that even if we cut back on our CO2 produ ction, it won't be enough. We need to reduce our carbon emissions to near zero.
some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million tons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest wa y of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism w hich soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is coul d be impacted too much by such large quantities.
Dolomite - and the carbonates that CO2 produces by acting on it - are insol uble in water.
Spreading it on beaches just lets the waves shift it around to expose fresh surfaces to CO2.
More CO2 in the oceans is going to make them marginally more acid, and dolo mite would would help that, but only by locking up some CO2 as insoluble co mpounds.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Robertson wrote in news:ReqdnbdHrfEyg6 snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Like what happens when you take even a very small amount of something critical? Yeah... prolly a lot of heat 'produced'.
I guess the perfect insulator would be some zero latent heat media that could be used as a boundary layer. Like ... i dunno... dark matter... unobtainium.
We should be able to make a tenth of a megawatt with a diode sized device that lasts years without breakdown. A perfect little crucible.
Yeah.. sure... let's ask the aliens what they use.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.