RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-12-2022 03:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(12-12-2022 02:53 PM)Kruciff Wrote:
(12-12-2022 02:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: While we may achieve sustainable fusion 'in the lab', the engineering requirements for economic production are so out of the realm as to be effectively impossible.
Such as? Genuine question. Certainly challenges will exist, but a statement like this reminds me of this 1903 New York Times article that stated that manned flight was practically impossible... only for the Wright Brothers to achieve flight 9 weeks later.
As a first start, how to build and maintain the walls and shielding -- they have to be specially designed to be 'breeding' walls, that is walls that dont smother neutron flux but enhance it. You need neutrons to react with an Li or Be layer to propagate tritium production within the reactor.
In short, the production of net positive energy in very short bursts is the easy part of the problem. The issue of economics is doing that on a sustainable basis. Here is a good critique of economic fusion production.
I interacted with the 'author' above many moons ago, and have been impressed with his work since then.
In short, it is going to be blazingly hard to become energy output positive on the reactor as a whole, and equally hard to become neutron positive (thus being tritium neutral) in the economic effort.
Lab efforts dont have to deal with these types of issues.
I watched most of it, had a long reply critiquing it but it was too wordy; He makes some good points, but a couple of things that struck me as odd: he implies nuclear waste as a fusion energy byproduct is a topic of concern, he goes off on a tangent on the laws of thermodynamics that don't seem all that relevant, because the challenges of fusion energy has been material and electromagnetic research to improve the efficiency of the containment and reaction, rather than prove a thermodynamic equation wrong.
In any case, I think the video is a tad too pessimistic and (even at only 1 year old) is a little dated, but is a solid counterargument.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
Is this being reported by any real scientific publications? I saw something a while back outlining how the popular press tends to get this fusion thing wrong all the time. I mean it seems like they've done this breathless reporting on fusion before call to no avail. I'm going to go see if I can find the YouTube video published by Sabina what's her name....a real physicist as I recall
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-12-2022 06:06 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Is this being reported by any real scientific publications? I saw something a while back outlining how the popular press tends to get this fusion thing wrong all the time. I mean it seems like they've done this breathless reporting on fusion before call to no avail. I'm going to go see if I can find the YouTube video published by Sabina what's her name....a real physicist as I recall
The mix-up is in the *different ways of reporting energy input.* Then converting the *output to true usable energy.* So until I hear it from someplace other than Fox News or CNN my remains skeptical :-)
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-12-2022 02:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: While we may achieve sustainable fusion 'in the lab', the engineering requirements for economic production are so out of the realm as to be effectively impossible.
The "engineering requirements" as you put it, are probably less than a decade away if what I have heard from this particular experiment is correct. That's a lot sooner than it will take to make current green energy sources economicly feasible on a national scale.
Combine that with the fact this would produce nearly no long- term nuclear waste and it is essentially 'free' energy once self sustaining, and it becomes clear that fusion is a much more practical solution than current green energy pursuits.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-12-2022 06:11 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:
(12-12-2022 06:06 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Is this being reported by any real scientific publications? I saw something a while back outlining how the popular press tends to get this fusion thing wrong all the time. I mean it seems like they've done this breathless reporting on fusion before call to no avail. I'm going to go see if I can find the YouTube video published by Sabina what's her name....a real physicist as I recall
The mix-up is in the *different ways of reporting energy input.* Then converting the *output to true usable energy.* So until I hear it from someplace other than Fox News or CNN my remains skeptical :-)
A claim made in this way was clarified (read retracted) just last month. Still waiting for a credible scientific peer reviewed publication to report this. So far all I've seen are places like Yahoo etc.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-12-2022 08:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Honestly---traditional nuclear is going to be the only reliable carbon free electricity suitable for base generation for the foreseeable future.
Foreseeable future. In about thirty years this will be used to provide power. No sense in getting excited for today, not happening.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way. And even after that you've got to figure a way to convert the output in the most efficient way possible... which would be less than 2.5. Tony Raulstone from Cambridge explains it pretty well. In short, this is about making the news getting public support and more investment. In my opinion :-)
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way. And even after that you've got to figure a way to convert the output in the most efficient way possible... which would be less than 2.5. Tony Raulstone from Cambridge explains it pretty well. In short, this is about making the news getting public support and more investment. In my opinion :-)
Not just that, the process has to be almost self-sustaining re: neutrons and tritium. No one at all has done *anything* relating to that.
The focus is trying to make the 'ignition' step be net positive in isolation.
The best analogy is: we have made a car that gets sucks in air and gets 90 mpg. The problem is the gas tank is only a marble size, and there is no way to refill it. And the plant that makes it requires 20k gallons of gasoline to make the one car.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
Or how about this one. You have $100. You want to put it in the bank at 5% interest but they have an up front processing fee of $80 before they allow you to even open an account. So you're only able to put 20 in. While your $20 is in the account you get $1 in interest. You pull your $21 out and claim you have a $1 gain over the amount you put in *the account.* Which you do. So you can look at starting with 20 and ending with 21 or starting with a hundred and ending with 21. Right now they're focused on what's happening in the account and not all the other stuff. Which is fine, or not going to be shooting lasers at peanuts to h power our homes anytime soon. Sort of seemrd like the media was kind of reporting it that way. That's all.
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2022 12:07 PM by TIGERCITY.)
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way. And even after that you've got to figure a way to convert the output in the most efficient way possible... which would be less than 2.5. Tony Raulstone from Cambridge explains it pretty well. In short, this is about making the news getting public support and more investment. In my opinion :-)
Not just that, the process has to be almost self-sustaining re: neutrons and tritium. No one at all has done *anything* relating to that.
The focus is trying to make the 'ignition' step be net positive in isolation.
The best analogy is: we have made a car that gets sucks in air and gets 90 mpg. The problem is the gas tank is only a marble size, and there is no way to refill it. And the plant that makes it requires 20k gallons of gasoline to make the one car.
dayum ... law + thermodynamics ... that's impressive with flair!
on this guy, y'all are both in my camp ... @energytransference
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way.
Congratulations. You have just explained the true cost of ownership of wind turbine power.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 12:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way.
Congratulations. You have just explained the true cost of ownership of wind turbine power.
there's some irony spat back in the face ...
it's amazing how one hand understands, and the other flops like a fish out of water...
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way. And even after that you've got to figure a way to convert the output in the most efficient way possible... which would be less than 2.5. Tony Raulstone from Cambridge explains it pretty well. In short, this is about making the news getting public support and more investment. In my opinion :-)
Not just that, the process has to be almost self-sustaining re: neutrons and tritium. No one at all has done *anything* relating to that.
The focus is trying to make the 'ignition' step be net positive in isolation.
The best analogy is: we have made a car that gets sucks in air and gets 90 mpg. The problem is the gas tank is only a marble size, and there is no way to refill it. And the plant that makes it requires 20k gallons of gasoline to make the one car.
So I guess the hype is this is the first time they have achieved a surplus of energy but only when you look at where the actual fusion takes place. Which I guess is proof that it can be done here on Earth.
RE: U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
(12-13-2022 01:04 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:
(12-13-2022 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(12-13-2022 11:42 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote: Here are reactions from 10 or so physicists from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial college. Simply put the *total energy expended* was 500 units, of that only 1.5 units was delivered to the plasma, and 2.5 units was created by fusion. So yes, the energy going in the plasma (1.5) is exceeded by the amount coming out the other side so to speak. But the whole system started with 500 Mj and ends with 2.5. ... you can't make a living that way. And even after that you've got to figure a way to convert the output in the most efficient way possible... which would be less than 2.5. Tony Raulstone from Cambridge explains it pretty well. In short, this is about making the news getting public support and more investment. In my opinion :-)
Not just that, the process has to be almost self-sustaining re: neutrons and tritium. No one at all has done *anything* relating to that.
The focus is trying to make the 'ignition' step be net positive in isolation.
The best analogy is: we have made a car that gets sucks in air and gets 90 mpg. The problem is the gas tank is only a marble size, and there is no way to refill it. And the plant that makes it requires 20k gallons of gasoline to make the one car.
So I guess the hype is this is the first time they have achieved a surplus of energy but only when you look at where the actual fusion takes place. Which I guess is proof that it can be done here on Earth.
Yeah the milestone crossed was that for the first time they were able to pull out more energy than was put in that closed system. Before this has any practical value they got across a whole bunch of other milestones. That's about it.
/
[NEWS] U.S. to announce Scientific Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
