How Close Are We, Really, To Nuclear Fusion? 399
StartsWithABang writes: The ultimate dream when it comes to clean, green, safe, abundant energy is nuclear fusion. The same process that powers the core of the Sun could also power everything on Earth millions of times over, if only we could figure out how to reach that breakeven point. Right now, we have three different candidates for doing so: inertial confinement, magnetic confinement, and magnetized target fusion. Recent advances have all three looking promising in various ways, making one wonder why we don't spend more resources towards achieving the holy grail of energy.
the real question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing can fuse "practically any matter", at least and get energy output. As elements get heavier, you get less energy out of fusing them. The breakeven point (with the exception of a few exceptional isotopes a little further up) is iron. Past iron you have to put in energy to get fusion. Heavier elements produce energy when they split up, which is why nuclear fission is a thing and is done with very heavy elements.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: the real question (Score:2)
Every element in the universe was created through fusion. It just starts with hydrogen and works its way up. I think hydrogen is also the easiest to get to fuse, but I'm not sure on that one.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but elements heavier than iron weren't created as part of an energy-producing fusion. They were created in the hearts of supernovas, where the pressure of the exploding star forced fusions that consumed energy.
Re: the real question (Score:2)
Ah. Thanks.
Re: the real question (Score:5, Funny)
Manganese--A dialect of Japanese only used in comics.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, a proton is an hydrogen nucleus. Also, matter and anti-matter aren't the same thing at all. The fundamental particles with positive and negative charges with stable arrangements making atoms are called quarks. E.g.: a proton is made of 2 up quarks (charge +2/3) and one down quark (charge -1/3) for a total of one atomic mass and 1 elementary charge. An anti-proton is made of 2 anti-up quarks (-2/3) and one anti-down quark (1/3) for a total of one atomic mass and -1 elementary charge. Baryons ar
Re: (Score:2)
THere is a word for you in Geman: Korinthenkakker
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion uses deuterium in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Every tested, even slightly successful fusion reaction uses deuterium and tritium, which are quite expensive hydrogen isotopes. And all viable supplies of tritium are created from fission reactors with neutron bombardment of otherwise relatively stable isotopes.
Re: (Score:3)
Deuterium [sigmaaldrich.com] - Deuterium or Deuterium - Tritium.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
FAIL!!! I think you've been huffing paint or living in an alternate reality. Hydrogen gas is easy to make through electrolysis, but the most commercially used way is through a process called steam reforming from hydrocarbons. [wikipedia.org] Once produced it is easily separated from other byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
What were you buying per liter? Tritium or He3?
Re: (Score:2)
Precious tritium!
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:5, Insightful)
Except when it's night time where you need power.
Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels.
Except that, I surmise, the power density and lifespan of a practical fusion reactor will make it many times more practical than littering every available horizontal surface with solar panels that will have to be replaced in 20 years or less.
Oh, and don't tell me 'battery banks!' because unless someone comes up with a way of directly storing electric power that scales up very, very cheaply, it's not really a practical solution to have bank after bank after bank of Li+ (or whatever) batteries, which in way less than 20 years will have to be junked and replaced, too.
I suspect you're the environmentalist type, like the Sierra Club or similar, and really are going to be against any type of centralized power generation; get over it already. We need nuclear power, if we're going to get out of the downward spiral that will turn the Earth into a copy of what Venus looks like now: A searing, lifeless black hell hot enough to keep lead molten on it's surface.
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's good to have options. As you say, wind and solar are doing just fine. They're today's technologies. Fusion is looking promising. It's the technology of tomorrow. The power density, self containment and controllability of a practical fusion reactor lets you do things that wind and solar can't.
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, and Germany is sunnier than the USA
Strawman. I never said anything of the sort.
You're right. I didn't see you anywhere in that video. It was just an interesting vdeo of what some folks on your side were talking about. We doing Oxford debate rules here?
Remind me again what portion of the INDUSTRIALIZED FIRST WORLD runs off of local wind turbines and/or local solar? Oh, that's right: not much. There's a perfectly good reason for that: it's not reliable power like grid power. Solar doesn't work when it's cloudy, at night, or when panels are covered by snow. Wind doesn't work unless it's windy.
And yet, looking at the Allegheny front near my place, there are a lot of wind turbines that seem to be running all the time. You occasionally see one in a turbine field that is stopped - I suspect that's for maintenance.
And as a small correction, the solar panels aren't charging at night. That's when we use the batteries tht the solar panels charge during the day. Works pretty well.
Grid power works all the time, every time.
Oh - bullshit. Here's a small sampling of your "works all the time, every time":
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/25/... [cnn.com]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/weather... [foxnews.com]
Living here in the Northeast, we've had a lot of major power interruptions, that put that "Grid power works all the time, every time." claim as utter bunkum. The interruptions are generally due to freak weather, but caused me to get first a generator, and I'm now working my way over towards solar. Some of the interruptions have been around a week, and it doesn't take too many freezerfulls of spoiled food to make you think about the need for alternative power.
Power that isn't there when you need it most is rather useless.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, your vaunted grid is not the uninterruptible power source that you claim it is. I really needed the power not available from the grid until I got those alternatives. I can't rely on your promises for power. Thos promises don't make power come out of the wall sockets. It gets too cold when we're out of it for a week.
Oh, and nice dig at Fox News, not that it's remotely relevant to the discussion. But it does show your bias.
I'm not a liberal, if that's your implication. I'm a pragmatist who likes to point out bullshit. And yes, the idea that Germany is successful in their attempts to use solar power because they are sunnier than we are is bullshit.
And the overall point of that post is that Fox News is not the only group spreading bullshit about alternative forms of power.
Especially when those folk write:
Grid power works all the time, every time
So really what was that? Was the quote bullshit? Or do you actually believe that :
Grid power works all the time, every time
Because it certainly doesn't.
Not even in Germany.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I never said 'solar sucks'. I am however saying that it's not the end-all, be-all, long-term solution to our energy needs. Neither is wind power. If you actually stop and think about it, it becomes fairly obvious.
Now, bashing fusion power is just plain silly, even if we don't have it yet. It's being worked on. Treating it like it's snake oil isn't going to help anyone. Enjoy your solar p
Re: (Score:3)
Oh for fuck's sake, you've really got your panties in a bunch, don't you? Actual trolls must have a field day with you.
Umm, no I don't got 'm in a bunch. Your reply indicates I really pissed you off though.
I never said 'solar sucks'.
You did write this:
Except when it's a cloudy day.
Except when it's night time where you need power.
Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels.
Two comments about that, one, it's true you disn't specifically use the word "sucks"
But if we're going to be that precise, and since you used quote marks, why don't you point out where I said that you said "solar sucks"
Now, bashing fusion power is just plain silly, even if we don't have it
Seriously pal - who you arguing
Re: (Score:3)
I have solar panels on my roof and when it's cloudy but "bright" the entire 5KW system only outputs a few hundred watts.
When it's cloudy and "dark" the system does not generate any power at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I Have a 7kWh setup and no if it is cloudy you get peanuts. The whole sky doesn't have to be covered just as soon as a cloud comes in front of the panels you can see a huge power fall off, from say 5kW on a typical day to as the previous poster mentioned triple digit watts. At that rate the panels aren't economical. On a whole they are just not during those periods.
The problem is if you have a constant base load you need you can't rely on solar (unless you are willing to install 10-50x the panels you need o
Re: Mission accomplished (Score:2)
Hard to get solar panels to work when its cloudy, shortened daylight hours or snow on the pannels for more than half the year. Especially with the solar panels we have available right now. Wind and solar right now are so inefficient its not even funny. Totaly useless for anywhere other than the sunniest of places.
The solar panels i have seen up here on the motorized platforms 5 days out of 7 are sitting flat all day because there is no best angle. This happens from about september until april or may.
Re: Mission accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Mission accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
Here on Planet Earth, we invented both mechanical and electric motors quite some time ago.
And we've found ways to heat things. And we have weather forecasting, which to the surprise of some is quite accurate.
When the snow is falling, stand the panels up to minimize the amount that sticks to the surface. When the storm is over or abating, apply heat to the panel surface to melt the residue. Solar is not going to be the primary power source in snowy or cloudy countries and no reasonable person expects it to be.
But it's still very useful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you analyzed how much energy you will expend to melt the snow, relative to the time rate of electric energy produced by the panel? Nice powder snow falls are not a big problem, but freezing rain, rime ice accretions, and slop which then freezes solid when the temperature falls prior to your heat application are all condit
Re: Mission accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in those conditions too - since the early 70s and did outdoor construction work through 4 consecutive winters.
None of these issues are more difficult than keeping homes, vehicles & roads in working condition through severe weather.
It takes work, planning, foresight and innovation but that's how we got from half-naked subsistence scrounging to where we are today.
Re: (Score:3)
Energy density (Score:3, Informative)
It's there, but we have to put an absurd amount of relatively rare resources into photovoltaic cells to make *use* of that energy. Otherwise, it performs a very useful function in that it gives us this thing called heat, so we don't all freeze to death and die (and so we can have an ecosystem of animals and plants that we don't have to keep in climate-controlled environments that also won't freeze and die).
No, I'm sorry, but the primary purpose of the sun is to give us energy in the form of light for plants
30 years (Score:4, Funny)
How Close Are We, Really, To Nuclear Fusion? (Score:5, Funny)
I would say roughly 1 AU, but it varies with the elliptical orbit of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The home fire burning, the Kessel almost boiling (Score:2)
Could have been worse: George Lucas.
Re: (Score:2)
If you fail to write it accurately (in the sense you mean) it's not science fiction. It's fantasy.
time_to_nuclear_fusion = (Score:5, Funny)
year() +10;
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, log(year()), it looks closer and closer.
No, it doesn't, at least if we're talking about time TO nuclear fusion, not time OF. Log(2016) > log(2015). The OP should just have said "10 years".
Not the holy grail (Score:2)
1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.
2) Even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...we'll be able to ship excess heat off-planet."
I suppose we wil reach this capability eventually, but long before we get to that point we will be shipping energy-hog industries off planet and importing finished products.
Re: (Score:3)
GP is right, if we really wanted to we could use a heat pump to collect and condense Earth's thermal energy, and radiate it into space (energy radiated is proportional to temperature to the fourth power). Literal space heaters. Of course, the craziest environmentalist's most expensive idea would be cheaper than air conditioning the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that pesky atmosphere get in the way?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about that, we've been working on that problem for a few decades. We've had quite a bit of success with the ozone layer already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NOMBY!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think it's the same one.
Re: (Score:2)
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-H. Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.
Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of a part of Earth and the result electricity produced will generate heat through work or inefficiency.
And physical exponential growth forever is not a serious scenario to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Albedo
Please google that word. Then, if you can, explain what you mean when you say "Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of..."
Perhaps that would provide me with an incredibly important insight that could herald a breakthrough in physics. But alas I fear that any attempt to explain that choice of words will fail, and I will remain stuck with the same old physics we've had since Einstein shook things up a bit over a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. Conservation of energy means that converting solar radiation in electricity simply changes the form of the energy, not the amount.
Energy can be heating up mass on Earth or it can be radiating to deep space. Solar power causes more energy to be contained on Earth, heating it up rather than the latter. Energy is conserved, but it need not be present on Earth. And I already stated the mechanisms by which this would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Please look up the word "albedo". Raising the albedo would be effectively making the earth's service more reflective, reducing solar heating. You seem to think it means "energy absorption".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun."
No, going all solar would not be a way around the ultimate heating problem. First, every solar panel 'blackens' its tiny patch of the Earth, this being an area of lower albedo. Then you get the same waste heat from consuming PV electricity as you would get from electricity generated any other way.
In any case, the thermodynamic heating problem has nothing to do with carbon warming and is minuscule in comparison to trapping of solar heat by greenho
Re: (Score:2)
The physics are so bad it hurts.
It uses the power the reaches the earth not the power than the sun outputs. The suns output is about 3.846 × 10^26
It's assuming we can sustain population growth, while many first world countries are negative growth.
It assumes we stay on this rock, people and industry need to shift off planet for growth.
A step forward, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Achieving practical nuclear fusion for power generation would be a very nice step forward. But "holy grail" is rather overselling it, I suspect.
Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants that depend on a long supply chain for all its parts, the high-purity fuel and so on. When you consider the building, running and maintenance costs, and the cost of dealing with the spent fuel (much better than for fission plants of course) the energy won't be all that cheap. Hopefully cheaper than fossil fuels at least, but I would not be surprised if a first generation of plants, at least, become more expensive than that.
And they'll be competing with rapidly dropping costs for solar and other renewables. A big, expensive plant like that will need a 40-50 year lifetime to pay for itself. If you can't show that it will likely run profitably for that time period few or no companies will be willing to take on the very major investment. We may well see a technical breakthrough for fusion, and still get no plants actually built.
Re:A step forward, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A step forward, but... (Score:5, Funny)
That would be silly. Just fuse 2H to form He, and sell the He for party balloons.
Or dirigibles. That would also work.
Or just vent the He. It will outgas from the planet soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Or nervous Hynerians; they fart helium...
Re: (Score:3)
You meant neutrons, that is why you use deuterium, tritium etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Achieving practical nuclear fusion for power generation would be a very nice step forward. But "holy grail" is rather overselling it, I suspect.
Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants that depend on a long supply chain for all its parts, the high-purity fuel and so on. When you consider the building, running and maintenance costs, and the cost of dealing with the spent fuel (much better than for fission plants of course) the energy won't be all that cheap.
And they'll be competing with rapidly dropping costs for solar and other renewables.
Quite - almost any tech advances that will help fusion will also help other energy sources.
And the cost(s) would be unbelievably huge. Multiple times a fission reactor's cost.
I found this story quite interesting - and disappointing. Essentially argues that we'll never have fusion and gives his (Maury Markowitz's) reasons for it: Why fusion will never happen [wordpress.com].
For me, this seems to capture the gist of his argument nicely:
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people who know how to build components of nuclear reactors have retired. Any serious effort is going to take years even if money is found.
Even if practical technology was 10-20 years out (Score:3)
Even if you could say with certainty that in 10-20 years the practical technology could be established, wouldn't you be looking at another 30+ years before it was actually a meaningful force in power generation, making fusion more like 50+ years out?
Say they solve the technology hurdles in 10 years. They will then need to build a test plant that operates at a scale large enough to generate meaningful power (a few megawatts). That would probably take 10 years. That plant would need to run for, what, 5 yea
Re: (Score:2)
But "holy grail" is rather overselling it, I suspect.
Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants that depend on a long supply chain for all its parts, the high-purity fuel
1. That is not necessarily true. It's probably true for the near future, but AFAIK not fundamentally.
2. Solar is fundamentally dependent on accessible sunlight in copious amounts. I was recently made aware that in the event of a supereruption or other incident that decreases incident sunlight worldwide, a society mainly dependent on solar energy would have immediate and serious power issues. Besides that, solar becomes less useful the farther away from a star you get. Finally, solar fundamentally scales wit
Re: (Score:2)
Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants
That's actually not true. When you look at the Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor [lockheedmartin.com], it's being designed to be small enough to fit on an airplane. It's a lot bigger than a "Mr. Fusion", but compared to a typical fission reactor, it's tiny.
Re: (Score:3)
Already there, but ... (Score:2)
Always 20 years out (Score:2)
This comes up now and again here on Slashdot. Maybe we should have a wiki or something "Frequently Asked Questions" or something
Fusion is always 20 years out, and there's a reason for it. this image [wikimedia.org] sums it up nicely.
Essentially, we could have fusion power in about 20 years if we had the political will to think 20 years into the future and fund it.
Since fusion research won't yield results before the next election cycle, no congresscritters will vote for it.
Graph explains everything (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of the Synroc nuclear waste encapsulation project - completed apart from quality testing in 1988, fully complete after funds were finally found a couple of years ago proving that the technique developed before 1988 was effective enough to be used, and now it's finally in use. Using that or similar would have meant no spent fuel rods from many years before in drying pools adding to the complete fuckup at Fukishima.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"...many of them secretly (or not so secretly) think that the best thing for the environment is if we (the human race as a whole) weren't alive anymore?"
This agenda is no longer even particularly hidden:
http://dgrnewsservice.org/2015... [dgrnewsservice.org]
Not really. (Score:2)
This graph explains very clearly [imgur.com] how far away we are, and why it is taking so long. The reality is, with all the cheap coal (and natural gas), it's just not a priority. Besides, environmentalists hate nuclear so it's not a political winner to fund it. This story is good, too [slashdot.org].
That looks like a graph that says 'fusion researchers want more money.' I want more money, too.
If I go to the source report, will it tell me:
1) the technical challenges they face?
2) if they're engineering problems requiring great expenditures?
3) If they're scientific research problems with uncertain outcomes?
4) If the research for a #3 problem involves a massive #2 effort?
Re:Graph explains everything (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, while some do, many loud and prominent ones do not. Greenpeace is the most obvious example. See especially their opposition to ITER: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/ [greenpeace.org], http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/lockheed-martins-compact-nuclear-reactor-yet-/blog/51074/ [greenpeace.org], http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/ [theregister.co.uk].
The Sierra Club which is in many ways more moderate than Greenpeace weakly opposes such fusion also http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/energy/nuclear-power [sierraclub.org], and while their main argument is that it is too expensive compared to more conventional renewables, they also cite "The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants" which only makes sense if you both don't fully understand how little tritium is being used and how think that the plants will be highly radioactive like conventional fission plants.
Sortir du nucléaire, one of the major French anti-nuclear groups are basically treating ITER and fusion in general very close to how they treat fission power. See e.g. http://www.dw.com/en/france-wins-nuclear-fusion-plant/a-1631650 [dw.com]
The environmental movement has done a lot of good and continues to do a lot of good. But there is a definite anti-technology bent in some parts and general anti-nuclear bent which is very unfortunate. There are some environmentalists who understand the potential benefits of fusion and how it is different than fission power, but it is definitely not all of them and certainly doesn't include some of the most prominent organizations.
Ob (Score:3)
How close are we, really, to StartsWithABang growing some hair, shaving off that ridiculous beard, and getting a proper job?
Cannot scale anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
I've explained this on Slashdot before: Even if such plants reach "break even", creating more available energy than they use to run, they can't possibly scale to production use because the tests that are even _slightly_ successful use tritium as a critical fuel component. And the only viable source of tritium is ordinary nuclear fission reactors: there is no scalable natural source for it.
There is _no_ fusion technology ever tested, nor realistically proposed that does not rely on tritium. And every source of tritium itself, either earth-bound fission or potentially solar sail collectors for solar tritium, is _itself_ far more efficiently used as a straight power supply by itself. Sustainable fusion is interesting as a technological accomplishment, but it's not a viable power source unless the need for tritum is eliminated.
Re:Cannot scale anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Natural reserves of tritium do not exist on Earth, but it can be made easily from lithium. In fact, tritium can be made using the high-energy neutron released from the fusion reaction and offers the possibility of making tritium in situ in a fusion reactor. The neutron is absorbed by the lithium to produce tritium.
Re:Cannot scale anyway (Score:5, Informative)
The only -current- viable source of tritium is fission. However fusion can produce its own tritium in breeder blankets. This is one of the concepts that will be researched in ITER: https://www.iter.org/mach/trit... [iter.org]
So the last part of your post "but it's not a viable power source unless the need for tritum is eliminated" is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But for that we need lithium, which supply is limited.
How close are we to fusion (Score:5, Funny)
about 8.3 light-minutes
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Furthermore, Saudi Arabia must be destroyed (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry. With sub $40 oil Saudi Arabia has far less than 5 years of cash left. OPEC is gone, US frackers keep cutting production cost quickly moving shale oil from mid-price to low-price, and so the chance of seeing 60 oil (S.A.'s break-even point at the current level of government spending) before 2020 is slim slim slim.
It's not that S.A. can't produce oil and make money at $40, it's that they can't maintain their stability spending at $40. Love them or hate them, they are a stabilizing force in the region. With them gone or impotent the region is going to change, fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Love them or hate them, they are a stabilizing force in the region. With them gone or impotent the region is going to change, fast.
Exactly. Why anyone would want to see the Middle-East destabilized even further by 'destroying Saudi Arabia' is beyond me.
The best thing that could happen is for countries that mainly depend on the sale of oil to gradually reform their economy and wean themselves off their oil income while they still have the cash to do so (too late, Venezuela). The world already has enough crappy economies to deal with.
Re:Furthermore, Saudi Arabia must be destroyed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone in Saudi Arabia are bedouin; in particular the ruling House of Saud is descended from town dwelling Arabs.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that not everyone in Saudi Arabia is worthless. Even people involved in managing their oil. And as for the elite they don't seem to be worse than anyone else who's inherited oil-based wealth; they've managed that for the long term benefit of themselves and their families. If they're ostentatious with their wealth, well they have a lot of it and it hasn't bankrupted them yet.
So there's no rational reason to want to destroy Saudi Arabia. But there's every reason not to want to be so dependent upon them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1AU (Score:2)
It's easy really (Score:2)
if only we could figure out how to reach that breakeven point.
Just accumulate enough matter together to create a gravitational field so strong that it begins to collapse space-time and fusion will start all by itself. Until we give up the notion that we can do with magnets what gravity can do (false) and that anything on a large scale must be capable of being replicated on a small scale (also false), people and governments will continue to throw money away at "fusion".
Uggg, so 60's (Score:2)
"The ultimate dream when it comes to clean, green, safe, abundant energy is nuclear fusion."
Not since the 1980s when we realized any machine able to harness it would cost more than we could afford to pay for it.
"The same process that powers the core of the Sun could also power everything on Earth millions of times over"
Indeed, and if we build solar panels at the rate we are now, we'll do just that.
"Recent advances have all three looking promising in various ways"
Really? Let's see:
- magnetic confinement - a
Re: (Score:2)
Inertial confinement is just fusion bomb research wrapped up in a nice story. Tokamaks might work in the future (JET already reached physical break-even, ITER will probably reach technical break-even) but they'll have so much engineering issues (mainly because the hull will become very radioactive) that the remaining power will probably be so expensive that wind and solar will be the much cheaper solution.
What's up with Lockheed? (Score:2)
For anybody who's more in the know than me, what's the latest with Lockheed's supposed Skunkworks compact fusion reactor? There's so little info on it I'm inclined to think it's a pie-in-the-sky bid for government pork, but if there's been any recent updates I'd love to hear it.
$30 billion away (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a look. I like the thinking behind the design more than the design itself...
Not that i'm qualified to say so, but I do feel others are conceptually doing it wrong by trying to sustain pressures and conditions in a star, it makes more sense to find a natural fit for a small scale fusion reaction. Another way of looking at it is trying to use the nature of materials and mechanics to do the work instead of brute forcing it...
Might seem like a strange analogy but: the biomechanics of a fish allow it to sw
Re: (Score:2)
The equilibrium temperature on earth might become a little higher, but since radiating heat goes with T^4 (ignoring all greenhouse effects here) it probably would not be a little higher.
Re: (Score:3)
You can, if you want, allow yourself to be wowed by "man behind the curtain" fraud, but I've got better things to do. At least conventional fusion relies only on well-enunciated and well-accepted physics, something which cannot be said for the E-Cat. If Rossi actually possessed anything beyond ego and selfishness, he would