After what the USAians achieved with a net positive output, hopefully they can match and surpass that. Fusion is one of the few technologies that can get us to 1 on Kardashev scale.
Ok but what if coal powered space craft?
I'd rather not suffocate lol
Get marketing to convince the rich folk it is an "activated charcoal" infused air
But coal workers are a bedrock of American ideals! We can't take their jobs!
Is a /s needed? I don't know anymore. Do people really enjoy being coal miners and want their children to follow that wonderful career? I can get a yes to that question but only from people who have no idea what that entails.
-Musk, "Get your shovels ready lads, we are going to Mars!"
Too low fuel density to work id assume, and most engine designs expect a liquid fuel
USAians
The level of laziness here is inspiring lmao. I'm going to use this from now on
The method they used is absolutely unsuited for power generation, they're doing weapons research. Two things:
Sure, more energy came out than hit the target but the amount of power wasted generating the laser light is right-out astronomical. People also gripe about other experiments not including those external (to the reaction) factors but then they're also generally magnitudes lower.
The targets are very very hard to produce, and you only get to shoot at them once.
I remember hearing when it was announced last that fusion was achieved, scientists were skeptical that we had finally achieved this and we wouldn't be actually putting it to use for decades to come.
But here we are. Yes it's experimental but it's working amd producing energy. I'm just surprised we're here already, even if it's only a proof of concept at this point
IAEA's estimate is that Nuclear fusion, if successfully researched and demonstrated at full capacity within 2036 at ITER (which is already lagging behind schedule) will result in commercial availability in 2050. So yes, we are still decades away from putting it to use.
Fusion is so dump. Were at least a couple decades away from brake even in the fusion reaction, but still people believe it will help solve the climate crisis.
Atm we put about 10 times nore energy into the whole system than we get out. And it generates nuclear waste because the wall materials absorb neutrons and get radioactive.
And so many other unsolved problems... this technology is a nice research peoject, but none of us will ever see a commercial reactor in action, because it is so far away, if even possible.
So what? People should stop trying for a better tomorrow because today sucks?
No. Renewables are available and super cheap.
They are, and they are good solution but they are not good all and end all solutions, both wind and solar cannot meet baseload and when you start talking about battery storage as solution, scaling it up requires more metal mining than will ever be sustainable, so pursuit of fusion, pursuit of tidal energy, pursuit of better nuclear, pursuit of better geothermal are viable exploration options as we need baseload generation substitute.
Society grows strong when men plant trees in which shadow they will never sit.
Max Planck plans on building an actual power plant in the 2030s. A stellerator (just like Wendelstein 7X) which, unlike Tokmaks, don't have scaling issues. They will still need to nail down tritium breeding (ITER not getting anywhere, it should have provided that data) and there's also some headaches about divertor panels which get (deliberately) hit by plasma and wear down quite a bit quicker than they would've hoped but a failure there would only get into the way of being price-competetive with other energy sources (lots of spare parts needed), not achieving net power output. Including cooling and everything, not just plasma heating.
As to it solving the climate crisis: Certainly not on its own, but possibly on the tail end of the transition. We don't only need to fix the climate issue but also switch to a circular economy and having plenty of cheap energy makes that way, way easier to achieve.
I’m as much a nuclear skeptic as anyone, but while fusion solves neither the time or budget problems of fission, it does solve the meltdown and waste problems.
The reaction used in fusion generators is:
[2]H + [3]H -> [4]He + n
Since tritium is usually produced from lithium in situ, you add:
[6]Li + n -> [3]H + [4]He.
The only radioactive thing here is tritium, and it's mostly confined to the reactor. Also, tritium isn't nearly as bad as fission waste.
So does this also mean that glow-in-the-dark watches (the non electronic type) get cheaper?
I mean, if you could extract any tritium from the reactor cavity, but it's probably going to get burned up instantly.
The reactions I showed add up to this overall reaction. Neutrons simply serve as a catalyst.
[2]H + [6]Li -> 2 [4]He
On the bright side, fusion reactors produce helium as a byproduct, which might make party balloons cheaper.
It improves the waste issue, doesn't really solve it. A dirty, little-discussed secret about fusion power.
If we had a bunch of fusion plants go live, we'd soon have tons and tons of radioactive containment wall material to bury/store somewhere. Including all the special handling requirements that you need with fuel rod waste. I think fusion plants would actually create more waste than a comparable fission plant, at least as far as tons of radioactive material.
The benefit is that waste would be lighter isotopes and degrade faster. So you have more physical material to worry about but only need to worry about it for ~100 years, not thousands.
Still far better than thousands of tons of toxic and radioactive fly ash from coal.
The decommissioning plans for ITER more or less literally say "let stand there as-is for 100 years, then demolish as usual". Fisson plants, which don't use less concrete, need to be taken apart small section by small section, each single piece analysed for radiation and sorted into long- or short-term storage. Fusion plants are only marginally more of a headache safety-wise than the radiology department of a hospital and you don't generally hear people complaining about those.
So does 4 other fission power plants we can imagine. Now sure why we’re so Darwindamned fixated on fusion - I suspect it’s just the name.
Fissionable isotopes are yet another nonrenewable fuel.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
With reprocessing, which we already do, and new
Gen IV power plants, there’s enough energy to last us thousand of years with currently known resources. And that’s before we start scooping it out of the water.
That's assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It's more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it's barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)
Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.
Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.
My aim is not to stop research on fusion - just making the point that we know how to do nuclear and it seems to me we are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.
Then we are in remarkable agreement. Nuclear, fusion and TONNES of renewables. The quicker, the better.
After what the USAians achieved with a net positive output, hopefully they can match and surpass that. Fusion is one of the few technologies that can get us to 1 on Kardashev scale.
Ok but what if coal powered space craft?
I'd rather not suffocate lol
Get marketing to convince the rich folk it is an "activated charcoal" infused air
But coal workers are a bedrock of American ideals! We can't take their jobs!
Is a /s needed? I don't know anymore. Do people really enjoy being coal miners and want their children to follow that wonderful career? I can get a yes to that question but only from people who have no idea what that entails.
Let's pollute space! We can do it 💪
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2008/03/Debris_objects_in_low-Earth_orbit_LEO
Way ahead of you
-Musk, "Get your shovels ready lads, we are going to Mars!"
Too low fuel density to work id assume, and most engine designs expect a liquid fuel
The level of laziness here is inspiring lmao. I'm going to use this from now on
The method they used is absolutely unsuited for power generation, they're doing weapons research. Two things:
I remember hearing when it was announced last that fusion was achieved, scientists were skeptical that we had finally achieved this and we wouldn't be actually putting it to use for decades to come.
But here we are. Yes it's experimental but it's working amd producing energy. I'm just surprised we're here already, even if it's only a proof of concept at this point
IAEA's estimate is that Nuclear fusion, if successfully researched and demonstrated at full capacity within 2036 at ITER (which is already lagging behind schedule) will result in commercial availability in 2050. So yes, we are still decades away from putting it to use.
Source
Thanks for the explanation
If this how we get Godzilla?
No. When this how we get Godzilla.
But. Godzilla then how he got?
am I having a fucking stroke
Fusion is so dump. Were at least a couple decades away from brake even in the fusion reaction, but still people believe it will help solve the climate crisis.
Atm we put about 10 times nore energy into the whole system than we get out. And it generates nuclear waste because the wall materials absorb neutrons and get radioactive. And so many other unsolved problems... this technology is a nice research peoject, but none of us will ever see a commercial reactor in action, because it is so far away, if even possible.
So what? People should stop trying for a better tomorrow because today sucks?
No. Renewables are available and super cheap.
They are, and they are good solution but they are not good all and end all solutions, both wind and solar cannot meet baseload and when you start talking about battery storage as solution, scaling it up requires more metal mining than will ever be sustainable, so pursuit of fusion, pursuit of tidal energy, pursuit of better nuclear, pursuit of better geothermal are viable exploration options as we need baseload generation substitute.
Imagine making this kind of comment in a technology community.
Society grows strong when men plant trees in which shadow they will never sit.
Max Planck plans on building an actual power plant in the 2030s. A stellerator (just like Wendelstein 7X) which, unlike Tokmaks, don't have scaling issues. They will still need to nail down tritium breeding (ITER not getting anywhere, it should have provided that data) and there's also some headaches about divertor panels which get (deliberately) hit by plasma and wear down quite a bit quicker than they would've hoped but a failure there would only get into the way of being price-competetive with other energy sources (lots of spare parts needed), not achieving net power output. Including cooling and everything, not just plasma heating.
As to it solving the climate crisis: Certainly not on its own, but possibly on the tail end of the transition. We don't only need to fix the climate issue but also switch to a circular economy and having plenty of cheap energy makes that way, way easier to achieve.
@throws_lemy
fukoshima 2 electric bugaloo
I’m as much a nuclear skeptic as anyone, but while fusion solves neither the time or budget problems of fission, it does solve the meltdown and waste problems.
The reaction used in fusion generators is:
[2]H + [3]H -> [4]He + n
Since tritium is usually produced from lithium in situ, you add:
[6]Li + n -> [3]H + [4]He.
The only radioactive thing here is tritium, and it's mostly confined to the reactor. Also, tritium isn't nearly as bad as fission waste.
So does this also mean that glow-in-the-dark watches (the non electronic type) get cheaper?
I mean, if you could extract any tritium from the reactor cavity, but it's probably going to get burned up instantly.
The reactions I showed add up to this overall reaction. Neutrons simply serve as a catalyst.
[2]H + [6]Li -> 2 [4]He
On the bright side, fusion reactors produce helium as a byproduct, which might make party balloons cheaper.
It improves the waste issue, doesn't really solve it. A dirty, little-discussed secret about fusion power.
If we had a bunch of fusion plants go live, we'd soon have tons and tons of radioactive containment wall material to bury/store somewhere. Including all the special handling requirements that you need with fuel rod waste. I think fusion plants would actually create more waste than a comparable fission plant, at least as far as tons of radioactive material.
The benefit is that waste would be lighter isotopes and degrade faster. So you have more physical material to worry about but only need to worry about it for ~100 years, not thousands.
Still far better than thousands of tons of toxic and radioactive fly ash from coal.
The decommissioning plans for ITER more or less literally say "let stand there as-is for 100 years, then demolish as usual". Fisson plants, which don't use less concrete, need to be taken apart small section by small section, each single piece analysed for radiation and sorted into long- or short-term storage. Fusion plants are only marginally more of a headache safety-wise than the radiology department of a hospital and you don't generally hear people complaining about those.
So does 4 other fission power plants we can imagine. Now sure why we’re so Darwindamned fixated on fusion - I suspect it’s just the name.
Fissionable isotopes are yet another nonrenewable fuel.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
With reprocessing, which we already do, and new Gen IV power plants, there’s enough energy to last us thousand of years with currently known resources. And that’s before we start scooping it out of the water.
That's assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It's more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it's barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)
Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.
Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.
My aim is not to stop research on fusion - just making the point that we know how to do nuclear and it seems to me we are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.
Then we are in remarkable agreement. Nuclear, fusion and TONNES of renewables. The quicker, the better.