arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
CT forum thataway ->
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion
- Thread starter Gord_in_Toronto
- Start date
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Heaps, a lot, plenty (so long as they keep the lights off while running it).
Smoke... and mirrors.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,919
You know. You make be onto something. The mirrors part especially.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Hurrah! We're back to 30 years away now! And in 30 years, it'll be 20 years away!
If only there was a big fusion reactor from which we could collect huge amounts of power right now!
If only there was a big fusion reactor from which we could collect huge amounts of power right now!
Last edited:
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
The problem is, it doesn't hang there stationary. It keeps moving around, making solar arrays useless two thirds of the time. We need to figure out how to make it stop moving so we can have power 24-7.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
We've found the solution already. We just need to trap the energy and use it to raise the air temperature by a few degrees. This should increase wind and rain enough to keep the wind turbines busy and hydro dams full.
Turns out we can do this quite easily using a gas called carbon dioxide, which has a much larger effect on global temperature than you might think. The good news is that old-fashioned fossil fuels produce CO2 automatically, and we have been burning them for so long that we are already half way there. We just have to keep doing what we doing now, pumping about 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The really good news is that wind turbines themselves heat the air up, so once we have enough of them it should be self-sustaining even after the fossil fuels (which we are currently burning as fast as we can) run out.
If we do this right, we might not need any solar panels at all! (which is just as well, because the constant gale force winds and driving rain would probably destroy them).
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
The solution is to put the solar arrays in space. There are only two major problems with that idea
1. Building them. Maybe use minerals from the moon.
2. Getting the energy to the earth.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
We just use the collected energy to grow plants on satellites, which are then used to produce hydrocarbons, which we send back to Earth to be burned as fuel! Brilliant!
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
That big bright orb in the sky does a fine job of getting the energy to earth without putting all that gear in space. Having solar arrays on the ground track the sun is a rather minor technical issue.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Actually it is a solved issue.
It is always cheaper and more effective to have more panels, rather than panels that track the sun. It turns out that moving parts are an expensive bitch.
The only exception I've seen to this, is a guy with a hand-cranked tilting mechanism on his panels, which are mounted on a frame near the ground. Every morning he goes outside and tilts the frame a small amount. He got the gears for free (from a portable cement mixer at a rubbish dump IIRC) and considers his labour to be cost free.
Originally he created the mechanism because he wanted to be able to tilt his panels parallel to the ground during the frequent wind storms in the area. Tilting the whole frame slightly each day to maximise the output of the panels was an afterthought.
The only day trackers I've seen have been broken ones. (i.e. panels that follow the sun during the day). I've long suspected that that kind of tracker may also use more power than is added by tracking the sun.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Not always. If you have room for more panels then yes, just install more panels. They are the cheap part.
Otherwise angling the panels for the best compromise in wintertime is probably good enough. Depending on how and when you are using the energy, it may be better to optimize for morning and/or evening than the middle of the day.
Unlikely. The amount of power needed should be very small compared to the improved panel output.
Not quite the same but related - the glasshouses where I work use brass leadscrews to open and close vents in the roof as the temperature changes. They make interesting almost melodic 'singing' sounds as they operate, and have been going for many years without any maintenance.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
I have a better idea. Use the electricity to power huge lasers that send infrared beams down to the surface, and use that to burn stuff.
But seriously, the problem of intermittent solar irradiance is being solved with long distance power lines. There is always sunlight hitting the Earth somewhere. If you can send electricity from an area that still has sunlight to one that doesn't the usefulness of solar arrays can be extended.
The other method of course is storage. Stationary batteries can be made cheaper because size and weight isn't so much of an issue. Pumped hydro may not be as efficient, but the important thing is cost. Losing 40% of the energy doesn't matter so long as it costs significantly less than alternatives, since the energy would otherwise be wasted so it is effectively free.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,919
Along the lines that "it is only engineering", progress is being made:
New discovery points the way to more compact fusion power plants
Anyday decade now.
New discovery points the way to more compact fusion power plants
Any
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Every Fusion Breakthrough. BUSTED!
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,919
Not entirely convincing. I'll refer to Arthur Clarke's Distinguished Scientist.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
You may right, but... which part is not entirely convincing?
Jim_MDP
Penultimate Amazing
I have no education in chemical or molecular sciences* so I find something he does rather helpful... he comes at the issue from the very simplest, basic element, energy.
In this case... if the energy isn't there and worse, our materials science isn't even close to accommodating the process, then there's not much chance of success.
We need a thousand fictional "Mr. Fusion" reactors to power actual fusion development. [emoji15]
Starting to think this goes in the bucket with FTL travel. [emoji853]
ETA: unless Phil is just completely wrong. [emoji15]
.
* Despite that, decades ago I used to enjoy an edu/PBS show called Mechanical Universe whenever I happened to catch one on.
Not sure why... I damned sure couldn't understand the calculus. [emoji12]
In this case... if the energy isn't there and worse, our materials science isn't even close to accommodating the process, then there's not much chance of success.
We need a thousand fictional "Mr. Fusion" reactors to power actual fusion development. [emoji15]
Starting to think this goes in the bucket with FTL travel. [emoji853]
ETA: unless Phil is just completely wrong. [emoji15]
.
* Despite that, decades ago I used to enjoy an edu/PBS show called Mechanical Universe whenever I happened to catch one on.
Not sure why... I damned sure couldn't understand the calculus. [emoji12]
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Basically it's hard to imagine that it can ever be an economical source of power. Assume that something like ITER actually works as intended (and ITER is never intended to actually be connected to a power generator). How would you actually use it to generate power? How do you get the energy from the hot plasma in the tokamak into a boiler to boil water for steam, for example? Even assuming a success, i.e., they achieve exactly what they plan to achieve, the next step is not clear to me. It's for research only, not something that will create usable electricity.