Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

[arthwollipot]

"How close is power from Nuclear Fusion[?]".

We already have "power from Nuclear Fusion".

I assume the actual question is; how close are we to producing useful amounts of excess power from Nuclear Fusion?

The answer to that is ....

...we don't know yet. But there are a bunch of people working on it. Turns out it's pretty difficult.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

...we don't know yet. But there are a bunch of people working on it. Turns out it's pretty difficult.

Of course people are working on it, in fact making careers out of it, but I would contend that they're;

- doing it for a living (state grants)
- deluded
- not really that bright
- a combination of the above.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course people are working on it, in fact making careers out of it, but I would contend that they're;

- doing it for a living (state grants)
- deluded
- not really that bright
- a combination of the above.

- Well, yes, being a nuclear physicist is a job, and people get paid for it.

- No, it is not delusion. The theory has been known to be sound for decades.

- You don't get a job as a working nuclear physicist unless you're pretty smart, with several advanced degrees under your belt.

 

[lobosrul5]

Of course people are working on it, in fact making careers out of it, but I would contend that they're;

- doing it for a living (state grants)
- deluded
- not really that bright
- a combination of the above.

Ahh yes, the old my ignorance trumps your knowledge card. We are so heading for an idiocracy.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Well, yes, the theory was well enough understood as far back as the 70's such that any number of scifi writers had "fusion reactors" in "magnetic containment bottles" powering their fantastic spaceships.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Ahh yes, the old my ignorance trumps your knowledge card. We are so heading for an idiocracy.

Lame.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, yes, the theory was well enough understood as far back as the 70's such that any number of scifi writers had "fusion reactors" in "magnetic containment bottles" powering their fantastic spaceships.

Do you know what a "magnetic containment bottle" is? It is after all a real thing.

Not everything that the pen of a science fiction writer spawns is completely made up. The best science fiction draws on real science.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

My knowledge and pragmatism definitely trumps others' credulity.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Do you know what a "magnetic containment bottle" is? It is after all a real thing.

Not everything that the pen of a science fiction writer spawns is completely made up. The best science fiction draws on real science.

Sure, but just how long are you prepared to wait for the miraculous breakthrough that turns some theory (abstraction) into material reality?

At what point does it become nothing but chasing a delusion?

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure, but just how long are you prepared to wait for the miraculous breakthrough that turns some theory (abstraction) into material reality?

At what point does it become nothing but chasing a delusion?

You mean give up? Quit like a pathetic loser? Never.

 

[BrettM]

Magnetic confinement is not the way to go. Gravitational confinement is where its at, baby!

The problem with gravitational confinement is that any energy converting devices close by will be sucked into the fusion reactor by the intense gravitational field. You can solve this problem by placing the energy converting devices about 93 million miles away from the fusion reactor. This allows the energy converting devices to be placed close to the end user. In fact, most end users could mount an energy converting device right on their rooftops!

I am aware of a number of magnetically confined fusion reactors. None of them have produced power continuously for more than a second, let alone for an hour or a decade.

I am aware of 200 billion trillion gravitationally confined fusion reactors scattered throughout the universe. Most of them have generated power continuously for billions of years.

If you were a betting man, which horse would you back? The fact that so much money is being thrown at inferior magnetic confinement technology means that there are other factors at play beyond pure economics.

 

[arthwollipot]

And there's the oh-so-clever comparison with the sun. So many creative ways to do that. I think we've seen all of them in this thread.

Look, solar energy is great. I've got solar panels on my roof right now. Also, right now, it is raining and my solar panels are doing duck ****. So much for that fusion reactor.

 

[BrettM]

Also, right now, it is raining and my solar panels are doing duck ****. So much for that fusion reactor.

Maybe invest some of the money spent on nuclear fusion research in finding better ways of storing solar power.

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe invest some of the money spent on nuclear fusion research in finding better ways of storing solar power.

Maybe there's already plenty of money invested in battery technology. It's not like it can only be one thing or the other.

 

[BrettM]

Maybe there's already plenty of money invested in battery technology. It's not like it can only be one thing or the other.

Not only battery technology, my friend. How about steel flywheels spinning on friction-less magnetic bearings in vacuum chambers, as this company is doing?

How about pumped storage in abandoned deep mines? Here (USA) and here (South Africa).

The solar panels on your roof and mine convert about 20% of the incident radiation of a very distant fusion reactor into electrical energy. So far, none of the fusion reactors on earth have produced any electrical energy. It is possible that they never will. Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not only battery technology, my friend. How about steel flywheels spinning on friction-less magnetic bearings in vacuum chambers, as this company is doing?

How about pumped storage in abandoned deep mines? Here (USA) and here (South Africa).

The solar panels on your roof and mine convert about 20% of the incident radiation of a very distant fusion reactor into electrical energy. So far, none of the fusion reactors on earth have produced any electrical energy. It is possible that they never will. Isn't it better to invest money to advance technology that works, instead of taking an expensive gamble on unproven technology?

I think the relent expression is, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." As long as "we" can afford to, check out every thing.

Here's one for you:

‘It was an accident’: the scientists who have turned humid air into renewable power

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Hydrogen. And it's the most abundant element in the universe. We can get it literally anywhere.

I missed this yesterday; yes of course it's everywhere - tightly bound in molecules it has to be split from, which requires energy, and therein lies the problem, surely you can see that?

 

[Dr.Sid]

I missed this yesterday; yes of course it's everywhere - tightly bound in molecules it has to be split from, which requires energy, and therein lies the problem, surely you can see that?

Oh, if that was the problem of fusion energy, wouldn't that be nice ..

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Oh, if that was the problem of fusion energy, wouldn't that be nice ..

It's merely the first of a cascade of intractable problems.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It's merely the first of a cascade of intractable problems.

It's hardly intractable ..