# The Future is Fusion



## konradv (Sep 24, 2010)

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 24, 2010)

If Iron Man can make one, why can't we?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 24, 2010)

We already have one fusion reactor.   It is called, in english, the Sun.    It think it is quite near enough where it is now.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 24, 2010)

konradv said:


> Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> 
> Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010



Ummmmm did you read past that paragraph? 

The article seems to raise far more concerns about its viability then anything.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 24, 2010)

we've been over this before....   the creation of a "baby star" is the technology of the future, and always will be.

A global economic system that is rotting at the core and depending on socialism (bailouts) will not be around in 30 years to buoy star creation. 

Not coincidentally, I just saw Wall St. 2 this afternoon, and fusion technology investment is at the heart of the script. .... Of course, its success or failure never gets resolved at the end, which is fitting.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 24, 2010)

konradv said:


> Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth&#8217;s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> 
> Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010



Last I heard experts believed viable application of this technology was still 50 years away.

Have they revised that number at all?


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 24, 2010)

Ford or V8?


----------



## konradv (Sep 25, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...



50 years would be the outside number.  That could be brought much closer, if we made it a national priority, like the Space Race.  How long would it take to have viable solar and wind generating plants?  Not much less, IMO, so why waste the time, since in about double that 50 years oil will be running dry?


----------



## antagon (Sep 25, 2010)

getting net energy from fusion might literally be impossible. even in a hundred years.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> 
> Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010



I do so enjoy it when people prove they know less about science than the average idiot. Nothing is limitless. Everything produces waste. What makes hydrogen fusion attractive is that helium is not something that most people consider a pollutant. What makes it dangerous is that we have to figure out a way to build a star and contain it.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth&#8217;s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...



Well the have already done it in the UK. The only problem is they have to put more power into it than they get out.

I have heard several of you describe it as creating a star on earth. That is not actually what they do. They create the conditions(temp and pressure) found in a star in order to enable fusion. They do not actually create a star. Currently it is done by creating a plasma stream held in place by magnetism. it simply takes more power to create the stream,and contain it than you get from it. So far.

As far as waste? helium is a valuable Gas. Hardly a waste product.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 25, 2010)

Have you ever tasted Fusion?  That shit's just awful.  My wife bought some the other day.  Yuck.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




oh I agree. I made a post not long ago about how we should do a Manhattan project style push to perfect fusion. However the space race analogy works just as well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 25, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



They have to put more power into it than they get out because we currently have no effective way of containing the reaction and making is sustainable.

FYI, the US was the first to demonstrate nuclear fusion, and they got more energy out than they put in.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M]YouTube - Nuclear Bomb - First H Bomb test[/ame]

I refer to it as making a star because that is what they are doing. They are recreating the pressure and temperature inside a star in an artificial environment. You can quibble all you want, but that is what they need to do to make it profitable. It will be a small, artificial, star.

Another question, how does the fact that we can use helium not make it a waste product of the hydrogen fusion reaction? We use manure also, does that make it not a waste product?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I refer to it as making a star because that is what they are doing. They are recreating the pressure and temperature inside a star in an artificial environment. You can quibble all you want, but that is what they need to do to make it profitable. It will be a small, artificial, star.



Um actually it wont be a small artificial star. It will be a loop of super heated plasma. They do not get anywhere near the Pressures found in the sun. They make up for that by making it MUCH hotter than the surface of the sun. 

I quibble because when common people hear "they are creating a star on earth" 

they get naturally scared SHIT LESS.

the dangers from this tech are minimal because as you have said. They need to create the conditions in controlled place. If it were ever to break out of that control. Those conditions would be lost instantly and the reaction would break down.

as far as the waste product thing. No Helium is a BY product. as is Cow shit. It is still a called waste. But the fact that we can use it for productive means actually makes it a Byproduct IMO. 

again I quibble because some people were hear waste products and think nasty bad things, not knowing it is a valuable, and non harmful gas we are talking about.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 25, 2010)

When I talk about science I like to be accurate. That attitude has been driven into me since high school at least, which was longer ago than a lot of people who post on this board have been alive.

A by product is a secondary or incidental product of a process. Sawdust is a by product of sling trees into boards. Helium is the end product. I consider it a waste because that is what it essentially is, but I could accept calling it an end product. 

I understand that there are people out there that are afraid of having a star sitting around, but the idea actually fascinates me. If I let you have the by product can I keep the star?


----------



## antagon (Sep 26, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it.  fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it.  there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned.  very, very slim.  where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 26, 2010)

antagon said:


> this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it.  fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it.  there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned.  very, very slim.  where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?



I think that we will be able to harness fusion power, eventually. I don't know when, or how, but the simple fact is that once they figure out how to make a sustainable reaction it will be possible to scale it so it has a positive energy profile. Sooner or later someone will figure out how to do it.

That said, I agree that it will not come about through a massive, government funded, program like the Manhattan Project. If it was simply a matter of engineering we would be a lot closer than we are.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 26, 2010)

antagon said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Where do you source that claim that the chances are very very slim. The scientists working on it say it is not if but when it will become a feesable power source.


----------



## antagon (Sep 26, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



i'm a chemical engineer.  i've endured a good bit of physics which i think adds some crucial perspective to the idea that it is as feasible as is popular to believe.  there isn't consensus on the viability of fusion for energy.  it plays out in experiments -- all of them -- up to this point.  the current approach to fusion employs tritium which takes energy to produce.  energy is even expended extracting deuterium, the other main ingredient.  sustained energy has to be introduced to create the reaction and sustain it.  notwithstanding the ancillary costs in refining the fuel, the energy put in has never, and might never be less than what is available from the reaction.

we have a fusion generator, the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet.  there could be viability to fusion.  i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 26, 2010)

antagon said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Well you said it all when you said "the current approach to fusion employs tritium which takes energy to produce. "

I would assume an advancement beyond that method is what they are counting on.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...



How is that dangerous?   If you don't contain it, the reaction stops, no danger, very low radiation.  I don't see how you can talk about others being idiots, when you failed to realize such a basic principle of fusion power generation!!!


----------



## antagon (Sep 27, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



actually they are counting on deuterium and tritium netting more energy than the laser input and the gravity/automation required to sustain it.  do you have any indication that any credible study is engaged in exploring different fuels?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 27, 2010)

antagon said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...




of course not, that is why I said. I would assume.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




There is a company planning to place solar collectors in outer space, and beam the power down to earth as microwave energy. If this system works out, it would provide the advantages of a source of solar power without the  problems of cloud cover interrupting the flow of energy from the sun. Such a scheme seems more practical than attempting to achieve the goal of contained nuclear fusion as a productive energy source.
See:
PG&E makes deal for space solar power


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 27, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



People felt the same way about Nuclear energy before it was developed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



That is the theory, but until it is actually put into practice no one actually knows. In a self sustaining reaction the time between the collapse of the containment field and the breakdown of the reaction could present a significant danger. One of the reasons most scientist are looking at using lasers to create the fusion reaction is to lessen, or eliminate this danger. The safety interlocks are designed to shut off the lasers if the containment field starts to collapse. 

Now that I have demonstrated that I know the rudiments of what I am talking about, this still relies on a technological fail safe. If you actually believe that there is no way that this technology will fail, then you are an even bigger idiot than I thought when I first responded to this thread.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...



YES! A fusion generator was activated about a year ago for almost a second. It worked. The problem is that it produced enough power to satisfy the entire east coast power grid and there is no way to scale it down yet. Even finding safe ways to waste extra energy in those volumes is a huge problem. 

Those folks say they just have a few of those kinds of glitches to over come before it is ready for prime time.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



a friend of mine engineered this technology 30+ years ago but there were considerable problems with damage to the upper atmosphere caused by the microwave beams. The Feds paid for several million $ in engineering work and never used it for military applications (star wars).


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



nah. bogus.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



It is hard to find ways to waste energy? BS

Set up a massive Plant that uses Electricity to separate Hydrogen from Water.

That technology exists but takes to much power to be practical. Unless of course you have a bunch of Energy you need to "waste" lol


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I spent 5 minutes and couldn't find a link. But I did find references to it in wiki, I will look into it more later.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> It is hard to find ways to waste energy? BS
> 
> Set up a massive Plant that uses Electricity to separate Hydrogen from Water.
> 
> That technology exists but takes to much power to be practical. Unless of course you have a bunch of Energy you need to "waste" lol




Electrolysis is not very efficient. And the problem isn't wasting energy, it is wasting copious volumes of energy safely. So far the fusion plants built for experimentation only run for a second or less because they don't have the metalurgy or materials science developed to handle the half million degree temps that can be produced. And wasting megawatts of power instantaneously in a safe way actually is quite challenging.


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...


it doesn't sound like a fusion reaction.  within that close-to-a-second frame, enough power to satisfy the east coast power grid would have to be applied to the reaction for a small net gain.  to net enough power to light the east coast, enough power to light north america would have to be applied to roughly throw some proportion to the proceeds which scientists _hope_ to glean from fusion. 

its my understanding that there has never been a net surplus experiment.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



enough energy to light the east coast for 1/2 second isn't all that much energy, and could be stored over a long period of time into condensors which have the property of being ideal for sudden release of electrical charge. 



antagon said:


> its my understanding that there has never been a net surplus experiment.



That is true but misleading. Initiating the reaction consumes a lot of power, and once initiated the reaction produces heat as high as 6 million degrees. But there is no capacity to either contain that heat or use that energy safely. So all the tests to date have to run for very short moments and then abort the reaction before the heat produced becomes dangerous. 

There isn't any reason to believe that once initiated the reaction couldn't produce extremely copious volumes of energy if it is sustained. And at huge net energy gains. We just do not have a safe way to consume the energy as quickly as it is produced.


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

lighting the east for a 1/2 second is a massive amount of energy, particularly from a reaction which has not released more energy than has been contributed to it.  this could be in the terajoules territory, like a fusion-fission weapon.  this is not the same as what might constitute a fusion or fission power plant.

because the proposals for fusion power are more sophisticated than a 1/2 second bomb blast, the issue is not solely one of capturing net energy, it is one of generating a surplus and sustaining a reaction altogether.  this has yet to be done.  more energy is used to initiate the reaction than is made available from the reaction, some 20%-30% more -- every time to date.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> lighting the east for a 1/2 second is a massive amount of energy, particularly from a reaction which has not released more energy than has been contributed to it.  this could be in the terajoules territory, like a fusion-fission weapon.  this is not the same as what might constitute a fusion or fission power plant.
> 
> because the proposals for fusion power are more sophisticated than a 1/2 second bomb blast, the issue is not solely one of capturing net energy, it is one of generating a surplus and sustaining a reaction altogether.  this has yet to be done.  more energy is used to initiate the reaction than is made available from the reaction, some 20%-30% more -- every time to date.



I could just repeat my last post or try to explain it in better detail...

The ONLY reason why the experiments consume more energy than they create is because they have to be aborted after they consume the energy needed to initiate the reaction but before the reaction begins generating the 6 million degree operating temps it would generate if they didn't abort within 1/2 second.

There is simply no way to use that heat rapidly enough and therefore safely cool the unit that contains the reaction. 

So the net loss argument is moot. 

And enough energy to light the east coast for 1/2 second is really not that much power. Certainly less than what one coal fired power plant produces in a day. It can be stored into condensors over a long period of time and released at the speed of light in one spark if need be. You don't even need to worry much about wire size to conduct that current because the wire doesn't have enough time in half a second to overheat. The wire is it's own heat sink. 

The ONLY thing that hasn't been proven to work in fusion power generation is a means to contain it while consuming it's massive energy output safely. The challenges are therefore of materials science and in converting so much heat into more useful power forms.


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

what you are saying is not accurate, cannon.  can you provide anything to substantiate what you are claiming to be true?  ITER doesn't entail an event like you describe; JET doesn't -- they have literally put more energy into the reaction than they have been able to measure coming back out thus far.  no net energy means that the reactor has not created more energy than was introduced and that means, intuitively, that there is not enough energy for the reaction to persist under its own power.  endothermic, although radioinductive.

the idea is to produce a reaction that can sustain itself _and_ heat a reactor.  not a reality that i'm aware of, and not because of containment or exploitation issues, but rather because its endothermic.  i think the cutting edge entails exposing fissile matter to the neutron storm in the hope that that would bump up the usable power and dampen the radiation induction:  theory that i read in a society newsletter.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> what you are saying is not accurate, cannon.  can you provide anything to substantiate what you are claiming to be true?  ITER doesn't entail an event like you describe; JET doesn't -- they have literally put more energy into the reaction than they have been able to measure coming back out thus far.  no net energy means that the reactor has not created more energy than was introduced and that means, intuitively, that there is not enough energy for the reaction to persist under its own power.  .



asked and answered twice. The only energy input required in a fusion reaction is that to superheat hydrogen to sufficient temps to initiate a fusion reaction. Beyond that point no energy input is required. Only more hydrogen. 

The experiments to date have succeeded in initiating the reaction but simply lack the means to allow the experiment to achieve the 6 million degree temps that fusion of hydrogen generates. So they are forced to run the experiment for extremely short periods, less than a second, during which time the temps only reach about a half million degrees. 

The reaction is proven, it powers the sun, the ability to initiate it is proven. The ability to sustain it and deal with the heat involved is not. There are no means yet to convert that heat into other forms of energy fast enough to avoid destroying any containment vessel we are capable of creating today. 

I am not aware of a single material whose melting point is above 10,000 degrees. Much less 500,000 degrees or 6,000,000 degrees

What part of that explanation challenges you?


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

you've not answered what experiment in which reactor you are referring to.

the part of your explanation which challenges my understanding is the gross inaccuracy.  in all experiments of which i am aware, plasma has not been affected at a temperature which could sustain the reaction, if it is sustainable without external input.  this is why there is a laser race over fusion technology.  there's no way that could be mistaken for exothermic to the degree you've claimed.  to my knowledge, not a single trial has ever given off more energy than was applied to it. 

certainly your claims constitute ground-breaking proof of concept.  provide a link.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> in all experiments of which i am aware, plasma has not been affected at a temperature which could sustain the reaction



already explained three times. We can't contain that temperature, but we can create it. So all experiments to date have to be aborted before they reach that critical self sustaining temp threshold.



antagon said:


> if it is sustainable without external input



Have you ever heard of the Sun? Do you doubt that the Sun is a self sustaining hydrogen fusion reactor? Or any of the trillions of similar stars in the universe?


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

no, cannon, there are tokamaks that can handle fusion temperatures and containment.  again, the containment issue is not the fundamental issue.  the issue is net return of power.  you've claimed that there is a reactor which netted energy! this is great news.  where did that happen and when?  

please dont say the center of the solar system.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> you've claimed that there is a reactor which netted energy!



No I didn't.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

OK I found this and it contradicts my previous claims and it appears current:



> In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will serve to maintain the plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and tritium  are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be heated to its operating temperature  of greater than 10 keV (over 100 million degrees Celsius). In current tokamak (and other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion energy is produced to maintain the plasma temperature.



I have no idea whether or not the experiment I am recalling utilized magnetic containment of the plasma.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 30, 2010)

antagon said:


> you've not answered what experiment in which reactor you are referring to.
> 
> the part of your explanation which challenges my understanding is the gross inaccuracy.  in all experiments of which i am aware, plasma has not been affected at a temperature which could sustain the reaction, if it is sustainable without external input.  this is why there is a laser race over fusion technology.  there's no way that could be mistaken for exothermic to the degree you've claimed.  to my knowledge, not a single trial has ever given off more energy than was applied to it.
> 
> certainly your claims constitute ground-breaking proof of concept.  provide a link.



The only experiments that I have ever heard of that led to anything like he described (enough energy to light the Eastern seaboard in a very short period of time) all resulted in massive and used nuclear reactions to trigger the fusion reactions. As far as I know no one is even trying to use that technology to build a power supply.


----------



## antagon (Sep 30, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> OK I found this and it contradicts my previous claims and it appears current:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this is where i was coming from with the laser race and fusion tech.  the cutting edge of plasma containment is magnetic, i think.


----------



## konradv (Sep 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > you've not answered what experiment in which reactor you are referring to.
> ...



COME ON!!!  The link has been published repeatedly

ITER - the way to new energy


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 30, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > OK I found this and it contradicts my previous claims and it appears current:
> ...



I know how to find the example I was referring to, I posted it on another board with a primitive search function. It will take 20-30 minutes for me to find the source article tonight. I will. 

What I recall is that that experiment utilized a finite supply of hydrogen all held in place in one small spherical space and 500 lasers targeting that small space. They didn't intend to produce a sustained reaction just to reach the threshold where it could sustain if they fed more hydrogen.


----------



## Bill Angel (Sep 30, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Were you thinking of the Shiva Project?

"Two experimental laser fusion devices have been developed at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, called Shiva and Nova. They deliver high power bursts of lase light from multiple lasers onto a small deuterium-tritium target. These lasers are neodymium glass lasers which are capable of extremely high power pulses."
See Laser Fusion


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 30, 2010)

that sounds right, I will look for the source article now...


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 30, 2010)

Huh.  Fusion.  In maybe 30-50 years we'll have the ability to get an industrial prototype online.  And then it will probably be protested and shut down as too dangerous by the econazis.

So this is a solution now, how?


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 30, 2010)

that was a dead end, their search engine only goes back 52 weeks. So I started searching and found other articles:

Livermore lab nears launch of fusion quest, though ignition not expected this month - San Jose Mercury News

Riccardo Betti on the Future of Fusion Energy : University of Rochester News


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 30, 2010)

I think Solar collectors in Out in space transmitting power back via Microwaves sounds promising.


----------



## antagon (Sep 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



ITER has not been constructed yet, buddy.  COME ON!!!


----------



## antagon (Sep 30, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



that setup sounds like the national ignition facility or HiPER (in the works).  they've not done any thing like what you had described earlier, but promise to input enough heat to cross the neutral threshold.  even so.  i don't see sustainable heat coming from the reaction without fission involved as well.  much of the energy is neutrons which could be converted to heat if they interact with plutonium or uranium or something.

your earlier testimony sounds like a number of bomb-type experiments to measure the potentials of different fusion cycles.  there was no connection between that approach and an energy source beyond that.  the idea of a dynamite-powered reactor is also implausible.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 30, 2010)

"i don't see sustainable heat coming from the reaction without fission involved as well. much of the energy is neutrons which could be converted to heat if they interact with plutonium or uranium or something."

The links I posted describe the inefficiency of capturing and converting the heat and energy. I can't understand the inclusion of fission in the arrangement. But I know it will be a great challenge to A) contain the reaction within a magnetic enclosure and B) capture and convert the heat to useful energy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



ITER has not produced anywhere near the energy you are claiming.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 30, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> "i don't see sustainable heat coming from the reaction without fission involved as well. much of the energy is neutrons which could be converted to heat if they interact with plutonium or uranium or something."
> 
> The links I posted describe the inefficiency of capturing and converting the heat and energy. I can't understand the inclusion of fission in the arrangement. But I know it will be a great challenge to A) contain the reaction within a magnetic enclosure and B) capture and convert the heat to useful energy.



There have been some models run on computers that produce results like you described. The problem is that they are all computer models, and transferring that into the real world is beyond anything we know how to do yet. Producing the initial temperatures is not that much of a challenge, but containing and sustaining it are.

Even if they do build one, I do not think 100% capture of the energy is possible, even in theory. Even if we achieve 99.99% efficiency we will sitll have a lot of waste heat to deal with, which is not going to help the overall climate problem we already have, even if we stick all the plants in the middle of the Sahara.


----------



## antagon (Oct 1, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> "i don't see sustainable heat coming from the reaction without fission involved as well. much of the energy is neutrons which could be converted to heat if they interact with plutonium or uranium or something."
> 
> The links I posted describe the inefficiency of capturing and converting the heat and energy. I can't understand the inclusion of fission in the arrangement. But I know it will be a great challenge to A) contain the reaction within a magnetic enclosure and B) capture and convert the heat to useful energy.



fusion, particularly the more effective cycle which uses tritium for fuel, will create a storm of neutrons, but which are not extremely excited(hot).  additionally, some energy is released which could contribute to the energy in a plasma.  the neutrons wont.  they will induce radiation in any material around the plasma, an issue with the sustainability of the process.  what neutrons are also indicated to do is essentially accelerate the decay of radioactive substances by orders of magnitude.  so introducing minute amounts of fissile matter to the plasma could negate the tritium and inductive neutron waste along with recovering the lost potential of the cold neutrons with nuclear heat.

following fission bombs like hiroshima, scientists incorporated fusion into the mix.  the fission was hot enough to power a fusion cycle, the fusion created enough neutrons to multiply the effect of a second fission event.  these bombs were smaller, but would yield vastly greater release of energy than a fission bomb alone.

i'd add c) contain radio-inductive waste d) derive sufficient energy from the process to make it competitive with other power sources.


----------



## antagon (Oct 1, 2010)

is it so wacky to point out that the earth has a hot, molten center?  what is the prognosis on digging a deep hole, 10+ miles into the crust and introducing water to it?  cap it with a turbine.



> The GHK Co. 1&#8211;27 Bertha Rogers hole or well was an oil-exploratory hole drilled in Washita County, Oklahoma, and was formerly the world's deepest hole until surpassed by the Kola Superdeep Borehole, dug by the former USSR.
> 
> It took GHK two years to reach 31,441 feet (9,583 m), a depth of almost six miles. During drilling, the well encountered enormous pressure &#8211; almost 25,000 psi (172,369 kPa). No commercial hydrocarbons were found before drilling hit a molten sulfur deposit (which melted the drill bit), and the well was plugged and abandoned.



Bertha Rogers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... six miles



> However, due to higher than expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[3]  With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 °C (570 °F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

... 10 miles


----------



## konradv (Oct 1, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Huh.  Fusion.  In maybe 30-50 years we'll have the ability to get an industrial prototype online.  And then it will probably be protested and shut down as too dangerous by the econazis.
> 
> So this is a solution now, how?



30-50 years?  That's why research needs to be increased to shorten that time.  As for being protested, that's just your political bias talking because, as anyone familiar with the process knows, you get very little radioactive waste and a decrease in CO2 emissions.  What's to protest?!?!


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 1, 2010)

konradv said:


> Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> 
> Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010



If I push two pieces of metal hard enough, will they eventually fuse together and produce energy? Yay!

The amount of energy it takes for atomic fusion is doubtful worth its weight in returns.


----------



## editec (Oct 1, 2010)

When we finally solve the problem of creating unlimited energy, expect the next pollution to be HEAT pollution.

There's no free lunch, folks

Not in economics and not in physics, either.


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 1, 2010)

The problem of unlimited energy is you can't meter it.


----------



## konradv (Oct 1, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...



Once the ability to maintain a fusion reaction becomes reality, the energy released will be more than enough to keep the reaction going and provide plenty of energy for use.  That's all been worked out theoretically.  The problem is engineering.


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 1, 2010)

> That's why research needs to be increased to shorten that time.



Why?  no reason to.  We don't have an energy crisis.  we have a political crisis.  those are hard to fix, but much more cost effective.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 1, 2010)

antagon said:


> we have a fusion generator, *the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet.*  there could be viability to fusion.  i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.



I was watching the science channel show called Planets. They showed how winds on planets further from the Sun have much faster & steady winds of over 1000 mph. They theorize that turbulence generated by the Sun actually slow the winds down on the planets closer to the Sun.


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > we have a fusion generator, *the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet.*  there could be viability to fusion.  i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.
> ...



Wind is also effected by the speed of rotation of the planet.


----------



## loosecannon (Oct 1, 2010)

KissMy said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > we have a fusion generator, *the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet.*  there could be viability to fusion.  i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.
> ...



turbulence or magnetic drag, solar wind etc?


----------



## KissMy (Oct 1, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...
















They said the uneven heating of the earth caused turbulence that slowed the winds.


----------



## antagon (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > we have a fusion generator, *the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet.*  there could be viability to fusion.  i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.
> ...


i dont have a theory on that.  heat reduces the density of gasses, creating low pressure, though.  i've read that the sun cycle also speeds and slows the jet stream respective to high and low cycles.  doldrums are due to the sun, too, though.  not much wind there, but they are responsible for winds and storms in the upper latitudes. because of the liquid water on earth, i would argue that much of that energy is absorbed in oceans and affects precipitation.  maybe outer planets dont have a feature like that.


----------



## loosecannon (Oct 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



ordinarily uneven heating is what causes winds, at least on earth. Winds are driven by pressure differentials that are caused by uneven heating, on this planet.


----------



## konradv (Oct 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > That's why research needs to be increased to shorten that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  no reason to.  We don't have an energy crisis.  we have a political crisis.  those are hard to fix, but much more cost effective.



What political crisis are you talking about?  The wish of many to quit destroying the earth?  If that's a crisis, bring it on.  We don't have time to suffer the fools like you.  You're not nerarly as clever as you think.


----------



## onecut39 (Dec 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earths energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> ...










Containment, that's the bitch.  Presumable that will take power.  Lots of it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > That's why research needs to be increased to shorten that time.
> ...


The political crisis is the rise of econazis attempting to usurp free peoples worldwide for a crisis that does not exist, using fraudulent 'science' as evidence to trick people into giving up their rights and freedoms.

The only fools I see are the ones who think this is a legitimate threat to life on Earth.

Name one solution to this threat that isn't based in government.  I'd love to hear that.  I doubt you can find a single one that doesn't have government empowering or forcing it.  That is how you know that it is a delivery system for tyranny, and not real science.


----------



## editec (Dec 7, 2010)

konradv said:


> Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth&#8217;s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.
> 
> Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010


 
I sincerely hope you're right about that.

Technology does have a tendency to be a kind of Pandora's box, though, doesn't it?

Just as every problem is a solution waiting to be discovered?

Every solution is a problem waiting for mankind to really get comfortable with their tecnological fix before_ its problem_ manifests.

One of the things that NOBODY ever talks about, but one that I think we need to at least begin thinking about, is this...

Assume that we find some clean, cheap unlimited energy source.

I think its safe to assume that mankind will use it, that mankind's populations will grow because of it, and that overall mankind will get richer and more active as a result of that.

With me so far?

Okay, now we're imagining a world where everyman has unlimited energy and and his technology is going full blast all the time.

What is the ULTIMATE POLLUTION that comes from using energy?

Heat, right?

The more energy we work with to do some useful task, the more energy we convert to unusable envronmental heat pollution.

Now imagine what this society would do facing that problem, when this society will be based on the concept that people are free to use all the cheap energy they want.

Now I understand that this really is not a problem NOW.

But it certainly _would be_ a problem if we (numbering some unimaginable number of billions of us) have access to that unlimited non-polluting (except for heat pollution) energy source.

This kind of heat pollution ALREADY effects our megalopoli.

Now imagine _that problem_ growing exponentially worldwide.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2010)

We cannot even address, rationally, the affects of the fossil fuel that we are using. To ask us, the human race, to address the question of over population, with all that that means to religious and philisophical groups, is asking more than can reasonably be expected. They would rather we all die.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

Too bad we dont have a president that would have the foresight to build a superconducting super collider we could use for research.

Seems like that would help develop fusion and fission technology.


----------



## michael39 (Dec 19, 2010)

We already have fusion power in the form of Solar.  We'll get the price of Solar down to <$1 a watt LONG before a working fusion reactor can be built


----------

