|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fusion Power on the way - at last ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Lockheed-Martin's Skunk Works division claims to have made a breakthrough, with the possibility of working devices in 5 years and commercial availability in 10.
There are still some hurdles to overcome, and viable fusion power has been pretty elusive, but the Skunk Works have built up quite a reputation. I think that this is worth taking seriously.
Lockheed Martin claims technological breakthrough in compact fusion Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let me know when it generates more power than it consumes ...
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This was probably already old when I first heard it back in the 1970's: "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be."
I do think the technology problems are solvable, just economically infeasible. We need to economically duplicate the enormous pressure at the center of sun without the sun's gravity. Enormous pressures can be brought to bear on tiny volumes, but expand the volume to produce meaningful amounts of power and the containment power requirements and problems swell enormously. I believe that if we ever see sustainable fusion power it will be from cold fusion techniques, but nothing's ever come of them. Cold fusion research has taught us the difficulty of performing accurate calorimeter experiments, but it hasn't brought the fusion age any nearer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The one thing about the Skunk works design is that is it much much simpler than the current design. IF (and that is a big one), there is a design that actually works, I suspect it will be a simpler design rather than the monstrosity that people have been testing the last bunch of years.
I am skeptical, but the same time,I truly hope I am wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It looks like that University of Washington has similar ideas.
UW fusion reactor concept could be cheaper than coal | UW News I am still skeptical, but it is both interesting, and hopeful that you have two separate groups independently pursuing similar concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
My skepticism isn't based on the specifics of any particular approach. Fusion in the sun has a containment vessel 850,000 miles in diameter. Scientists believe a star must be at least 80,000 miles in diameter to produce fusion temperatures and pressures (Size of Smallest Possible Star Pinned Down). We need a containment vessel capable of continuously maintaining fusion temperatures and pressures like those in a star but of a tiny, tiny, tiny size. This seems like a very, very, very difficult problem.
All but one successful fusion power experiments have consumed more power than they produced and were of an instantaneous, not continuous, nature. The one exception that produced more power than it consumed took place last year. The very slow rate of progress is very convincing evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. Generating more power than consumed is just the simplest problem, but it's a prerequisite for the more important and even more difficult problem of creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction. If it's taken 50 years of research to obtain more power than consumed just once, how long might it take to produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction? I believe it will be a very long time and be too complex to be economically feasible. I don't think this should surprise people. Many things that are technologically possible are not economically feasible. Right now another form of energy production is on the verge of becoming economically infeasible, hydrofracking. Oil has only to drop another $10-20 per barrel and that will be the end of hydrofracking for the time being. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Don't be so quick to knock new energy technologies. Not many were efficient first time out of the gate. And if everyone had adopted your dismissive attitude, we'd still be lighting our houses with lamps and riding around on animals (that is, the very few of us who'd be able to afford such luxurious technologies).
quote: Tinkering for improvements in a science lab despite all apparent obstacles is what's made our world what it is today. And no one remembers the names of the sceptics, because they only got in the way. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Don't be so quick to knock new energy technologies. ... But I'm not knocking it, I'm just stating the metric for when I will consider it a success. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Fusion is the only sensible alternative to fossil-fuel energy production. I don't see any of the current alternatives replacing fossil fuels so long as they remain abundant-enough to make them economically feasible.
We will either run out of fossil fuels and be forced to switch to less desirable alternatives like wind, hydro, or solar; or we will switch willingly to fusion power. All that said, I see any development in fusion as a success. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
We will either run out of fossil fuels and be forced to switch to less desirable alternatives like wind, hydro, or solar; ... Your opinion, which seems a tad bit hypocritical vis-a-vis your position on cold fusion ... And not supported by facts. A recent article in https://solarthermalmagazine.com/ showed that homes that invested in solar systems had higher resale value and recouped more than the installation cost. Relatively small investment with long-term gain. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota?
Fusion is the only sensible alternative to fossil-fuel energy production.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you see fusion as a sensible alternative to the fossil-fuel-burner in your Toyota? Yes.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
showed that homes that invested in solar systems had higher resale value and recouped more than the installation cost. Sure. The alternatives have benefits and uses. But those benefits are minimal and uses are limited to special circumstances. Solar power doesn't work in areas with little sunlight. Hydro power doesn't work in a desert. And so on. Land use is also a concern with these alternatives:
quote: quote: And because each of these alternatives is geographically restricted, no one of them can become a sole and dominate form of energy production. Thus, a world dominated by the current alternatives to fossil fuels would fail to take advantage of the benefits of economies of scale. On the other hand, fusion plants, like coal plants, can be built anywhere, which means they are feasible as a sole and dominate form of energy production and thus possess all the benefits of economies of scale that go along with this. And this doesn't even get into the issue of diseconomies of scale:
quote: Solar, wind, hydro, etc. are simply not feasible alternatives to fossil fuels so long as we have an abundant-enough supply of the latter. Fusion power, though is better than fossil fuel power, and tremendously so. In a world with fossil fuel production, hydro, solar, wind, etc. have little chance competing. In a world with fusion power, no other method has any chance of competing. Fusion is the future.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Jon writes: Fusion is the future. And always will be. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Jon writes: Fusion is the only sensible alternative to fossil-fuel energy production. I don't see any of the current alternatives replacing fossil fuels so long as they remain abundant-enough to make them economically feasible. So, only Fusion is a sensible alternative to fossil fuels? What about our friend nuclear fission, which still has the lowest death toll for all available power sources? Sure, it has waste to deal with that fusion would not, but there are feasible solutions for the waste if we could get countries to work together and focus on a solution in this area. There is Yucca Mountain (which currently sits as the most expensive hole in the ground ever), dropping it in sealed casks near a subduction zone, or boreholes. Of course Fusion, with its lack of dangerous waste products would be ideal, but to say that it is the only sensible option seems a bit premature to me. Personally, if we are aiming for energy independence, I think we should increase the amount of fission reactors we have operating in the United States, especially while we wait for fusion to provide the innovation for the next step. Switching to more nuclear power would allow the scientists time to continue to work through the problems that are being mentioned, while still reducing the reliance on fossil fuels...I'd say that seems pretty sensible.
Radioactive Waste Management Deaths from Nuclear Energy compared with other causes Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024