News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Fusion Energy

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, February 09, 2022, 10:01:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nuclear-fusion-climate-energy-scn-intl/index.html

The possibility of having nuclear fusion energy is a step closer. The advantage is that nuclear fusion does not leave behind the toxic waste that nuclear fission reactors does. It would almost be like having our own little star nearby. Look at what happened in this English village above. 

Dark Lightning

I saw this over at phys.org. Fusion energy has been 20 years away for the last 50 years. :lol: We'll get there, yet. :smilenod:

hackenslash

Yeah, we've been close for ever, but the appetite has never been there to throw resources at it, so the pace has been interminable. I had a rant about it last year when a similar milestone was passed at NIF.

QuoteI've been watching fusion research for about as long as I've been watching physics. I know that, for all the time I've been watching, physicists have felt like fusion energy was just around the corner. A vague figure of something like 'the next ten or twenty years' has been the rolling chorus for the entire time. Back in 2008, popstar-cum-physicist Professor Brian Cox made a documentary for BBC's Horizon programme in which he spent an hour detailing fusion research, visiting K-Star and other fusion research facilities and, at the end, he said exactly what I'm saying here; that it's been a rolling ten or twenty years away.

He also said quite clearly that funding and appetite for fusion research is pitiful. A few simple comparisons put this into stark perspective, because they show what we can do when we pull out all the stops.

First, on 12th September 1962, at Rice Field in Houston Texas, John F. Kennedy stood in front of a crowd of mostly students and delivered a speech about the goals of a nation. It was a wonderful bit of rousing rhetoric penned by Ted Sorenson, one of the great speechwriters of the 20th century, and what it resulted in was spectacular beyond measure, and was the catalyst for much of the technological boom that followed it, but it all boiled down to two simple words.

In the last 20 months or so, the world has been faced with some incredible challenges and tough decisions. Not all of them have been met with the kind of resolve and dedication we deserve to expect but, due to strong motivation, a collaborative effort between science and industry and in getting bureaucracy out of the way, and the dedication and expertise of scientists and professionals from all spheres working together, we managed to get a range of effective vaccines out and distributed. We're not out of the woods yet, but we have reasons for some optimism (if we can rein our idiot politicians in a bit). Again, this can all be distilled to two simple words.

And now we need to find the fortitude to apply those two words again. When all is said and done, fusion is the only game in town when it comes to meeting all our energy challenges. Non-nuclear renewables are amazing, and will be especially of use in bringing energy to developing nations and remote areas, but in terms of scaling, as wonderful as they are, they're not even potentially in the same league.

In the final analysis, fusion energy is clean - the only by-products are, to a first approximation, hydrogen, helium and water. As an aside, it's well worth noting that we're also staring down the barrel of another crisis, a huge depletion in our resources of helium, not least because of its waste in balloons and silly voices. Helium is one of the few elements sufficiently light to escape into space, not incidentally, which is why it isn't abundant on Earth, despite being the second most abundant element in the universe. It's also an incredibly important resource for huge numbers of cooling and supercooling applications ranging from nuclear submarines to the superconductors for medical devices such as magnetic resonance imaging.

US astronauts got to the moon in eight years from almost a standing start. Effective vaccines were produced in a year from almost a standing start. In both cases all it took was two words. Fusion could have been achieved decades ago, I suspect, had those same two words been applied at the right time and with the right level of motivation and conviction.

We can have this, if we want it. We're not even going from a standing start. We're going from just before the finish line, because that really is how close these advances bring us. The problem is that the race has a time limit. If we don't reach this or a similar finish line before the race is ended, we're in real trouble. Current signs show that it could well be a photo finish.

OK, so my proclivities for stretching analogies way beyond utility aside, this is to my mind the best strategy for the longevity of our species, and to actually stand a chance of pulling back from the brink of our own disregard and stupidity.

Just two words, but can we say them? Can we mean them? What, exactly, did Kennedy say on that day in Texas? Did he say, 'Houston, we have a problem'? No, he did not. He said this:

We choose.

Let's Stick Together
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Ecurb Noselrub

Yeah, but this one is donut shaped, signifying that it is ready to be consumed by the masses.  That should count for something.

Ecurb Noselrub


Asmodean

Fusion is interesting, but not without its issues. You need to put in a lot of energy to get stuff to fuse, and while fusing light elements can produce much more than you put in, you then have to extract it while maintaining the reaction.

I think we may get there. Meanwhile though, in our drive for more planet-friendly energy, we should totally expand our fission energy capacity. And if by "we," we limit ourselves to Europe, then there are good and valid geopolitical reasons to do it as well, what with a belligerent Russia that "nobody" over here wants to trade with.

The "Muh Chernobyl and Fukushima, though" crowd would see the nuclear fission plants shut down, however, out of small-mindedness and fear of things they don't understand except through popular culture, which is usually shit on the subject.

I mean, let's really look at the alternatives while we wait for science to do its magic;

1. We can continue burning dinosaur goo for a good long huwhile.
2. We can accept less stable power supply and more varied day-to-day cost and go for wind, water and sun. A combination of all three may offer a good measure of stability, but not to massive population centres, I think.
3. We can use radioactive decay to produce power in a reasonably cheap and very stable way.
4..?

Out of those three, I would certainly emphasise the last.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.