Fusion Power

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Geothermal is abundant in Africa's Rift Valley. What's not abundant is a population with the money to pay for the plant, and distribution infrastructure.
Or to pay substantial electricity bills in the future, to justify installing all that stuff.

And anyway, those three lizards need protecting.

[Tyrannical]

Of course fusion will work. The one in Oxford "works". They achieved fusion in it ages ago.
Achieving fusion isn't the problem, it's keeping it going, for years on end, and extracting the energy continuously that's the challenge. As I understand it, the fusion reaction is inherently unstable, and conditions have to be perfect, otherwise it just stops. It's maintaining fusion conditions constantly that is difficult, and also, designing the materials of the surrounding blanket, that can withstand the radiation for a practical period.

That's what I meant by work, being able to produce a useful amount of power over a period of time. Otherwise we've had cold fusion since the 1950's with muon catalyzed fusion.

[mistermack]

That's what I meant by work, being able to produce a useful amount of power over a period of time. Otherwise we've had cold fusion since the 1950's with muon catalyzed fusion.

Well, that's a hard definition of work.
Orville and Wright only flew a few hundred yards, but within a few years, people were flying across oceans.

If we REALLY needed to achieve fusion power, to save the world, they would do it very fast. The space station gets more money than the ITER project. And that will never feed anyone.

The reason that it hasn't had more money put into it, is that they are worried that someone might come out with a cheaper process, just as they are getting there. But that's looking less and less likely. The US laser process was looking promising for a while, but the problems seem to get bigger, the further they go.
And it looks like renewables will NEVER hit the efficiency that would make them cost-efficient.

With fusion being so inherently safe, I think they should site them near cities, and make use of the waste heat water.
That way, they could be economic long before they reach peak electricity production.
The energy you are putting in would get re-claimed.

[MiM]

I believe there are two different technology paths that has the potential to resolve the need of energy that humanity has. One is fusion power, which could give us virtually unlimited power production, the other is an efficient way to store power, which would make utilizing natural energy sources much more viable.

Fusion is tempting, because it would eventually lead to a virtually limitless energy source, and with unlimited energy, there is really no limits to anything, besides ourselves.

[Tyrannical]

That's what I meant by work, being able to produce a useful amount of power over a period of time. Otherwise we've had cold fusion since the 1950's with muon catalyzed fusion.

Well, that's a hard definition of work.
Orville and Wright only flew a few hundred yards, but within a few years, people were flying across oceans.

If we REALLY needed to achieve fusion power, to save the world, they would do it very fast. The space station gets more money than the ITER project. And that will never feed anyone.

The reason that it hasn't had more money put into it, is that they are worried that someone might come out with a cheaper process, just as they are getting there. But that's looking less and less likely. The US laser process was looking promising for a while, but the problems seem to get bigger, the further they go.
And it looks like renewables will NEVER hit the efficiency that would make them cost-efficient.

With fusion being so inherently safe, I think they should site them near cities, and make use of the waste heat water.
That way, they could be economic long before they reach peak electricity production.
The energy you are putting in would get re-claimed.

Hard definition of work?
We've been able to achieve fusion for decades, just not in a way that produced a useful amount of over unity power. I'm not sure we've ever broken even with a fusion reaction.

[MiM]

That's what I meant by work, being able to produce a useful amount of power over a period of time. Otherwise we've had cold fusion since the 1950's with muon catalyzed fusion.

Well, that's a hard definition of work.
Orville and Wright only flew a few hundred yards, but within a few years, people were flying across oceans.

If we REALLY needed to achieve fusion power, to save the world, they would do it very fast. The space station gets more money than the ITER project. And that will never feed anyone.

The reason that it hasn't had more money put into it, is that they are worried that someone might come out with a cheaper process, just as they are getting there. But that's looking less and less likely. The US laser process was looking promising for a while, but the problems seem to get bigger, the further they go.
And it looks like renewables will NEVER hit the efficiency that would make them cost-efficient.

With fusion being so inherently safe, I think they should site them near cities, and make use of the waste heat water.
That way, they could be economic long before they reach peak electricity production.
The energy you are putting in would get re-claimed.

Hard definition of work?
We've been able to achieve fusion for decades, just not in a way that produced a useful amount of over unity power. I'm not sure we've ever broken even with a fusion reaction.

I'd think you if anyone would regard the hydrogen bomb useful, it definitely produces enough power.

[Tyrannical]

No, cobalt bombs are useful. Hydrogen bombs are unnecessarily destructive.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

smartass

Though I wouldn't use ordinary cobalt. I'd go for higher radiation lower duration, so it would be either certain isotopes of cobalt added or another element for that effect. Since there is no generic term for this type of weapon, and not meaning a neutron bomb, I don't know what else to call it. Of course you could use a neutron bomb and then would need a hydrogen bomb for that.

[MiM]

To be really effective the cobalt bomb requires a hydrogen bomb to make the necessary amount of neutrons to produce the radioactive cobalt.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[macdoc]

I believe there are two different technology paths that has the potential to resolve the need of energy that humanity has. One is fusion power, which could give us virtually unlimited power production, the other is an efficient way to store power, which would make utilizing natural energy sources much more viable.

storing power is done all the time - just pump water uphill.
It's portable power that is missing - ie something with the energy intensity of gasoline/diesel that can be piped and stored.

You can't load solar power from say the Sahara and supply it to Finland the way Saudi oil gets there.

Some good work being done on eColi direct to useable fuel tho and in a vertical reactor it does not need a lot of square footage ( mileage )

E. coli enzymes turned into biofuel identical to gasoline

Brittany Hillen, Apr 25th 2013 Discuss [5]Biofuels aren’t a new idea, with various types having been created over the years, none of which were quite the gasoline substitute we’ve hoped for. While biofuels are available, implementing them as standard fuel would require modified engines or a middle-man process that converts the biofuel into something more engine-friendly. That could be coming to an end soon, with a biofuel being created for the first time that is identical to gasoline.

http://www.slashgear.com/e-coli-enzymes ... -25279264/

[MiM]

I believe there are two different technology paths that has the potential to resolve the need of energy that humanity has. One is fusion power, which could give us virtually unlimited power production, the other is an efficient way to store power, which would make utilizing natural energy sources much more viable.

storing power is done all the time - just pump water uphill.
It's portable power that is missing - ie something with the energy intensity of gasoline/diesel that can be piped and stored.

You can't load solar power from say the Sahara and supply it to Finland the way Saudi oil gets there.

Some good work being done on eColi direct to useable fuel tho and in a vertical reactor it does not need a lot of square footage ( mileage )

E. coli enzymes turned into biofuel identical to gasoline

Brittany Hillen, Apr 25th 2013 Discuss [5]Biofuels aren’t a new idea, with various types having been created over the years, none of which were quite the gasoline substitute we’ve hoped for. While biofuels are available, implementing them as standard fuel would require modified engines or a middle-man process that converts the biofuel into something more engine-friendly. That could be coming to an end soon, with a biofuel being created for the first time that is identical to gasoline.

http://www.slashgear.com/e-coli-enzymes ... -25279264/

Basically we agree here. Pumping water can be (and is) done in mountainous regions, where there are large enough basins to be found with enough height differences. However, something like storing extensive wind and solar energy from summer to winter in the relatively flack Finland, using hydro, could not easily be done without drowning wast areas of forest or arable land.

With all synthetic fuels, there are two hurdles to usefulness. How tightly can the energy be packed and what are the losses in the process.

[Blind groper]

It does not matter that fusion power is 50 years, or 100 years in the future. The Chinese are a practical people who do not waste money on pipe dreams before their time. They have built, instead, a thorium fission powered reactor, which is (in prototype form) already generating electricity. Thorium is safer than uranium, produces a lot less waste, and there is so much available, it could keep humanity supplied with electricity for 1,000 years, even at ten times the current production.

[cronus]

It does not matter that fusion power is 50 years, or 100 years in the future. The Chinese are a practical people who do not waste money on pipe dreams before their time. They have built, instead, a thorium fission powered reactor, which is (in prototype form) already generating electricity. Thorium is safer than uranium, produces a lot less waste, and there is so much available, it could keep humanity supplied with electricity for 1,000 years, even at ten times the current production.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/201 ... ctor-hype/

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Cormac]

13 Billion is peanuts. Why, our tiny little country has paid more than that out to bondholders over the last few years.

(Beggaring the country instead of burning the bondholders, who are mostly German banks btw).

[Clinton Huxley]

13 Billion is peanuts. Why, our tiny little country has paid more than that out to bondholders over the last few years.

(Beggaring the country instead of burning the bondholders, who are mostly German banks btw).

Banks, panzers, they'll get you one way or the other.

[Feck]

Banks, panzers, lager, they'll get you one way or the other.