Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Experts were able to simulate the mechanism that stabilizes plasma in fusion reactors. This development could take humankind one step closer to a clean, unlimited source of fusion energy.
So...practical commercial fusion is still 50 years way (just like it's been for the past 60 years), right?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Shire on Monday July 23 2018, @04:08PM (15 children)
Fusion energy generated just under 400GW of power in 2017 alone representing about 12% of electrical output worldwide and that capacity is increasing. Ok, technically it's solar power but really, that's just the suns fusion energy with a silicon based transfer conduit right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pvanhoof on Monday July 23 2018, @06:11PM (8 children)
All of the planet's energy eventually came from the Sun (or from other stars, which also have fusion going on). That implies that under your definition, fusion represented 100%.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 23 2018, @06:31PM (7 children)
Yep. And I think that is the key insight.
All of our energy came / comes from the sun. Just via less efficient transfer means. Research should be on more efficient means to go straight to the source. Maybe even from orbit with energy transferred down to earth safely by carrier pigeons or something.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 23 2018, @09:11PM
Ah but what would you feed the carrier pigeons? You're not thinking this through, man.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:13AM (5 children)
Even if we had operational fusion reactors right now, we still would only pull energy from it indirectly the same way all other power generation plants do it - heat water into steam to drive a turbine to spin a magnet to make the electrons move. From wood burning steam trains all the way to nuclear reactors, that's how it's done. Power from fusion via solar is no less decoupled than fusion reactor to steam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:48AM (4 children)
Fusion reactor -> steam -> electricity almost has to be much more efficient than sun-fusion -> solar panel -> electricity. This holds true even with a magical 100% efficient solar panel.
The energy density of the sun is roughly the same as your average lizard or compost pile, by volume [abc.net.au]. To achieve sustainable fusion in something that fits in a building rather than something the size of a star, the energy density is going to have to be a lot higher than the sun's.
Can we build a fusion reactor that actually works? I don't know. Lots of smart people seem willing to try. But if they do pull it off, the whole "solar is just fusion from the sun so we should all just use solar instead of worrying about fusion" stops being a serious argument. If it ever was.
- D
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:17AM
All i said was that we are already tapping fusion for energy. i made no efficiency claims. It's also pretty pointless to refer to efficiency when the power source is ubiquitous. I will say this though, regardless of efficiency it's safe to say solar is providing infinitely more power than man made fusion energy.
That being said, I'd much rather eee us focused on gen iv nuclear which at least is a known clean and abundant power source.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 24 2018, @09:38PM (2 children)
I looked at that article, and I'm sure I have no grasp of the complex math behind this, but it looks like total BS to me.
"The answer is surprising. The Sun does do nuclear burning of hydrogen atoms, but only very occasionally. How occasionally? On average, any given hydrogen atom will run into another hydrogen atom only once every five billion years."
Once every 5 billion years?!? Given that the sun is 4.7 billion years old, that means that there is a less than 100% chance that it has even happened once so far! And yet:
"Every second, the Sun burns 620 million tonnes of hydrogen and turns it into about 616 million tonnes of helium."
That's an awful lot of matter being converted into helium yet somehow without hydrogen fusing into each other. How in the world is that supposed to work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @12:41AM (1 child)
Now multiply by the number of hydrogen atoms in the sun and you’ll have your answer.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday July 25 2018, @04:59AM
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:11AM (1 child)
Terrible thing about solar, you have no electric at night. Goodbye night clubs. Goodbye casinos. Unless you build giant battery, like they did in High Tax Australia. Very expensive, folks. There's a better way. Nuclear and Beautiful Clean Coal. Great thing is, we already have the plants, they're built. They're running. Keeping our Energy Grid going around the clock -- so important. They don't shut down when the Sun goes down, so important. But so many are shutting down -- FOREVER. Because they're not making enough money. We need to stop that. And turn it around. With a subsidy for our Coal, for our Nuclear. Keep those plants running, replace the ones we lost. And make our Energy Grid great again!!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:10AM
My comment was not to infer that solar is the end all be all of clean energy generation, only that our own sun is a massive fusion reactor and we tap it for power - we're using fusion energy right now.
I'm a strong proponent of nuclear, in particular Gen IV LFTR designs that are quite literally meltdown proof. I think the hysteria that surrounds nuclear has ironically resulted in massive amounts of CO2 the hippies are always howling about. Had we moved forward with nuclear and not burdened it with massive regulation, we would be in a far more energy independent situation right now.
Meanwhile China has both pebble bed and thorium test reactors operating - and we gave them the IP for it.
It also pisses me off that we can't touch most of our own rare earth deposits (essential for modern electronics) because thorium tends to be deposited there too and the NRC wont let any mining companies process it. Never mind you can't make a bomb out of it and never mind it's so weakly radioactive that if you had two atoms of it when the big bang occurred you'd probably still have both of them now.
But I digress - fusion would be great, but it's taking far too long. Lets invest in nuclear again, get that going as a nice clean stop gap energy source and then we can switch over to fusion when they get it all figured out.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @02:25AM (3 children)
How much oil was spent to achieve this result? (Hint: more efficient to just burn oil)
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @11:26AM (2 children)
I'm going to need a source on that, I don't believe thats at all true. It's certainly more expensive but manufacturing solar panels does not consume more oil than the equivalent in lifetime power generation.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)
Even if I give you sources, you are not likely to accept them, sorry.
Anyway, in addition to manufacturing, solar panels need to be delivered, repaired, and disposed. The current model is to manufacture abroad and, hopefully, dispose abroad. Transportation is also partially abroad. What powers all of this?
The whole "green" part of solar is simply exporting dirt to China. One day, and this day may already came, China stops accepting other countries shit.
That bring me to disposal (yes, they are made of some nasty stuff). Do you think consumer will pay the price of solar panels again to dispose of them? No, they are going into the woods nearby and clean up will eventually cost a lot.
The whole green idea, as it is implemented now, is simply export of pollution in space and time.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:06PM
>Even if I give you sources, you are not likely to accept them, sorry.
Not sure why you would say that. I'm always looking to be persuaded that I'm wrong about things, how else does anyone find out whats actually right?
I think you would be very surprised how little fuel per unit is burned transporting thousands of cargo containers from China to the US or how little fuel is burned by an 18 wheeler to deliver those panels to their install location. Fuel costs money and companies don't like spending money, they just like taking money.
But as I've said in other posts, if I had my druthers we would be heavily reliant on nuclear right now. We literally have tons of material already mined and ready to burn. And nuclear can not only produce electricity, it's also quite good at producing hydrogen which is another great fuel option for cars. It's a shame so many react emotionally when you say "nuclear". We should be pushing hard for it, it's very clean.