Nuclear Fusion...nearly, maybe.
Discussion
Talking of fusion
things don't seem to be too rosy with the ITER project
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014...
A review into the project has found serious problems with leadership!
I have also been reading some of the Q&A stuff on the engineer and I have to say, I'm not so sure this is gonna work as well as they hoped. The thing has to basically breed its own Tritium and at present I don't think they can be sure it'll actually produce any, let along produce sufficient to continue. Additionally I never knew the total amount of civilly recorded Tritium is only 30 kg! precious indeed!
things don't seem to be too rosy with the ITER project
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014...
A review into the project has found serious problems with leadership!
I have also been reading some of the Q&A stuff on the engineer and I have to say, I'm not so sure this is gonna work as well as they hoped. The thing has to basically breed its own Tritium and at present I don't think they can be sure it'll actually produce any, let along produce sufficient to continue. Additionally I never knew the total amount of civilly recorded Tritium is only 30 kg! precious indeed!
More rhubarb from the Daily Wail; apparently we're getting practical fusion power in 20 years. Aye, right. Why the insistence on a steam power conversion, why not molten salt or direct gas heat transfer and a Brayton cycle?
Like I wrote earlier some of the money would be better spent improving fission, which we know works and is safe, but the state of the art is woefully inefficient, generates too much waste and is expensive for what it is.
Like I wrote earlier some of the money would be better spent improving fission, which we know works and is safe, but the state of the art is woefully inefficient, generates too much waste and is expensive for what it is.
Lefty said:
Is it a question of money?
How much would be needed (best guess I know) to make a breakthrough in, say, the next ten years? 1 billion? 10 billion?
Possibly if we hit it with something like the manhattan project we would get there, but there isnt the need to throw that kind of resource at it as yetHow much would be needed (best guess I know) to make a breakthrough in, say, the next ten years? 1 billion? 10 billion?
Why don't they build a fireproof pipe to the sun and suck out a small amount of sun back down to the earth and use that? You could use the siphoning method, but make sure whoever does it pulls their mouth away in time to avoid burnt lips. Perhaps a pair of oven gloves would be useful too... and some sunglasses... and a fireproof box to keep the sun stuff in...
Terminator X said:
EU have just signed off £250m to bury CO2 underground, money might be better spent on this sort of thing
TX.
Well if we used my idea, we could send all the C02 back up the pipe and away from Earth... well obviously not all of it otherwise the trees and plants would all die and then we'd all die and we wouldn't need nuclear fusion anyway...TX.
Lefty said:
Terminator X said:
EU have just signed off £250m to bury CO2 underground, money might be better spent on this sort of thing
TX.
I've done a lot of work on a ccs project, I still don't "get" the economics of it, as far as the taxpayer is concerned.TX.
Lefty said:
I've done a lot of work on a ccs project, I still don't "get" the economics of it, as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
I'm not sure CO2 has ever had anything to do with economics, other than as a vehicle to raise taxes and give second-rate politicians something to put on their CV.And anyway, capturing carbon is 'off-message'; it will simply encourage those pesky taxpayers to burn more fuel... with the GW wrapper removed the real motive - social engineering - will be revealed.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff