Nuclear Fusion...nearly, maybe.

Nuclear Fusion...nearly, maybe.

Author
Discussion

IanMorewood

4,309 posts

247 months

Monday 24th February 2014
quotequote all
Good luck to them for trying, let's hope they have some breakthrough new idea.

Otispunkmeyer

12,558 posts

154 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
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!

hidetheelephants

23,776 posts

192 months

Sunday 23rd March 2014
quotequote all
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.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Sunday 23rd March 2014
quotequote all
I'm stoked fusion is now only perpetually 20 years away rather than 50.

Lefty

Original Poster:

16,132 posts

201 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
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?

Simpo Two

85,151 posts

264 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
I'm stoked fusion is now only perpetually 20 years away rather than 50.
You might say the project has a half-life spin

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
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 yet

58warren

589 posts

178 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
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...

RealSquirrels

11,327 posts

191 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
make an apollo-style effort on anything like fusion, solar power, room temperature superconductors, or widespread space-flight (or even a space elevator) and we could get there pretty quickly I think.

Terminator X

14,922 posts

203 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
EU have just signed off £250m to bury CO2 underground, money might be better spent on this sort of thing spin

TX.

58warren

589 posts

178 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
EU have just signed off £250m to bury CO2 underground, money might be better spent on this sort of thing spin

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...

Lefty

Original Poster:

16,132 posts

201 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
EU have just signed off £250m to bury CO2 underground, money might be better spent on this sort of thing spin

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.

hidetheelephants

23,776 posts

192 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
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 spin

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.
Of course it doesn't; no one can quantify what CO2 'pollution' actually costs, so there is no basis from which to decide if CCS can ever be worth the money. This is what happens when emotional handwringing drives policy rather than science or measurable harm-mitigation.

Lefty

Original Poster:

16,132 posts

201 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
In the right context, it can make economic sense for industry - sttipping co2 from a coal fired power station helps the coal miners sell coal, co2 from gas helps the gas industry to sell gas. But, IMHO, it shouldn't be subsidised.

Simpo Two

85,151 posts

264 months

Saturday 19th April 2014
quotequote all
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.