The Future is Fusion

[konradv]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

 

[Mr. H.]

If Iron Man can make one, why can't we?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We already have one fusion reactor. It is called, in english, the Sun. It think it is quite near enough where it is now.

 

[Bern80]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

Ummmmm did you read past that paragraph?

The article seems to raise far more concerns about its viability then anything.

 

[JiggsCasey]

we've been over this before.... the creation of a "baby star" is the technology of the future, and always will be.

A global economic system that is rotting at the core and depending on socialism (bailouts) will not be around in 30 years to buoy star creation.

Not coincidentally, I just saw Wall St. 2 this afternoon, and fusion technology investment is at the heart of the script. .... Of course, its success or failure never gets resolved at the end, which is fitting.

 

[Charles_Main]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

Last I heard experts believed viable application of this technology was still 50 years away.

Have they revised that number at all?

 

[uscitizen]

Ford or V8?

 

[konradv]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

Last I heard experts believed viable application of this technology was still 50 years away.

Have they revised that number at all?

50 years would be the outside number. That could be brought much closer, if we made it a national priority, like the Space Race. How long would it take to have viable solar and wind generating plants? Not much less, IMO, so why waste the time, since in about double that 50 years oil will be running dry?

 

[antagon]

getting net energy from fusion might literally be impossible. even in a hundred years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

I do so enjoy it when people prove they know less about science than the average idiot. Nothing is limitless. Everything produces waste. What makes hydrogen fusion attractive is that helium is not something that most people consider a pollutant. What makes it dangerous is that we have to figure out a way to build a star and contain it.

 

[Charles_Main]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

I do so enjoy it when people prove they know less about science than the average idiot. Nothing is limitless. Everything produces waste. What makes hydrogen fusion attractive is that helium is not something that most people consider a pollutant. What makes it dangerous is that we have to figure out a way to build a star and contain it.

Well the have already done it in the UK. The only problem is they have to put more power into it than they get out.

I have heard several of you describe it as creating a star on earth. That is not actually what they do. They create the conditions(temp and pressure) found in a star in order to enable fusion. They do not actually create a star. Currently it is done by creating a plasma stream held in place by magnetism. it simply takes more power to create the stream,and contain it than you get from it. So far.

As far as waste? helium is a valuable Gas. Hardly a waste product.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Have you ever tasted Fusion? That shit's just awful. My wife bought some the other day. Yuck.

 

[Charles_Main]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

Last I heard experts believed viable application of this technology was still 50 years away.

Have they revised that number at all?

50 years would be the outside number. That could be brought much closer, if we made it a national priority, like the Space Race. How long would it take to have viable solar and wind generating plants? Not much less, IMO, so why waste the time, since in about double that 50 years oil will be running dry?

oh I agree. I made a post not long ago about how we should do a Manhattan project style push to perfect fusion. However the space race analogy works just as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fusion energy is limitless and waste free. But more to the point, when it becomes commercially viable not only will it solve nearly all of earth’s energy problems, it will also combat CO2 emissions and make redundant the wave energy, solar panel and windpower installations that currently pollute the landscape and will do so for years to come. However, geo-thermal energy will be useful.

Excerpt from: The future is fusion - On Line Opinion - 7/9/2010

I do so enjoy it when people prove they know less about science than the average idiot. Nothing is limitless. Everything produces waste. What makes hydrogen fusion attractive is that helium is not something that most people consider a pollutant. What makes it dangerous is that we have to figure out a way to build a star and contain it.

Well the have already done it in the UK. The only problem is they have to put more power into it than they get out.

I have heard several of you describe it as creating a star on earth. That is not actually what they do. They create the conditions(temp and pressure) found in a star in order to enable fusion. They do not actually create a star. Currently it is done by creating a plasma stream held in place by magnetism. it simply takes more power to create the stream,and contain it than you get from it. So far.

As far as waste? helium is a valuable Gas. Hardly a waste product.

They have to put more power into it than they get out because we currently have no effective way of containing the reaction and making is sustainable.

FYI, the US was the first to demonstrate nuclear fusion, and they got more energy out than they put in.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M]YouTube - Nuclear Bomb - First H Bomb test[/ame]

I refer to it as making a star because that is what they are doing. They are recreating the pressure and temperature inside a star in an artificial environment. You can quibble all you want, but that is what they need to do to make it profitable. It will be a small, artificial, star.

Another question, how does the fact that we can use helium not make it a waste product of the hydrogen fusion reaction? We use manure also, does that make it not a waste product?

 

[Charles_Main]

I refer to it as making a star because that is what they are doing. They are recreating the pressure and temperature inside a star in an artificial environment. You can quibble all you want, but that is what they need to do to make it profitable. It will be a small, artificial, star.

Um actually it wont be a small artificial star. It will be a loop of super heated plasma. They do not get anywhere near the Pressures found in the sun. They make up for that by making it MUCH hotter than the surface of the sun.

I quibble because when common people hear "they are creating a star on earth"

they get naturally scared SHIT LESS.

the dangers from this tech are minimal because as you have said. They need to create the conditions in controlled place. If it were ever to break out of that control. Those conditions would be lost instantly and the reaction would break down.

as far as the waste product thing. No Helium is a BY product. as is Cow shit. It is still a called waste. But the fact that we can use it for productive means actually makes it a Byproduct IMO.

again I quibble because some people were hear waste products and think nasty bad things, not knowing it is a valuable, and non harmful gas we are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I talk about science I like to be accurate. That attitude has been driven into me since high school at least, which was longer ago than a lot of people who post on this board have been alive.

A by product is a secondary or incidental product of a process. Sawdust is a by product of sling trees into boards. Helium is the end product. I consider it a waste because that is what it essentially is, but I could accept calling it an end product.

I understand that there are people out there that are afraid of having a star sitting around, but the idea actually fascinates me. If I let you have the by product can I keep the star?

 

[antagon]

Last I heard experts believed viable application of this technology was still 50 years away.

Have they revised that number at all?

50 years would be the outside number. That could be brought much closer, if we made it a national priority, like the Space Race. How long would it take to have viable solar and wind generating plants? Not much less, IMO, so why waste the time, since in about double that 50 years oil will be running dry?

oh I agree. I made a post not long ago about how we should do a Manhattan project style push to perfect fusion. However the space race analogy works just as well.

this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it. fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it. there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned. very, very slim. where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it. fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it. there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned. very, very slim. where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?

I think that we will be able to harness fusion power, eventually. I don't know when, or how, but the simple fact is that once they figure out how to make a sustainable reaction it will be possible to scale it so it has a positive energy profile. Sooner or later someone will figure out how to do it.

That said, I agree that it will not come about through a massive, government funded, program like the Manhattan Project. If it was simply a matter of engineering we would be a lot closer than we are.

 

[Charles_Main]

50 years would be the outside number. That could be brought much closer, if we made it a national priority, like the Space Race. How long would it take to have viable solar and wind generating plants? Not much less, IMO, so why waste the time, since in about double that 50 years oil will be running dry?

oh I agree. I made a post not long ago about how we should do a Manhattan project style push to perfect fusion. However the space race analogy works just as well.

this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it. fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it. there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned. very, very slim. where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?

Where do you source that claim that the chances are very very slim. The scientists working on it say it is not if but when it will become a feesable power source.

 

[antagon]

oh I agree. I made a post not long ago about how we should do a Manhattan project style push to perfect fusion. However the space race analogy works just as well.

this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it. fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it. there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned. very, very slim. where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?

Where do you source that claim that the chances are very very slim. The scientists working on it say it is not if but when it will become a feesable power source.

i'm a chemical engineer. i've endured a good bit of physics which i think adds some crucial perspective to the idea that it is as feasible as is popular to believe. there isn't consensus on the viability of fusion for energy. it plays out in experiments -- all of them -- up to this point. the current approach to fusion employs tritium which takes energy to produce. energy is even expended extracting deuterium, the other main ingredient. sustained energy has to be introduced to create the reaction and sustain it. notwithstanding the ancillary costs in refining the fuel, the energy put in has never, and might never be less than what is available from the reaction.

we have a fusion generator, the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet. there could be viability to fusion. i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.