# A giant donut-shaped machine just proved a near-limitless clean power source is possible



## Shrek (Feb 9, 2022)

Climate change: A giant donut-shaped machine just proved a near-limitless clean power source is possible - CNN

The 5 second limit was because the magnets can only be run that long before they get too hot.


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 9, 2022)

So... what about all the helium those will produce ?
Does it present a threat if large amounts (if liquified = a sea worth ?) of it will be produced and realease to atmosphere ?


----------



## AugeK (Feb 9, 2022)

Old game, they test such for more than 25 years.
Keep on claiming to get closer every now and then.


----------



## Nordic (Feb 9, 2022)

Fusion power has made some really interesting gains recently.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 9, 2022)

AugeK said:


> Old game, they test such for more than 25 years.
> Keep on claiming to get closer every now and then.


With that attitude, there'd be little hope of advance.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 9, 2022)

Well done to the guys in oxford even a small step is moving forward and it proves fusion is viable in the right circumstances.


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 9, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> With that attitude, there'd be little hope of advance.


What he probably meant was. Give us more money for yet another 25 years of research.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 9, 2022)

droopyRO said:


> What he probably meant was. Give us more money for yet another 25 years of research.


I'd hope you'd be willing to pay whatever it takes.  Fusion is one thing mankind needs yesterday.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 9, 2022)

Hopefully fusion research is shared so others can recreate what they did in Oxford to help in perfecting it.


----------



## Nordic (Feb 9, 2022)

droopyRO said:


> What he probably meant was. Give us more money for yet another 25 years of research.


I won't rehash what the OP's news source says but Fusion has made fascinating leaps recently. They have finally created positive power production where Fusion makes more power than went in to start it. The biggest hurdle in the way are how do we successfully contain the plasma at scale.

My personal preference would be a Manhattan project level effort to create a fusion reactor. The potential benefits are incalculable.


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 9, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I'd hope you'd be willing to pay whatever it takes.  Fusion is one thing mankind needs yesterday.


If it gets result, yes. But most of the time, science fails. So sinking money in to it, is in it's self a business model.

@Nordic
And if fusion is possible and practical. I really don't think it will see the light of day in the next 50-100 years. Maybe and if we are so desperate and all manner of resources are exhausted then our overlords will see us granted the use of such technology. But until then we are to be ruled and that means more control and less independence. And one of those means of control is energy. Imagine not having to rely on Russia or Saudi Arabia for oil and gas. And how that would affect the world stage.
/rant


----------



## Kanan (Feb 9, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Hopefully fusion research is shared so others can recreate what they did in Oxford to help in perfecting it.


this is regularly happening in today's research. For ~everything. Sharing is very much a 21st century thing


----------



## Leiesoldat (Feb 9, 2022)

Nordic said:


> I won't rehash what the OP's news source says but Fusion has made fascinating leaps recently. They have finally created positive power production where Fusion makes more power than went in to start it. The biggest hurdle in the way are how do we successfully contain the plasma at scale.
> 
> My personal preference would be a Manhattan project level effort to create a fusion reactor. The potential benefits are incalculable.



That is what the aim of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project is in the south of France. Even though it is located in France, the bulk of the project management is done in the US at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and there are many countries involved in the construction and research (EU, US, Japan, Korea, India, Russia, and China). The JET lab in Oxford is about 1/10 the size of what the reactor will be at ITER.


----------



## Nordic (Feb 9, 2022)

droopyRO said:


> If it gets result, yes. But most of the time, science fails. So sinking money in to it, is in it's self a business model.
> And if fusion is possible and practical.


Something with as much potential benefit for Americans and the world would be limited by a business approach. I am a fairly hardcore capitalist and even I think this is better funded as a public good given the difficulty in making it profitable.

They have proven fusion is possible. They have successfully done it. The work now is making it scalable and practical. Don't take my word for it. The information is easy to find. The OP's article is a decent short summary to read.



Leiesoldat said:


> That is what the aim of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project is in the south of France. Even though it is located in France, the bulk of the project management is done in the US at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and there are many countries involved in the construction and research (EU, US, Japan, Korea, India, Russia, and China). The JET lab in Oxford is about 1/10 the size of what the reactor will be at ITER.


I am aware of ITER. Maybe it is because history always seems grander than the present, but ITER doesn't seem to be on the scale of the Manhattan project. Or maybe I wish they were given more funding and attention. At the very least, ITER is a step in the right direction.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 9, 2022)

Donut? Ohhh ok... Layman terms for a Tokamak ... Uhhh... Almost as dumb as the "thicc, attacc and protecc" trend, although it's a big donuts Indeed. (did not check the article or the rest of the thread   )

which I heard of that kind quite some years ago, glad to read that they are progressing.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Feb 9, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The 5 second limit was because the magnets can only be run that long before they get too hot.



Reminds me of the old light-bulb from the 1800s.

The first light bulbs only lasted for mere seconds before the filament blew out. It proved that the conversion from electricity to light was possible. But material-science and material-research would have to take place to find the right chemical / metal / molecules that could last for days, months, years and become a practically useful invention.

A combination of a vacuum tube (removing as much oxygen as possible) + metals that can survive the heat ended up being the answer to the light bulb question. Without oxygen, there would be no burning. With the right metals, it'd survive even high temperatures.

I don't know what they'd need to do to make this practical. But these little steps are important in the great scheme of discoveries.


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 9, 2022)

fucking magnets


----------



## MentalAcetylide (Feb 9, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Climate change: A giant donut-shaped machine just proved a near-limitless clean power source is possible - CNN
> 
> The 5 second limit was because the magnets can only be run that long before they get too hot.


I'm not sure if this has anything in common, but years ago(probably like back in the early 90's), I remember hearing something about a ring of pure gold in an environment of near absolute zero could run an applied current either infinitely or without any resistance. I forget the exact details, perhaps you might know or have heard something about it?


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 9, 2022)

What about the other side of the story? Has it any merit?

Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be


----------



## looniam (Feb 10, 2022)

agent_x007 said:


> So... what about all the helium those will produce ?
> Does it present a threat if large amounts (if liquified = a sea worth ?) of it will be produced and realease to atmosphere ?


great question that caused me to google . . and found from 9 years ago:


> Back of the envelope calculation coming up, may well contain stupid errors:
> 
> Assuming D-T fusion, a single fusion event releases a 14.1MeV neutron and a 3.5MeV helium nucleus. Assuming you can absorb all this energy and you've got an efficient heat engine setup at around 50%, you'll get about 1.5x10-12 J per fusion, so for a 1GW output you'll need 6.67x1020 fusions per second. Say you have 1TWe (electric output) worth of fusion reactors worldwide (about half of current electricity generation), then you're producing 1000 times as much helium, or 6.67x1023 atoms per second. About a mole each second, or 4 grams. This works out to 126 tons of helium a year, or about 1000m3 per year of liquid helium. The US strategic helium reserve had a peak volume of about a billion m3 . *World consumption of helium is measured in tens of millions of m3 per year so you'd be short by several orders of magnitude in the best case.*



but i think all that is beyond the scope of me and most folks here (no offense) i'm sure (for no reason) as advancements happen theoretical estimations will change. however, bolded lead me to find out:


			Cookie Absent
		


so  unlike carbon, radioactive waste, nasty chemicals from current solar panel processing - helium is a commodity.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 10, 2022)

The world is actually running short on Helium, but still we use it for party balloons.


----------



## Speedyblupi (Feb 10, 2022)

MentalAcetylide said:


> I'm not sure if this has anything in common, but years ago(probably like back in the early 90's), I remember hearing something about a ring of pure gold in an environment of near absolute zero could run an applied current either infinitely or without any resistance. I forget the exact details, perhaps you might know or have heard something about it?


Yeah, gold is a superconductor, but only right next to absolute zero. Since then we've found a superconductor that works at room temperature (albeit only under extremely high pressure - surprisingly it's a mixture of methane and hydrogen sulfide, so it turns out that we fart room-temperature superconductors).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 10, 2022)

agent_x007 said:


> So... what about all the helium those will produce ?
> Does it present a threat if large amounts (if liquified = a sea worth ?) of it will be produced and realease to atmosphere ?


It seems that you over-estimate how much actual Helium will be produced with a sustained reaction. Even though Helium is comprised of two protons and two neutrons, it actually takes as many as 10 split Hydrogen atoms to create one cohesive Helium atom in a star like the Sun. In a reactor like the one discussed in that article cited above, the volume of pressure is not the same or even close to what exists in a star. The energy produced is from the focused magnetic fields creating so much friction with the injected Hydrogen that the temps get high enough for fusion to take place, but such is a very chaotic reaction and Hydrogen atoms are ripped apart as reaction progresses. So in all actuality the creation of Helium in such a reactor will be minimal. Deuterium and Tritium will be produced in far great volumes than Helium.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 10, 2022)

I thought we were burning deuterium and tritium and not hydrogen in these reactors.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 10, 2022)

Don't magnets lose their magnetism if they get hot, think i read that somewhere, but i guess they are electro which don't?


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 10, 2022)

OneMoar said:


> fucking magnets


So polarizing...


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 10, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Don't magnets lose their magnetism if they get hot, think i read that somewhere, but i guess they are electro which don't?


Not sure , but I think the "magnets" are in fact electromagnets , so they can control the magnetic field in the reactor.
That's how I imagine it.

EDIT:

From ITER website:

Plasma Confinement







And:

Magnets


----------



## Nordic (Feb 10, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> What about the other side of the story? Has it any merit?
> 
> Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be


That article did have merit in 2017 even if a pessimistic view. By what light reading I have done, most of those problems are quickly becoming non-problems with new research. I think that article is a great reference because it shows how far we have moved in the last 5 years alone.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 10, 2022)

Nordic said:


> That article did have merit in 2017 even if a pessimistic view. By what light reading I have done, most of those problems are quickly becoming non-problems with new research. I think that article is a great reference because it shows how far we have moved in the last 5 years alone.



Here is a follow-up article from the same author , one year after his first article.

ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy

The author is not just somebody:
"Daniel Jassby was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University."


Remember how nuclear energy started and how it was promoted , as clean , safe and cheap energy , too cheap to be metered.
The law of supply and demand has decided otherwise. We are now more than 6 decades in the era of nuclear power production.
Nuclear powerplants have to be decommissioned at some point. You would think that the nuclear industry had come up with a practical viable plan by now to process the nuclear waste.
Just put it underground long enough seems to be the temporary solution for now.

But even just underground storage is not without risk:

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 2014 accidental fires

The WIPP problem, and what it means for defense nuclear waste disposal

I feel the general public was tricked into nuclear energy with lies. I fear it is happening all over again , but this time with "very very clean" and again "unlimited" energy.
This is what they want you to believe , to justify the huge amounts of money resources going into these projects.
We have to pay now for expensive research , and later the private electric companies will keep on selling us energy at high prices.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 10, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Here is a follow-up article from the same author , one year after his first article.
> 
> ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy
> 
> ...


I think you need a better understanding of fusion compared to fission.

As with all science, theories are theorised then decades later technology catches up. Look at Tesla, Einstein and pretty much every great theorist their ideas are decades even centuries old but we invent brilliant, incredible and sometimes mundane things every day because their theories were limited by the technology of the time.

Yes fusion has been a very long publicised scientific theory but present tech has started making it possible, the last few years not decades are where the big leaps have been and now it's proven theory. 

I'm another optimist, the sooner we crack fusion the sooner we can abolish fossil fuels and our massive greed for mining precious metals just to throw it away in landfill a few years later.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 10, 2022)

Nuclear Fission energy, from theory to practice within 20 years.

Fusion theory existed from before fission theory. The first fusion experiments date from the 1950's.
Now 70 years later they are still trying to sell us the promise of fusion energy and it is still many years away , although we now have more compute power than ever to do the calculations to put theory into practice.

Why Nuclear Fusion Is Always 30 Years Away
What's the hold up?



ThaiTaffy said:


> I think you need a better understanding of fusion compared to fission.



My understanding of both is enough , so I get what is written in the critiqueing articles. I can only recommend you read the articles too.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 10, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> With that attitude, there'd be little hope of advance.



Yeah but you have to ask yourself, if it took so long to break even in terms of power input/output you have to wonder if this will ever be worthwhile and cost effective.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 10, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> My understanding of both is enough , so I get what is written in the critiqueing articles. I can only recommend you read the articles too.


So why the comment about waste products? Hell were running out of helium! so you can't make an issue about that being a byproduct, especially on a forum where alot of members require helium for their storage drives.

There will always be critiques in whatever field especially when it it's dangerous to the status quo.


----------



## Mpt (Feb 10, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I thought we were burning deuterium and tritium and not hydrogen in these reactors


They are forms of heavy hydrogen, have 2 or 3 protons


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 10, 2022)

im quite hopeful there making progress this more out than there putting in is a big thing, cooling the magnets should be a easy fix just a matter of Ln2 or alike to get the job done magnets work best below -200 if i remember right. ill give them a well done !.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 10, 2022)

xtreemchaos said:


> im quite hopeful there making progress this more out than there putting in is a big thing, cooling the magnets should be a easy fix just a matter of Ln2 or alike to get the job done magnets work best below -200 if i remember right. ill give them a well done !.


I'm guessing they're already using ln2 and the magnets are going from -200 to melting point in 5 seconds it's a mini sun were talking about.

If they need a cooling solution I doubt any of us are gonna come up with an idea they haven't already tried


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 10, 2022)

theres many ways to use/apply Ln2 thay just need to find the right way,i build modded deep sky cams for folks and i can tell you there many ways to skin a cat when using advanced cooling.


----------



## ThaiTaffy (Feb 10, 2022)

xtreemchaos said:


> theres many ways to use/apply Ln2 thay just need to find the right way,i build modded deep sky cams for folks and i can tell you there many ways to skin a cat when using advanced cooling.


Yes but your just cooling a sensor to get better exposure ln2 is great for cooling I'm not disputing that but we're talking somewhere near 100 million Kelvin here and I'm guessing the idea is to be using as little resources as possible and since it's a self sustaining power source I'm more inclined to think a peltier cooler would be more viable so some form of semiconductor breakthrough has to come next.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 10, 2022)

i like to keep on the + theres downsides in everything but im sure thay sort it out theres a lot that depends on it. yes i cool sensors/ccd to reduce noise which give a better cleaner image i also do cams to use on sol which get very hot but nowhere near 100 million Kelvin but i was meaning diff ways of cooling.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Feb 10, 2022)

What was input energy though?

NIF fairly recently achieved positive net balance (output > input). Does it hold true here too?


----------



## Nordic (Feb 10, 2022)

@Jacky_BEL 
I recognized the authors history. He knows the science very well. I was only trying to say that most of hits points, not all, have been overcome. I am reluctant to take the time to respond to each point of the authors with an up to date rebuttal.

I have strong opinions on nuclear power too. We need to invest in nuclear power more. Nuclear power is safe and necessary. No, I don't want to write a litteral essay in response to explain why I think this.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 11, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Now 70 years later they are still trying to sell us the promise of fusion energy and it is still many years away , although we now have more compute power than ever to do the calculations to put theory into practice.


To be fair, as a power source, Nuclear Fusion is a FAR more difficult proposition than Fission. Fission can done easily in a moderately equipped lab. Fusion can not.

This is why the promise is there, but has taken a long time to deliver. The reality is, we've been limited by the technology not existing to implement the Fusion process. The technology has been developing and is just about there. The basics are done, now we need to work out the details and refine the technology to build a sustainable reactor.



Nordic said:


> No, I don't want to write a literal essay in response to explain why I think this.


There is no need for you to do so. The evidence and merit is easily to find for those wanting to know whom have an objective perspective on the subject.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 11, 2022)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> What was input energy though?
> 
> NIF fairly recently achieved positive net balance (output > input). Does it hold true here too?


I tried to find what you are refering to with regard to the NIF experiment. Have you got a link?

This is a critical review of a NIF experiment on august 8 2021. I guess it is the same sort of experiment.

Why Achieving “Fusion Ignition” Is Not Relevant to Practical Laser Fusion Progress



On ITER:

ITER Organization Concedes Reactor Is Not Designed for Net Power Production


And a long video about misleading the public with power output vs input figures:

ITER, The Grand Illusion: A Forensic Investigation of Power Claims — $65 Billion for a Zero-Watt Reactor


Nice videoclip with JET fusion reactor in action

U.K. JET Fusion Reactor Produces More Five-Second Reactions After 25 Years

Operating the JET fusion reactor needs 700 MW of input power:

Uncovering the 700 MW Input Power Needed for the Joint European Torus Reactor


----------



## DoH! (Feb 11, 2022)

Electricty companies will try and block this resource at any cost.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 13, 2022)

The amount of energy was not exactly break-even

'enough to boil 60 kettles of water'


----------



## Steevo (Feb 13, 2022)

So can I use it to power my home? No? Then it’s still in testing

Fusion generates radiation just like Fission, not as long lived as our current design use reactors, but the same nonetheless.

Fission is achievable today and has the lowest foot print of any existing tech. Cooling towers can be reused from coal plants or natural gas.

Fusion will be achieved when we are ready to invest the trillions of dollars into it, for 20 years. For now we are retarded not to move towards fission breeder reactors, with desalination plants as the third loop cooling along the coast. Reuse previously mined spent fuel with on site refining since we have to secure it against the crazy’s who think it’s dangerous anyway.


----------



## Nike_486DX (Feb 14, 2022)

I thought about furmark for a sec lol


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 14, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Fusion generates radiation just like Fission, not as long lived as our current design use reactors, but the same nonetheless.


No it's not the same. Fusion generates different forms of radiation than that of fussion and in different amounts.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 16, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> No it's not the same. Fusion generates different forms of radiation than that of fussion and in different amounts.


 
“Furthermore, fusion does not produce highly radioactive, long lived nuclear waste. “Fusion produces only low level radioactive waste — more than fission does — but this low level waste does not pose any serious danger,” said González de Vicente. Contaminated items, such as protective clothing, cleaning supplies and even medical tubes or swabs, are short lived, low level radioactive waste that can be safely handled with basic precautions.”

Breeder fission reactors reuse radioactive waste and their spent waste can be reprocessed and reused to the point that almost 100% of the radioactive material gets spent, compared to the 1% in current reactor designs. Uranium in sea water is enough to get a plant operating.

Fission is the answer to what we have now, then fusion when they figure it out.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 16, 2022)

Didnt anyone see the movie Chain Reaction? They solved all the problems with fusion, but the government had other plans, like bury it all.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 16, 2022)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Didnt anyone see the movie Chain Reaction? They solved all the problems with fusion, but the government had other plans, like bury it all.


That was a movie about "Cold Fusion". Total science fiction.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 16, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That was a movie about "Cold Fusion". Total science fiction.


Still a good flick that readied a lot of people for the idea that the government is a puppet of big business.

Also considering helium becomes a superfluid at extreme cold without any appreciable increase in density or any way to overcome the strong or weak nuclear forces it’s a movie plot for sure.

Harnessing gravity should be the next human achievement, and depending on which person on Joe Rogan you believe we (the government) has or aliens have and are watching us, or maybe the Chinese or Russians.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 17, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Harnessing gravity should be the next human achievement




If the Sun were chemically powered, it would last thousands of years
If the Sun were gravitationally powered, it would last millions of years
If the Sun were nuclear powered, it would last billions of years.
Now a black hole is more efficient than nuclear, but I doubt we will harness them.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If the Sun were gravitationally powered, it would last millions of years


Wait, what?


Andy Shiekh said:


> Now a black hole is more efficient than nuclear


In what way?


----------



## Shrek (Feb 17, 2022)

Nuclear power converts a few percent of the mass to energy, a black hole can convert significantly more.

Before people knew about nuclear power, they calculated the life of the Sun

if chemically powered
if gravitationally powered (by collapse)
I think it may have been Lord Kelvin who calculated the millions of years and so realized there needed to be a longer lasting source.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 17, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That was a movie about "Cold Fusion". Total science fiction.


Maybe I missed it, but I only saw the generalization of fusion, no hot, cold or otherwise. Feel free to correct me and tell me what the difference is between whats being discussed and "cold fusion".


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Feb 17, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Nuclear power converts a few percent of the mass to energy, a black hole can convert significantly more.
> 
> Before people knew about nuclear power, they calculated the life of the Sun
> 
> ...


You mean this?






						Energy from a Black Hole | Science Mission Directorate
					

There are plenty of Black Holesthat gobble energy. Now astronomers have spotted one in a distant galaxy that's giving some of its energy back.




					science.nasa.gov
				




Or this?






						How we could harness the energy of a black hole | BBC Science Focus Magazine
					

Though the engineering is beyond us now, the Penrose process could theoretically allow us to extract energy from black holes.



					www.sciencefocus.com
				







> I tried to find what you are refering to with regard to the NIF experiment. Have you got a link?





			Cookie Absent


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 17, 2022)

Steevo said:


> Fusion generates radiation just like Fission, not as long lived as our current design use reactors, but the same nonetheless.


I mean that's literally not the same.

Sand has a relatively pretty high level of radiation but I don't fear going to the beach.  So do bananas and yet I eat them.  What matters is half lifes and quantities.



Steevo said:


> “Furthermore, fusion does not produce highly radioactive, long lived nuclear waste. “Fusion produces only low level radioactive waste — more than fission does — but this low level waste does not pose any serious danger,” said González de Vicente. Contaminated items, such as protective clothing, cleaning supplies and even medical tubes or swabs, are short lived, low level radioactive waste that can be safely handled with basic precautions.”


They are likely talking about tritium.  That stuff is hardly dangerous like fissile byproducts.  You can basically treat it in a wastewater plant.   I mean technically if you drank it raw I guess you could get radiation poisoning, but I find that unlikely.  It's hardly the same.  Heck, even if it was similar, Tritiums half life is like 12 years.  I could intentionally poison a well with the stuff (though it would take a LOT of it) and you could drink from it again in less than a century.  You're lucky to hit the first half life in a century on many fissile byproducts.



Steevo said:


> and depending on which person on Joe Rogan you believe


Ah.  I see where you went wrong now.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 17, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If the Sun were chemically powered, it would last thousands of years
> If the Sun were gravitationally powered, it would last millions of years
> If the Sun were nuclear powered, it would last billions of years.
> Now a black hole is more efficient than nuclear, but I doubt we will harness them.



All stars are formed under gravitational pressure which exerts the force required to fuse atoms. A star is only nuclear because of the associated stellar mass (and associated gravitational force). As the life cycle progresses and the material is converted (ultimately to Iron), the explosive energy of fusion can no longer push out against the gravitational collapse. Star dies, either catastrophically, or by shedding it's shell and becoming a brown dwarf.

But the nuclear reaction of a star is _powered_ by gravity--without gravity, there can be no 'natural' fusion. Human fusion cannot replicate the gravity, therefore it has to simulate pressure in other ways (heat/directed energy).


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> They are likely talking about tritium.  That stuff is hardly dangerous like fissile byproducts.  You can basically treat it in a wastewater plant.   I mean technically if you drank it raw I guess you could get radiation poisoning, but I find that unlikely.  It's hardly the same.  Heck, even if it was similar, Tritiums half life is like 12 years.  I could intentionally poison a well with the stuff (though it would take a LOT of it) and you could drink from it again in less than a century.  You're lucky to hit the first half life in a century on many fissile byproducts.



Tritium, a misunderstood nuclide:

The hazards of tritium – revisited


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 17, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Tritium, a misunderstood nuclide:
> 
> The hazards of tritium – revisited


You aren't seriously comparing it to fissile byproducts I hope?


----------



## r9 (Feb 17, 2022)

AugeK said:


> Old game, they test such for more than 25 years.
> Keep on claiming to get closer every now and then.


Yeah they will be closing by half distance till eternity.
The hard truth is that nothing meaningful with practical application been invented in the last 50 years we are just tweaking the shit out of existing tech.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 17, 2022)

Quantum computing is new


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 17, 2022)

r9 said:


> The hard truth is that nothing meaningful with practical application been invented in the last 50 years we are just tweaking the shit out of existing tech.


Are we living in the same timeframe?  Because I cannot agree with that at all.


----------



## r9 (Feb 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Are we living in the same timeframe?  Because I cannot agree with that at all.


Gender fluidity and Covid doesn't count.



Andy Shiekh said:


> Quantum computing is new


I said practical. Quantum computers are useless toys for the well funded scientists.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 17, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> You aren't seriously comparing it to fissile byproducts I hope?


Nope, I am not comparing, but tritium is far from being the percieved harmless product  .

it comes in the form of water, and if it is ingested it basicly can go anywhere and do damage.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2022)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Maybe I missed it, but I only saw the generalization of fusion, no hot, cold or otherwise.


Did you see a reactor enclosed in a huge temperature shielded pressure vessel? Cold Fusion. Watch it again.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 17, 2022)

r9 said:


> I said practical. Quantum computers are useless toys for the well funded scientists.



Quantum cryptography is already commercial.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Nope, I am not comparing, but tritium is far from being the percieved harmless product  .
> 
> it comes in the form of water, and if it is ingested it basicly can go anywhere and do damage.


Myth. Tritium is harmless unless exposure is in large amounts(greater than 1% by volume). Reactors can not produce such large volumes of tritium and even then chances of exposure are minimal.








						Human Health and the Biological Effects of Tritium in Drinking Water: Prudent Policy Through Science – Addressing the ODWAC New Recommendation
					

Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen and is a by-product of energy production in Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors. The release of this radioisotope into the environment is carefully managed at CANDU facilities in order to minimize radiation ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Steevo (Feb 18, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I mean that's literally not the same.
> 
> Sand has a relatively pretty high level of radiation but I don't fear going to the beach.  So do bananas and yet I eat them.  What matters is half lifes and quantities.
> 
> ...


Dur hur.

the waste after use of breeder reactors is about 92 years of slightly above average background radiation, less than some beaches, less than being aboard the space station (where does that neutron radiation come from again… oh yeah, the giant fusion sphere in the sky) Fusion won’t be possible on applicable scale in 50 years, but fission is, and it can be made idiot proof and almost 100% efficient with no waste. We are in the midst of a energy revolution that is doing almost nothing to change out total carbon emissions, just move them to unregulated countries. Wouldn’t it be better to charge EVs with clean fission power and heat homes with it too before we kill ourselves and planet waiting to harness Fusion?

But Joe Rogan and dur hur……



			https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/top-twenty-faq/does-fusion-give-off-radiation/
		


The same radiation after neutron bombardment as spent fissile products when used completely. Imagine that…


----------



## Shrek (Feb 18, 2022)

Steevo said:


> but fission is, and it can be made idiot proof and almost 100% efficient with no waste.



No waste?


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 18, 2022)

Steevo said:


> 92 years


I rest my case.

I'm not anti-fission by any means but the comparisons you are making are patently false.  Tritiums half life is ~12.5 years for comparison with a similar radioactivity.  Are they both manageable?  Sure I suppose but one is clearly far worse than the other.




Steevo said:


> But Joe Rogan and dur hur……


Hey, I'm providing figures, you're the one who brought Joe into this like he's some kind of source...




Steevo said:


> where does that neutron radiation come from again… oh yeah, the giant fusion sphere in the sky


And it's not exactly insignificant either.  We'd all be dead of cancer at quite an early age were it not for the protective shield of our planet.  The space station is not somewhere you want to spend a decade in.



Steevo said:


> Wouldn’t it be better to charge EVs with clean fission power and heat homes with it too before we kill ourselves and planet waiting to harness Fusion?


Why not both?  You seem to think these ideas are incompatible.  They are not.



Steevo said:


> The same radiation after neutron bombardment as spent fissile products when used completely.  Imagine that…


Your source doesn't actually say this, btw.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 18, 2022)

“The neutron bombardment also affects the vessel itself, and so once the plant is decommissioned the site will be radioactive. However the radioactive products are short lived (50-100 years).”

same time frame as the minuscule amount of fission waste.

Joe isn’t a source, some of his guests are that have spoken about everything from UFOs to Area 51 and government tech.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Did you see a reactor enclosed in a huge temperature shielded pressure vessel? Cold Fusion. Watch it again.


sorry was referring to the thread not the movie there. Yea that much I knew about the movie.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 18, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Myth. Tritium is harmless unless exposure is in large amounts(greater than 1% by volume). Reactors can not produce such large volumes of tritium and even then chances of exposure are minimal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nuclear fission powerplants may not produce large quantities of tritium.
Nuclear fuel processing plants on the other hand do discharge large amounts in the air and in the sea , which may be a bigger health risk than what the nuclear industry wants us to believe.

Now nuclear fusion plants , that is a whole other story , being that tritium is half of the fuel in the reactor.
So theoretically , in a future large reactor there is going to be a large amount of tritium , that could pose a severe threat if there is a mishap.
The irony is that in order to sustain a fusion cycle , there needs to be a fission of Lithium to extract tritium fuel , because there is so little tritium available right now.

This is al becoming so complicated that one can no longer compare it to the "simple" proces happening on the sun.
Nuclear hydrogen fusion on the sun doesn't create neutrons for example. It creates neutrino , positron and gamma rays.
The net reaction on the sun is : 4 normal hydrogen atoms gives 1 normal helium atom.

More on the tritium subject , I found this very interesting reading material , like for instance ( p22 , 5.4 Tritium Handling and Leakage ) and (p28 , 5.8 Sources of Tritium ).

Tritium


----------



## bug (Feb 18, 2022)

Accelerating fusion science through learned plasma control
					

Successfully controlling the nuclear fusion plasma in a tokamak with deep reinforcement learning




					deepmind.com


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 18, 2022)

How many fusion reactors does the world need , and where to get al the fuel needed?
Lithium, Lithium, Everywhere, and None to Use for Fusion Reactors


from World Nuclear Association:
Lithium


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 18, 2022)

Steevo said:


> same time frame as the minuscule amount of fission waste.


I know, we both read the article, right?  That's exclusively for the reactor vessel.  I an guarantee you a disposed of fast breeder reactor will be worse in that department.



Steevo said:


> some of his guests are


No, not when on an environment like a talkshow where the host has sole discretion.  You want to be a source?  Do it right.


----------



## bug (Feb 18, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> How many fusion reactors does the world need , and where to get al the fuel needed?
> Lithium, Lithium, Everywhere, and None to Use for Fusion Reactors
> 
> 
> ...


We can probably get by with something like 5-10 reactors for the whole world. That won't happen, because some nations will be reliant on the others for their energy needs and we're not civilized enough.

Fuel is hydrogen which is only the most common element in the Universe.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 18, 2022)

bug said:


> We can probably get by with something like 5-10 reactors for the whole world. That won't happen, because some nations will be reliant on the others for their energy needs and we're not civilized enough.
> 
> Fuel is hydrogen which is only the most common element in the Universe.


Well this is the common misconception.
Fuel for the experimental fusion reactors are special isotopes of hydrogen , deuterium an tritium.
Tritium is not really abundant and also not cheap.


----------



## bug (Feb 18, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Well this is the common misconception.
> Fuel for the experimental fision reactors are special isotopes of hydrogen , deuterium an tritium.
> Tritium is not really abundant and also not cheap.


Correct. But if you manage to sustain the reaction for any significant length of time, you basically have the energy to make more isotopes for free. Even if you would use plain hydrogen (I know, you can't, no neutrons), it's still mostly found in a bound state.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 18, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> Tritium is not really abundant and also not cheap.



One idea is to mine tritium on the moon.


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 18, 2022)

If energy output from a fusion reactor is to be used to breed new tritium fuel , then at what point are you increasing or decreasing global warming?

We have the sun generating weather on earth. The cheapest energy we can harvest from that , is land-based wind.
I would like to see more investments in Savonius windturbine parks.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 18, 2022)

The heat from power generation has no significant effect on global warming; it is the greenhouse gasses that are the issue.


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 18, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> We have the sun generating weather on earth. The cheapest energy we can harvest from that , is land-based wind.
> I would like to see more investments in Savonius windturbine parks.


Sure, but problem with those is... weather.
When you have a cloudy/rainy day, how do you plan to balance out the power loss of solar power plant ?
When you have a snow storm in north US, how do you plan to use your wind turbines ?

Wind/solar is great, but not practical where you simply need A LOT of power to keep the lights on.
Also, power grid needs to be balaced perfectly unless you want to keep getting blackouts all the time from overloading power lines (when some power plants can't guarantee/control power output).


----------



## Shrek (Feb 18, 2022)

agent_x007 said:


> When you have a cloudy/rainy day, how do you plan to balance out the power loss of solar power plant ?



That is where batteries come into play and one keeps some fossil fuel power plants for the really bad days.


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 18, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> That is where batteries come into play and one keeps some fossil fuel power plants for the really bad days


Your plan is to build an AC battery that can store enough power to run a city or two for few hours/days (depending how long bad weather hangs about for) ?
Good luck with that (especially on maintenence cost of such thing).
"AC" being alternating current that power grids actually use to transfer electricity.
Sure you can throw DC and then make DC to AC change, but that's wastefull and not something you should be doing on large scale (on top of that, you need AC at 100s of kVs voltage range for big lines).

Fossil fuel plants "for bad days only", aren't economically viable.
In most cases you use power plants to make a profit, not let them wait on "standby" when bad stuff happends. Also, running electric plants all the time below capacity is also a problem, since that means you don't get profits from selling electricity to customers, BUT must still pay everyone working there, and have $$$ to pay for fuel/maintenance/etc.
OK, you can state/country own them at some point, but that's just more money going to waste because it can't be used on anything else.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 19, 2022)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> sorry was referring to the thread not the movie there. Yea that much I knew about the movie.


Ah ok, no worries. Was only pointing it out..



Jacky_BEL said:


> Nuclear fuel processing plants on the other hand do discharge large amounts in the air and in the sea


As detailed in the page I linked above, the amounts released to the environment are in no way a hazard to life in general, let alone us humans.


----------



## Glass Handed Kites (Feb 19, 2022)

https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/top-twenty-faq/does-fusion-give-off-radiation/
		


Since that link says

"The radioactivity in a fusion powerplant will be confined to the powerplant itself."

It seems to me  a rather important little detail that wasn't brought up by the person who left it here,  with a much different inference  than what should have been the takeaway. Generally, whenever I've  read what these researchers say about Fusion power and the radioactivity byproducts, it has always been a case of very little  to worry about., Not non existent, but peanuts.
_____________________________________________

There are currently at least 36, THIRTY SIX,  individual Fusion research projects, and most of them are using a unique approach to some small or in many cases, a large extent.


Both M.I.T. and General Fusion expect to reach positive energy production in less than 8 years.

there have been many breakthroughs in Fusion research in the past 5 years, and the last 2 years in particular have been seeing breakthroughs at a breakneck pace compared to previous years.

The one thing that every particularly impressive technology has in common, before its ready for prime time, is that the nay sayers love to pipe in and say it will be "100 years away", or "it's a delusional pipe dream".. right up until that tech becomes ready for commercialization. then, those same nay sayers are either suddenly nowhere to be seen or heard, or they pretend like they were never overly cynical in the first place.

"Oh, that tech"? "Yeah of course it's works and/or is good. that was always going to be the case, everyone knows that".

1 week  before the Wright brothers flew their first air plane for a minute or so, some prominent public figure announced it would take "a million years" before man kind ever created machoiines of  flight. OOPS.

I am excited to see what these 36  separate Fusion research projects discover in the next 5 - 8  years, and obviously MIT and General Fusion in particular.


----------



## Shrek (Feb 19, 2022)

agent_x007 said:


> "AC" being alternating current that power grids actually use to transfer electricity.
> Sure you can throw DC and then make DC to AC change, but that's wastefull and not something you should be doing on large scale (on top of that, you need AC at 100s of kVs voltage range for big lines).



Already done

AC vs. DC Powerlines and the Electrical Grid | Energy Central


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> As detailed in the page I linked above, the amount released to the environment are in no way a hazard to life in general, let alone us humans.


I read the page , but it still left me with mixed feelings.
My take on the page is that it is about a drinking water company opposing stricter norms for tritium in drinking water.
I see a conflict of interest, economics vs public health.
I am in favour of these strict norms for contaminants in drinking water until there is full understanding on the matter.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 19, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> I read the page , but it still left me with mixed feelings.
> My take on the page is that it is about a drinking water company opposing stricter norms for tritium in drinking water.
> I see a conflict of interest, economics vs public health.
> I am in favour of these strict norms for contaminants in drinking water until there is full understanding on the matter.


Except that it's an article on a government website(thus the .GOV addressing) written by researchers at a university stating information for public use and reference. Not sure what you're talking about with some water company and you clearly didn't read the article I cited...

Again, for reference;








						Human Health and the Biological Effects of Tritium in Drinking Water: Prudent Policy Through Science – Addressing the ODWAC New Recommendation
					

Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen and is a by-product of energy production in Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors. The release of this radioisotope into the environment is carefully managed at CANDU facilities in order to minimize radiation ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Jacky_BEL (Feb 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Except that it's an article on a government website(thus the .GOV addressing) written by researchers at a university stating information for public use and reference. Not sure what you're talking about with some water company and you clearly didn't read the article I cited...
> 
> Again, for reference;
> 
> ...


It is a report on a symposium about regulation on tritium levels in drinking water , not an open debate.

When I read the following in the report:
"It can be noted that there is a bio-protective effect from low doses of ionizing radiation, and risk is only increased when a net increase in risk, above a threshold, outweighs this bio-protective effect."
it gives me a giant WTF moment.
A positive effect from low doses of ionizing radiation?

To me it is clear that there is no consensus on the matter. So it is better to take the safe approach.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 19, 2022)

Context is important...


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 19, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Context is important everything...



FTFY.


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 19, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Already done
> 
> AC vs. DC Powerlines and the Electrical Grid | Energy Central


No, it's not.
Here's quote from that article you linked :


> This could mean we will have a DC grid in 100 years or so, but don’t hold your breath. Meanwhile DC circuit breakers are also a huge problem, especially at high power levels above one megawatt (MW).


Can't be implemented on large scale at the moment because of costs, and lack of high power circuit breakers. Also, doesn't help we still don't have battery capable of powering a city for few hours.


----------



## r9 (Feb 19, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Quantum cryptography is already commercial.


Ah yes a fictional solution to a fictional problem where both the problem and solution are the same non existent thing.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 19, 2022)

And that'll be enough of the trolling. Let's get back on topic folks, lest the mods put a nix on the conversation.



the54thvoid said:


> FTFY.


Indeed.


----------



## Glass Handed Kites (Feb 21, 2022)

Jacky_BEL said:


> It is a report on a symposium about regulation on tritium levels in drinking water , not an open debate.
> 
> When I read the following in the report:
> "It can be noted that there is a bio-protective effect from low doses of ionizing radiation, and risk is only increased when a net increase in risk, above a threshold, outweighs this bio-protective effect."
> ...


A positive effect from on-the-surface-dangerous materials, is not unprecedented. The immune system has some mechanisms, that play off a little bit on this principle.

And as for "consensus", there is no consensus on the Earth being round (well, there probably is among scientists, if they value not being the most mocked scientist of modern times), despite how obvious it is that the Earth is round. I guess what I am saying is that the evidence itself is the most important, and the SIGMA level of certainty applied to it.

Though, I am surprised that we hardly seem to see that SIGMA level rating applied to many more scientific articles. I am just bringing that SIGMA thing up  as a point of interest, because of the general discussion about evidence it self. I don't know much more about it  beyond what I've mentioned here, but perhaps it is something we should be using more often when discussing all manner of scientific evidence.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 21, 2022)

^^ Apologies.

I had marked this post as LQ due to some reading comprehension. It's a little bit difficult to interpret but I got there.


----------



## bug (Feb 21, 2022)

Glass Handed Kites said:


> A positive effect from on-the-surface-dangerous materials, is not unprecedented. The immune system has some mechanisms, that play off a little bit on this principle.
> 
> And as for "consensus", there is no consensus on the Earth being round (well, there probably is among scientists, if they value not being the most mocked scientist of modern times), despite how obvious it is that the Earth is round. I guess what I am saying is that the evidence itself is the most important, and the SIGMA level of certainty applied to it.
> 
> Though, I am surprised that we hardly seem to see that SIGMA level rating applied to many more scientific articles. I am just bringing that SIGMA thing up  as a point of interest, because of the general discussion about evidence it self. I don't know much more about it  beyond what I've mentioned here, but perhaps it is something we should be using more often when discussing all manner of scientific evidence.


If you're referring to 3 or 5-sigma, that's standard in any research worth anything. It's also the source of pretty much all disinformation, because when someone publishes something with a 5-sigma confidence (less than 1:1,000,000 chance of being wrong), a denier will go: "scientist are not 100% sure, here's what's really going on".


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 23, 2022)

Everyone interested in the topic of this thread should give the following a watch.


----------

