Big step in nuclear fusion research 5

[JoshPlumSE]

I want to say that someone commented on this in another thread. But, I can't find it right now, so I thought I'd post it here in a new thread.

Essentially, this latest experiment generated more power than the power that went into creating it. That's a pretty big step. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe fusion is generally believed to be "cleaner" than current fission reactors. At least in terms of what sort of waste is created from the reaction.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14710

 

Meaning we can control the consequences if we are just careful?
Tell it to Elon and Jeff and Xi and Vladimir and The Donald.

Refer to the OpEx I mentioned previously.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

ok, what would you rather we do ? like I said ... stop the experiment ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

I'm not an idealist about these matters. Realistically speaking, you can't stop any experiment that has such a massive commercial imperative behind it. And our glorious leaders (all of them) remain in thrall to Progress, so they play the cheerleader role.

What I would rather do is call a halt to our war on nature, which is ultimately a war on ourselves, because we haven't stopped being organisms. As Covid has so brutally reminded us.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

What I would rather do is call a halt to our war on nature, which is ultimately a war on ourselves, because we haven't stopped being organisms. As Covid has so brutally reminded us.

Yup, from this standpoint, the situation is truly hopeless. Unless, you can convince the rest of the people in the world to go back to subsistence living like cavemen or such.

Now, I don't agree with the basic premise. But, I certainly understand how all things are hopeless if you start with that premise. I suppose the only thing to do is join Antifa or some other radical group and try to burn down the current world order and try to force your world view onto as many people as possible (after forcibly sterilizing them so that they cannot reproduce).

 

Agree or disagree, but painting me out as a back-to-caves extremist is a pathetic (but familiar) tactic.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Agree or disagree, but painting me out as a back-to-caves extremist is a pathetic (but familiar) tactic.

I see that as the natural conclusion of your point of view. Progress is the problem. Right? Hence the only solution is end of progress. The large human population is the program. Ergo, the natural solution is a force reduction to the human population.

I don't mean that as any kind of an attack, just as a natural conclusion based on your point of view. If you come to another conclusion, then you must have a more moderate point of view than I perceive.... Or, your point of view is more nuanced (and less extreme) than you have described in this thread.

That being said, I have detected a real "defeatist" point of view in your previous posts on other threads. To the point where I wondered why you even followed this climate change forum since it seemed like you were convinced that there was no solution to the problem and that the world (as we know it) was doomed.

As such, I feel like your comments on this thread have really led me to better understand why you think this way. So, thank you for that. Though I will re-iterate that your comment don't particular contribute to the discussion of Nuclear Fusion and it's potential to help resolve climate change (in the long term).

In your opinion, if I understand it, climate change isn't the problem. It's progress in general. Human progress. Technological advancement and such.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Not much time for me to engage now, but I'll give you a small clue: you'll notice I capitalized 'progress'.

Off you go.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[LionelHutz]

It's interesting to see gains, but they're still such a long way off. I guess they beat ITER to the net positive energy reaction goal since ITER has been claiming it'd be the first.

I do find it unfortunate the way the power numbers are reported. The scientists use Q being the energy applied to the reaction vs the energy out of the reaction, which is quite a bit off from say the energy taken from the grid vs the energy returned to the grid. I understand why, from the scientific viewpoint they are looking at the reaction only, not the system surrounding it. Unfortunately, this is causing some of the claims to be misrepresented.

 

[rb1957]

yes, whilst it is an achievement of sorts, in that it's more than we've been able to do in the past, what they're saying is grossly overstating their achievement. we're still decades (IMHO) from having a plant produce net energy, to produce more energy than it consumes. Sure ITER claimed it'd be first, as at the time no-one else had plans to do so, but time passes and now ITER will be 2nd (or 3rd or ...) since ITER is still years from turning on the switch.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I understand why, from the scientific viewpoint they are looking at the reaction only, not the system surrounding it. Unfortunately, this is causing some of the claims to be misrepresented.

This is the problem with all reporting on science. I don't think this was badly misrepresented. It was just hyped as a major advancement, which it certainly was. I think of it as the first step to demonstrate that this is likely to be commercially feasible someday. But, we'd need about 10 more steps like this before it could actually happen. I'd put it at a minimum of twenty years before we get the first operating test plants on converting this to power for the grid. Probably more like 35 years before we have a true commercial plant.

 

(pondering why this was posted in the Climate Change Engineering Solutions Forum)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

because nuclear is a good source of CO2-free energy (as opposed to FF), and fusion is a "superior" form of nuke.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

again.

also, pondering what CO2 energy is

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

(pondering why this was posted in the Climate Change Engineering Solutions Forum)

Is this more trolling? Any form of power or energy that does not rely on releasing CO2 in the atmosphere would seem relevant to a forum which talks about reducing / solving climate change. That should be self evident.

I think rb1957 must have meant "CO2 free energy" or "energy without CO2 emissions). Though I suspect you realized that as well, and just wanted to troll him about the typo.

If true, that's fine, we've rubbed you the wrong way at times, so feel free to gleefully point out any minor mistakes we make. We can take it.... But, just realize it doing so tends to make you look smaller and more insecure. Much more so than for the person you're trying to make fun of.

 

Thank you for the psychological profile, I'm sure I need it.

The nuke solution is not self-evident, but then perhaps you are able to hold more certainties than I am. Do you suppose I just go around talking out of my a$$?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

"Do you suppose I just go around talking out of my a$$?" ... always an option.

you still haven't said what you think we should be doing beyond "ending our war on Nature".
what would we do ?

end burning FFs
end city building ?
end super fertilizers ?
end fracking ?
end extracting minerals ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The nuke solution is not self-evident

Really?! LOL.

My reason for thinking it's self evident:
1) Widespread belief that global temperatures are increasing. Do you disagree with this statement?
2) Widespread belief that man made activities are the primary cause of this increase. Disagree?
3) Widely help scientific theory that the release of CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary cause of the man made portion of this increase. Disagree?
4) The fact that rapid increase in CO2 emissions over the last 200 years is associated with burning of fossil fuels for energy. Disagree?
5) The problem that dramatic reduction in fossil fuels would cripple our economy which is based on the cheap and reliable energy / power currently provided by fossil fuels. I would even refer to this as a global economic "addiction" to fossil fuels. Disagree?
6) The fact that nuclear energy (in particular nuclear fusion) has the promise to be a form of energy that does not result in any C02 emissions. Disagree?


More widespread use of nuclear energy (or any energy that is cheap, reliable and free of CO2 emissions) would seem to be a self-evident way to address climate change. Maybe you don't follow the logic. But, to the rest of us, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as self-evident.

Now, you might be trying to say that the switch to another cheap and abundant source of energy might deal effectively with the global warming, but would result in other environmental issues that would be just as problematic. That stance would have some validity. But, it wouldn't really relate to this particular forum which is about the problem global warming / climate change and possible solutions to this issue.

 

[cowski]

I don't have a lot of faith in fusion power. It still needs fuel, the DOE states that deuterium and tritium works best. The deuterium is most often found in "heavy water" that is separated out from normal water. Separating out heavy water is, in itself, an energy intensive process. The tritium can be created with the help of lithium. So, even if we find a better way to get deuterium, we'll still be mining lithium and essentially using water as a fuel. Maybe rising sea levels is a silver lining here? </s>

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Good point Cowski. When they measure the "energy input" vs "energy output" concept, they don't take into account all the energy used in setting up the experiment and materials. I doubt they even count all the energy they put into the experiment. Probably only measuring the amount that was directly used to ignite the fusion reaction.

Hence, the reason why others have said it's overhyped. While I agree with that basic premise, I'll say that these recent advancement give me hope that we may be only a few decades away from making this a reality. That's not guaranteed, but it is an impressive enough advancement that it warrants further investment. At least is we want to break our addiction to fossil fuels.

 

Why do I feel like a witness being cross examined by a TV defense lawyer more interested in spotting character flaws or of having inappropriate political affiliations, which will serve to undermine my credibility?

FYI I didn't invent any of the ideas or opinions I've presented here for consideration. And hard as it may be to believe, I have no political affiliation.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."