Fusion energy will be developed in running in 15 years

[BrainNebula]

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

Yep, the problem with nuclear power stations is that the hype on fission plants was: The power will be too cheap to meter. That hasn't turned out to be the case, of course, there are lots of expensive items - insurance, liability, radioactive waste disposal & containment for centuries (the most dangerous materials), & so on.

Fusion looks better on paper - but there's that pesky delivery schedule & all its predecessors - which unfortunately, have failed to shine - as it were.

So I'll wait for an actual fusion reactor to produce more energy than it consumes, thanks just the same.

Quite frankly, we need a good fusion reactor to generate lots of clean power. We need to kick the legs out from under OPEC, the CIS, & a slew of bad actors on the World stage. Let them go back to exporting (or pounding) sand … & we (the World) may need all that POL for food, or feedstocks for other chem.

Well, Qatar just left OPEC so that put a dent into OPEC's power. Why are you so focused on the reactor over the magnet, though?

 

[southwest88]

An attractive offer

Well, Qatar just left OPEC so that put a dent into OPEC's power. Why are you so focused on the reactor over the magnet, though?

Apparently it's a containment (of the plasma) issue. We need to achieve very high temperature containment for long enough to generate power from the flow, sufficient to maintain the containment & also bleed off some power for our own use. It may be a materials science problem, or finding/inventing the right set of room-temperature superconductors. I think the US missed a big step in not funding & operating our own equivalent of the CERN supercollider, but Congress seemed to be tired of funding big-ticket, big-science experiments/labs. Or maybe Texas just overplayed its hand.

Pity, really.

 

[longview]

Re: Batteries not included

By the way, since we've also touched on carbon sink ideas...

BIOCHAR

Biochar is charcoal used as a soil amendment. Biochar is a stable solid, rich in carbon, and can endure in soil for thousands of years. Like most charcoal, biochar is made from biomass via pyrolysis. Biochar is under investigation as an approach to carbon sequestration, it has the potential to help mitigate climate change. Independently, biochar can increase soil fertility of acidic soils (low pH soils), increase agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.

Since I do not happen think CO2 is much of an issue, I am not that concerned about carbon sinks.
I think we need more energy for our population than we can get from natural hydrocarbon sources, and so
towards that end, we need to find alternative energy storage methodologies.
A solution that both works and appeases the climate alarmist, appears the best path forward.
Where some people will be unhappy, is if they ever actually pass a carbon tax, the oil companies will make
profits that will make oil profits look like child's play.

 

[BrainNebula]

Re: An attractive offer

Apparently it's a containment (of the plasma) issue. We need to achieve very high temperature containment for long enough to generate power from the flow, sufficient to maintain the containment & also bleed off some power for our own use. It may be a materials science problem, or finding/inventing the right set of room-temperature superconductors. I think the US missed a big step in not funding & operating our own equivalent of the CERN supercollider, but Congress seemed to be tired of funding big-ticket, big-science experiments/labs. Or maybe Texas just overplayed its hand.

Pity, really.

The magnet is what contains the heat of the reactor. That has been the major problem up to this point. The problem with fusion is that the heat produced is like a million degrees so matter can't withstand the heat, which is why they have to use a magnetic field.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Re: Batteries not included

Since I do not happen think CO2 is much of an issue, I am not that concerned about carbon sinks.
I think we need more energy for our population than we can get from natural hydrocarbon sources, and so
towards that end, we need to find alternative energy storage methodologies.
A solution that both works and appeases the climate alarmist, appears the best path forward.
Where some people will be unhappy, is if they ever actually pass a carbon tax, the oil companies will make
profits that will make oil profits look like child's play.

No one cares that you're not concerned with CO2, sorry.
The fact is, mammalian life is designed to function at an optimal level with a certain limitation on carbon dioxide, and modern civilization functions optimally with even more of a limit, and increases in the levels of carbon dioxide yield climate issues which are difficult to deal with from a civilization point of view...difficult and very costly.

What you call "climate alarmism" is actually simple common sense. Our atmosphere isn't much different from a terrarium, it's a closed system, and yet our mentality for the better part of almost two centuries ignores this fact, to our detriment.
And as for carbon taxes, it's all a part of the carbon economy, thus it's a simple matter of creating technologies which plug into the other end of the equation. It is possible to both produce more carbon AND STORE (sequester) more of it instead of just letting it go willy nilly into the atmosphere. It simply makes more sense to sequester more of the stuff than that which is just released into the atmosphere.

**I mentioned biochar earlier because biochar has the additional advantage (on top of being an ideal carbon sink) of making agriculture more robust, which translates into more yield per acre with less energy input, part of which happens to be the woefully inefficient (and nutritionally destructive) method of using natgas based fertilizer, which actually DECREASES nutritional output per acre over time.

Oil companies are energy companies. Just because they have the advantage on petroleum doesn't mean that they automatically have the advantage on all carbon based forms of energy, or even all forms of energy period.
What they do have is cash, lots of it. Why do you act as if this is something we only recently figured out?

 

[southwest88]

Very nebulous, & very very hot

The magnet is what contains the heat of the reactor. That has been the major problem up to this point. The problem with fusion is that the heat produced is like a million degrees so matter can't withstand the heat, which is why they have to use a magnetic field.

Yep, understood. The trick is making hyper-powerful magnets that can function in the extreme conditions of containing the plasma @ sufficient temp & pressure for long enough to generate power over & above the inputs. The materials science problem(s) I referred to are designing/implementing/building extremely powerful magnets (or otherwise generating the necessary magnetic fields) that allow for fine control of the plasma. It's not clear that anything physical we can currently design/build would contain the plasma @ the necessary temperatures & pressures - & so we're betting we can get the magnetic fields up to strength long enough to contain the plasma @ working temperatures - long enough to bleed off some power for ourselves.

Yah, if there's any matter in our sun, it's @ the core - temperatures & pressures that we can't equal just yet, TMK.

 

[Surface Detail]

Re: Very nebulous, & very very hot

Yep, understood. The trick is making hyper-powerful magnets that can function in the extreme conditions of containing the plasma @ sufficient temp & pressure for long enough to generate power over & above the inputs. The materials science problem(s) I referred to are designing/implementing/building extremely powerful magnets (or otherwise generating the necessary magnetic fields) that allow for fine control of the plasma. It's not clear that anything physical we can currently design/build would contain the plasma @ the necessary temperatures & pressures - & so we're betting we can get the magnetic fields up to strength long enough to contain the plasma @ working temperatures - long enough to bleed off some power for ourselves.

Yah, if there's any matter in our sun, it's @ the core - temperatures & pressures that we can't equal just yet, TMK.

The main problem is not so much the power of the magnets - though that is itself quite a challenge - but more in handling plasma instabilities. Basically, confining plasma is like trying to compress jelly. When you squeeze one bit, another bit pops out. Different approaches have been taken to overcome the various instabilities, but they remain a major problem.

By the way, the main focus of current plasma confinement research is probably ITER, which will be the largest tokamak in existence by far when its construction at Cadarache in France is completed, hopefully by 2025. But it will still be an experimental reactor, not capable of actually generating electricity.

 

[BrainNebula]

Re: Very nebulous, & very very hot

Yep, understood. The trick is making hyper-powerful magnets that can function in the extreme conditions of containing the plasma @ sufficient temp & pressure for long enough to generate power over & above the inputs. The materials science problem(s) I referred to are designing/implementing/building extremely powerful magnets (or otherwise generating the necessary magnetic fields) that allow for fine control of the plasma. It's not clear that anything physical we can currently design/build would contain the plasma @ the necessary temperatures & pressures - & so we're betting we can get the magnetic fields up to strength long enough to contain the plasma @ working temperatures - long enough to bleed off some power for ourselves.

Yah, if there's any matter in our sun, it's @ the core - temperatures & pressures that we can't equal just yet, TMK.

Well, I can tell you didn't read the article. The entire point of my post is that we now have the necessary magnets. There was a recent breakthrough.

 

[southwest88]

Bang the drum slowly

Well, I can tell you didn't read the article. The entire point of my post is that we now have the necessary magnets. There was a recent breakthrough.

The Seeker writeup? Yah, I read it - it seems charmingly short of specifics, down to the CAD rendering of a theoretical pilot fusion power reactor. I've followed these stories (fusion reactors soon!) for years - decades - now, really. Enough, @ any rate, to be leery of cold-fusion claims, fusion power in only 50 years more, etc. So I restrain my enthusiasm & wait to see a working prototype, @ least - a proof-of-concept working reactor would be excellent, & I'll be the first to celebrate when we get there.

 

[BrainNebula]

Re: Bang the drum slowly

The Seeker writeup? Yah, I read it - it seems charmingly short of specifics, down to the CAD rendering of a theoretical pilot fusion power reactor. I've followed these stories (fusion reactors soon!) for years - decades - now, really. Enough, @ any rate, to be leery of cold-fusion claims, fusion power in only 50 years more, etc. So I restrain my enthusiasm & wait to see a working prototype, @ least - a proof-of-concept working reactor would be excellent, & I'll be the first to celebrate when we get there.

You're still focusing on the reactor instead of the magnets. And did you read the articles this article linked to? That gives more description. Look, we get it. You have read about nuclear fusion just like anybody else, and fusion has taken a long time. You aren't the only one. That doesn't mean we aren't significantly closer now than ever before. The past does not predict the future.

 

[Surface Detail]

Re: Bang the drum slowly

You're still focusing on the reactor instead of the magnets. And did you read the articles this article linked to? That gives more description. Look, we get it. You have read about nuclear fusion just like anybody else, and fusion has taken a long time. You aren't the only one. That doesn't mean we aren't significantly closer now than ever before. The past does not predict the future.

Work on fusion devices is indeed progressing, but very slowly. And any advancements that are made are far more likely to come from actual experiments under construction, such as ITER (which is itself well behind schedule), rather than from the sort of vapourware discussed in this article.

 

[DDD]

After all the humans are dead LOL

Well, at least the Earth will be here! LOL.

 

[longview]

Re: Batteries not included

No one cares that you're not concerned with CO2, sorry.
The fact is, mammalian life is designed to function at an optimal level with a certain limitation on carbon dioxide, and modern civilization functions optimally with even more of a limit, and increases in the levels of carbon dioxide yield climate issues which are difficult to deal with from a civilization point of view...difficult and very costly.

What you call "climate alarmism" is actually simple common sense. Our atmosphere isn't much different from a terrarium, it's a closed system, and yet our mentality for the better part of almost two centuries ignores this fact, to our detriment.
And as for carbon taxes, it's all a part of the carbon economy, thus it's a simple matter of creating technologies which plug into the other end of the equation. It is possible to both produce more carbon AND STORE (sequester) more of it instead of just letting it go willy nilly into the atmosphere. It simply makes more sense to sequester more of the stuff than that which is just released into the atmosphere.

**I mentioned biochar earlier because biochar has the additional advantage (on top of being an ideal carbon sink) of making agriculture more robust, which translates into more yield per acre with less energy input, part of which happens to be the woefully inefficient (and nutritionally destructive) method of using natgas based fertilizer, which actually DECREASES nutritional output per acre over time.

Oil companies are energy companies. Just because they have the advantage on petroleum doesn't mean that they automatically have the advantage on all carbon based forms of energy, or even all forms of energy period.
What they do have is cash, lots of it. Why do you act as if this is something we only recently figured out?

You must be under the misconception that there is sufficient hydrocarbon sources available to alter our planet beyond supporting life,
or that there will be no technology advancements.
Please consider how difficult it has been to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm?
We are still 152 ppm away from the first doubling of CO2 levels.
I frankly think that we will never get to that first doubling, not because of regulation, but because
using natural hydrocarbons as fuel will price itself out of the market long before that happens.
If you took only a second, you would see that what I am talking about will stop CO2 growth in it's tracks.
Once there are no new emissions, the natural processes are very efficient at carbon sequestering. (Where do you think all those hydrocarbons came from?)

 

[BrainNebula]

Re: Bang the drum slowly

Work on fusion devices is indeed progressing, but very slowly. And any advancements that are made are far more likely to come from actual experiments under construction, such as ITER (which is itself well behind schedule), rather than from the sort of vapourware discussed in this article.

You're talking about advancements as if to be talking about the future, but I'm talking about an advancement that just happened. Also, you don't know where advancements in the future will come from.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Batteries not included

Please consider how difficult it has been to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm?

Unfortunately, it's getting easier all the time. The rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is increasing.

Mauna Loa numbers:
2005 - 2014: 2.11 ppm per year
1995 - 2004: 1.87 ppm per year
1985 - 1994: 1.42 ppm per year
1975 - 1984: 1.44 ppm per year
1965 - 1974: 1.06 ppm per year

If this trend continues, we will add another 152ppm by approximately 2060.

Once there are no new emissions, the natural processes are very efficient at carbon sequestering. (Where do you think all those hydrocarbons came from?)

Which natural processes are you referring to? When did you quantify the rate at which CO2 gets sequestered? How long do you think it will take to remove, say, 200ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere?

If you mean trees, then how did you fail to notice that we are wiping out forests at an alarming rate?

If you mean permafrost, then you really ought to get your facts straight, because that is changing from a carbon sink to a carbon producer.

As to those hydrocarbons we keep pumping out of the ground? Last I heard, it's based on decay of millions of years of organic life. As in, that's not a quick process.

 

[iguanaman]

Fusion energy development has been ramped up considerably, and projections are now that fusion will be up-and-running in 15 years. Fusion will completely solve global warming issues, because it will create an infinite amount of completely clean energy.

Source

Well at least they aren't looking for "cold fusion" anymore but the problems of a reaction that can only occur at million degree temperatures are far from solved. Twenty years would be an optimistic goal. We already have our own fusion reactor and it is called the sun. How about we use that in the meantime?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Batteries not included

Unfortunately, it's getting easier all the time. The rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is increasing.

Mauna Loa numbers:
2005 - 2014: 2.11 ppm per year
1995 - 2004: 1.87 ppm per year
1985 - 1994: 1.42 ppm per year
1975 - 1984: 1.44 ppm per year
1965 - 1974: 1.06 ppm per year

If this trend continues, we will add another 152ppm by approximately 2060.



Which natural processes are you referring to? When did you quantify the rate at which CO2 gets sequestered? How long do you think it will take to remove, say, 200ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere?

If you mean trees, then how did you fail to notice that we are wiping out forests at an alarming rate?

If you mean permafrost, then you really ought to get your facts straight, because that is changing from a carbon sink to a carbon producer.

As to those hydrocarbons we keep pumping out of the ground? Last I heard, it's based on decay of millions of years of organic life. As in, that's not a quick process.

Yes it will take 100's of 1000's of years at least for plants to sequester what we have already released. We are stuck with it for longer than humans have even existed so far. It is our Pandora's Box.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Bang the drum slowly

You're talking about advancements as if to be talking about the future, but I'm talking about an advancement that just happened. Also, you don't know where advancements in the future will come from.

Unfortunately, some of us have seen these kinds of announcements for years and years and years.

It's important to fund fusion, but expecting to have a working reactor in 15 years is likely unrealistic.

 

[longview]

Re: Batteries not included

Unfortunately, it's getting easier all the time. The rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is increasing.

Mauna Loa numbers:
2005 - 2014: 2.11 ppm per year
1995 - 2004: 1.87 ppm per year
1985 - 1994: 1.42 ppm per year
1975 - 1984: 1.44 ppm per year
1965 - 1974: 1.06 ppm per year

If this trend continues, we will add another 152ppm by approximately 2060.



Which natural processes are you referring to? When did you quantify the rate at which CO2 gets sequestered? How long do you think it will take to remove, say, 200ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere?

If you mean trees, then how did you fail to notice that we are wiping out forests at an alarming rate?

If you mean permafrost, then you really ought to get your facts straight, because that is changing from a carbon sink to a carbon producer.

As to those hydrocarbons we keep pumping out of the ground? Last I heard, it's based on decay of millions of years of organic life. As in, that's not a quick process.

Words have meaning! "Once there are no new emissions," qualifies no new emissions, beyond that it does not matter how long it will take for CO2
levels to fall, or even if we should let them.
What is the perfect CO2 level? Plants like levels higher than they are.
What we know is that Earth is greening up, which is using CO2.
As I said before, consider how difficult it would be to sustain oil production at the level necessary to produce 152 ppm in the next 50 years?
I think market forces will force the price of oil up to the point where it is no longer economically viable to
not make our own fuel.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Batteries not included

Unfortunately, it's getting easier all the time. The rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is increasing.

Mauna Loa numbers:
2005 - 2014: 2.11 ppm per year
1995 - 2004: 1.87 ppm per year
1985 - 1994: 1.42 ppm per year
1975 - 1984: 1.44 ppm per year
1965 - 1974: 1.06 ppm per year

If this trend continues, we will add another 152ppm by approximately 2060.

Mauna Loa has been shown to be cooking the data. It's useless.
It is not possible to measure the global CO2 atmospheric content of Earth. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Which natural processes are you referring to? When did you quantify the rate at which CO2 gets sequestered? How long do you think it will take to remove, say, 200ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Don't need to worry about CO2. It doesn't warm the Earth.

If you mean trees, then how did you fail to notice that we are wiping out forests at an alarming rate?

We more trees than ever in the United States, thanks to Weyerhauser and farmers like them.

If you mean permafrost, then you really ought to get your facts straight, because that is changing from a carbon sink to a carbon producer.

The permafrost isn't melting. Methane can't warm the Earth either.

As to those hydrocarbons we keep pumping out of the ground? Last I heard, it's based on decay of millions of years of organic life. As in, that's not a quick process.

Oil and natural gas are easily synthesized by us from non-biological materials in less than an hour, using a process that is very similar to conditions underground. Both are found well below any fossil layer.

Fossils don't burn.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Bang the drum slowly

Unfortunately, some of us have seen these kinds of announcements for years and years and years.

It's important to fund fusion, but expecting to have a working reactor in 15 years is likely unrealistic.

Who is to say? You don't know who is working on what, or how close they might be to a working reactor.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Batteries not included

No one cares that you're not concerned with CO2, sorry.
The fact is, mammalian life is designed to function at an optimal level with a certain limitation on carbon dioxide, and modern civilization functions optimally with even more of a limit, and increases in the levels of carbon dioxide yield climate issues which are difficult to deal with from a civilization point of view...difficult and very costly.

What you call "climate alarmism" is actually simple common sense. Our atmosphere isn't much different from a terrarium, it's a closed system, and yet our mentality for the better part of almost two centuries ignores this fact, to our detriment.
And as for carbon taxes, it's all a part of the carbon economy, thus it's a simple matter of creating technologies which plug into the other end of the equation. It is possible to both produce more carbon AND STORE (sequester) more of it instead of just letting it go willy nilly into the atmosphere. It simply makes more sense to sequester more of the stuff than that which is just released into the atmosphere.

**I mentioned biochar earlier because biochar has the additional advantage (on top of being an ideal carbon sink) of making agriculture more robust, which translates into more yield per acre with less energy input, part of which happens to be the woefully inefficient (and nutritionally destructive) method of using natgas based fertilizer, which actually DECREASES nutritional output per acre over time.

Oil companies are energy companies. Just because they have the advantage on petroleum doesn't mean that they automatically have the advantage on all carbon based forms of energy, or even all forms of energy period.
What they do have is cash, lots of it. Why do you act as if this is something we only recently figured out?

No gas or vapor, including CO2, has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fusion energy development has been ramped up considerably, and projections are now that fusion will be up-and-running in 15 years. Fusion will completely solve global warming issues, because it will create an infinite amount of completely clean energy.

Source

It would be nice if true. Weren't they saying 10 years, about 20 years ago?

"The trick, scientists hope, is to strengthen those magnetic fields."

HOPE!!!

Real promising...

Infinite?

I think not...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually they have. ‘Star in a Jar' Fusion Reactor Works and Promises Infinite Energy

The problem is generating a strong enough magnetic field to contain what needs to be contained for the kind of fusion energy amount that they're talking about. The design is there, they just have to figure out how to create stronger magnetic fields.

Can this image be seen without being logged into Nature???:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Batteries not included

You must be under the misconception that there is sufficient hydrocarbon sources available to alter our planet beyond supporting life,
or that there will be no technology advancements.
Please consider how difficult it has been to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm?
We are still 152 ppm away from the first doubling of CO2 levels.
I frankly think that we will never get to that first doubling, not because of regulation, but because
using natural hydrocarbons as fuel will price itself out of the market long before that happens.
If you took only a second, you would see that what I am talking about will stop CO2 growth in it's tracks.
Once there are no new emissions, the natural processes are very efficient at carbon sequestering. (Where do you think all those hydrocarbons came from?)

Not only regulations, but it gets harder and harder to get to double what the biosphere wants to equalize to. The farther away from equalization, the faster the velocity of absorption by plants and the oceans.