Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Finally, fine fusion   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Cool, MSN  
•       •       •

1648 clicks; posted to STEM » on 03 Dec 2021 at 10:43 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



54 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-12-03 10:09:03 AM  
Fantastic.
 
2021-12-03 10:15:35 AM  
FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.
 
2021-12-03 10:52:34 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 11:14:27 AM  
"The goal is to achieve ignition - a point at which the energy generated by the fusion process exceeds the total energy input.  The experiment... fell just short of that mark"

This article was refreshingly candid, though not completely detailed, about the energy input vs output.  I wonder if Sabine Hossenfelder's videos on the topic of inaccuracy in fusion experiment reporting have been heard.
 
2021-12-03 11:15:37 AM  
Yes but we already have Clean Coal™
 
Juc
2021-12-03 11:16:31 AM  
Cool, it might actually be 5 years away for reals at some point.
 
2021-12-03 11:16:55 AM  

Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.


The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.
 
2021-12-03 11:26:10 AM  
I'm skeptical of the magnetic confinement approach because no one talks about where you could pull useable heat from the system. Laser confinement looks promising because there's a part you can allow to heat up several hundred degrees and we can pass some variety of working fluid around and not screw up a delicate magnetic field. If you can't design the part where you pull energy out, it's just a grant sucker.
 
2021-12-03 11:28:21 AM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.


That's part of the other half they don't talk about.

Once they actually get more (heat) energy out of the fusion than the total they put in... then they'll have their little chamber a bit hotter than they achieved before.  But it's just a happy experiment until (a) the process can be made continuous and (b) that mostly thermal energy is converted to something more universally useful like electricity.

The problem with (a) is its own engineering challenge, but (b) can't really hope for an efficiency better than about 0.5
 
2021-12-03 11:32:28 AM  
We've already demonstrated the ability to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than we've put in.  That happened on November 1, 1952.

The problem is doing so without vaporizing everything with in a couple mile radius of the lab.
 
2021-12-03 11:34:52 AM  

Randrew: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.

That's part of the other half they don't talk about.

Once they actually get more (heat) energy out of the fusion than the total they put in... then they'll have their little chamber a bit hotter than they achieved before.  But it's just a happy experiment until (a) the process can be made continuous and (b) that mostly thermal energy is converted to something more universally useful like electricity.

The problem with (a) is its own engineering challenge, but (b) can't really hope for an efficiency better than about 0.5


to be fair we are exceedingly efficient at converting thermal to electricity through a number of means already.  thats a pretty mature process.

the real problems they're working on are creating the thermal energy from the fuel, and getting the thermal energy out of the apparatus they used to create it.
 
2021-12-03 11:37:33 AM  
I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?
 
2021-12-03 11:37:38 AM  

wage0048: We've already demonstrated the ability to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than we've put in.  That happened on November 1, 1952.

The problem is doing so without vaporizing everything with in a couple mile radius of the lab.


the difference between a power plant and a bomb is adding an "off" switch
 
2021-12-03 11:40:42 AM  

wage0048: We've already demonstrated the ability to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than we've put in.  That happened on November 1, 1952.

The problem is doing so without vaporizing everything with in a couple mile radius of the lab.


Details, details...
 
2021-12-03 11:44:26 AM  

oopsboom: to be fair we are exceedingly efficient at converting thermal to electricity


Heh, would you like to quote here what those efficiencies are?  Keeping in mind that in science and engineering "efficiency" has very specific meaning.
 
2021-12-03 11:48:14 AM  

Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?


b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.
 
2021-12-03 11:53:22 AM  

oopsboom: Randrew: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.

That's part of the other half they don't talk about.

Once they actually get more (heat) energy out of the fusion than the total they put in... then they'll have their little chamber a bit hotter than they achieved before.  But it's just a happy experiment until (a) the process can be made continuous and (b) that mostly thermal energy is converted to something more universally useful like electricity.

The problem with (a) is its own engineering challenge, but (b) can't really hope for an efficiency better than about 0.5

to be fair we are exceedingly efficient at converting thermal to electricity through a number of means already.  thats a pretty mature process.

the real problems they're working on are creating the thermal energy from the fuel, and getting the thermal energy out of the apparatus they used to create it.


Username checks out.

Also, I wonder if the process described in the article would be an integral component of a production fusion generator -- I haven't kept up lately but it occurs to me that there are a lot of engineering challenges in a project like this, and getting the reaction started in the first place would be an important one. Keeping the reaction going continuously is a different challenge. Harvesting the energy produced is a third, but as you said, it's probably the least difficult of the three.
 
2021-12-03 11:55:58 AM  

oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.


There's my point.  Common and "inexpensive" terrestrial PV panels today reach 15 to 20% efficiency.  If science and engineering got them to 80% efficiency, then a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW x 4.

And 5 acre solar farm isn't even the best way to pull this off.  PV panels can shade roofs at point of use, reducing cooling requirements for the building.
 
2021-12-03 11:56:58 AM  

oopsboom: wage0048: We've already demonstrated the ability to get more energy out of a fusion reaction than we've put in.  That happened on November 1, 1952.

The problem is doing so without vaporizing everything with in a couple mile radius of the lab.

the difference between a power plant and a bomb is adding an "off" switch


Tell that to this guy:
Chernobyl Anatoly Dyatlov's real interview (English)
Youtube Lua3rvuA-Hs
 
2021-12-03 11:58:59 AM  

Randrew: oopsboom: to be fair we are exceedingly efficient at converting thermal to electricity

Heh, would you like to quote here what those efficiencies are?  Keeping in mind that in science and engineering "efficiency" has very specific meaning.


30-40% of the theoretical total output of the fuel was what i think i remember seeing for electricity from power plants.
which is significantly better than small fossil fuel consumers like vehicles.  and until the most recent generation better than solar and wind conversion rates.  though the latest generation of panels and turbines have caught up - and for those it doesnt matter anyway b/c they have unlimited fuel more or less, its their footprint thats a limited resource not their fuel.
 
2021-12-03 12:01:42 PM  
nm thought this would be harder to find, but heres a good breakdown
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annua​l​/html/epa_08_02.html

to give a frame of reference:
10,500 Btu per KWh is 33% efficient conversion
7,500 Btu per KWh is 45% efficient conversion
 
2021-12-03 12:01:48 PM  

oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.


Wouldn't need to pave the planet. An area about the size of Spain could meet all the Earth's projected energy needs for the year 2030 with today's solar panel technology. I mean, that's a LOT, but 'paving the planet' is hyperbole.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 12:05:51 PM  

wildcardjack: I'm skeptical of the magnetic confinement approach because no one talks about where you could pull useable heat from the system. Laser confinement looks promising because there's a part you can allow to heat up several hundred degrees and we can pass some variety of working fluid around and not screw up a delicate magnetic field. If you can't design the part where you pull energy out, it's just a grant sucker.


I suppose you have to rely on thermal radiation since you can't really pass any physical heat transfer thingamabobs to pull heat directly from the plasma through the containment field without screwing the containment field up, and light has no problem passing through a magnetic field.  Of course, the benefit is that a sustained reaction should be far more feasible.

Whereas imploding fuel pellets with lasers, while there's little problem with collecting the energy, in order to sustain it you have to come up with some way of rapid firing the fuel pellets directly at the focal point and have them remain there long enough to absorb enough energy to implode and fuse.
 
2021-12-03 12:08:30 PM  

oopsboom: Randrew: oopsboom: to be fair we are exceedingly efficient at converting thermal to electricity

Heh, would you like to quote here what those efficiencies are?  Keeping in mind that in science and engineering "efficiency" has very specific meaning.

30-40% of the theoretical total output of the fuel was what i think i remember seeing for electricity from power plants.
which is significantly better than small fossil fuel consumers like vehicles.  and until the most recent generation better than solar and wind conversion rates.  though the latest generation of panels and turbines have caught up - and for those it doesnt matter anyway b/c they have unlimited fuel more or less, its their footprint thats a limited resource not their fuel.


Though I am arguing against fusion here, I'm not really anti-fusion.  Just being practical while considering what I think are neglected technologies.

Besides PV generation, I think bio-engineering can and should play roles in solving our energy problems.  From boosting carbon-scrubbing abilities of plant life to engineering trees that generate electricity directly.  May sound wild but nearly any chemical process can and has been performed in living creatures by force of their genetic programming.

So is bio-engineering for clean energy easy?  Hell no, that's why it needs a lot of funding for basic research.
 
2021-12-03 12:11:57 PM  

snowjack: oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.

Wouldn't need to pave the planet. An area about the size of Spain could meet all the Earth's projected energy needs for the year 2030 with today's solar panel technology. I mean, that's a LOT, but 'paving the planet' is hyperbole.

[Fark user image 850x426]


By the way, there's a graphic from the same source with a more realistic plan that includes other sustainable energy production options here.
 
2021-12-03 12:24:22 PM  

snowjack: oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.

Wouldn't need to pave the planet. An area about the size of Spain could meet all the Earth's projected energy needs for the year 2030 with today's solar panel technology. I mean, that's a LOT, but 'paving the planet' is hyperbole.

[Fark user image 850x426]


from google:
The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles
spain is 195,364 square miles

so it's...0.0034.  not quite half of 1% of the total land surface of earth.
thats actually a huge amount.  thats more than i thought it would be.
 
2021-12-03 12:26:57 PM  

oopsboom: snowjack: oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.

Wouldn't need to pave the planet. An area about the size of Spain could meet all the Earth's projected energy needs for the year 2030 with today's solar panel technology. I mean, that's a LOT, but 'paving the planet' is hyperbole.

[Fark user image 850x426]

from google:
The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles
spain is 195,364 square miles

so it's...0.0034.  not quite half of 1% of the total land surface of earth.
thats actually a huge amount.  thats more than i thought it would be.


Doesn't seem like so much though when you consider they don't have to be all in one place, and can utilize the same land already being used for other purposes by sticking them on roofs and over other things which will benefit from the shade anyway.
 
2021-12-03 12:27:46 PM  

snowjack: By the way, there's a graphic from the same source with a more realistic plan that includes other sustainable energy production options here.


thats more reasonable if they're talking about all rooftop solar.
of course to do that you're going to have to axe murder some oil CEOs first to get laws changed to make it cost effective.

the problem with rooftop solar is you count on individual homeowners to maintain it.  and im not convinced theres much market depth there.  people dont care about the environment or want an additional thing they have to mess with.  they want to flip a switch and have light.  these are people who go 15 years never cleaning their gutters...you think theyre going to maintain solar panels?
 
2021-12-03 12:34:55 PM  
also i'd like to point out how great it is that that graphic of the renewable energy future just uses russia/china/india as a place for a text block.  like they're just white space on the map.  lol.

eventually - like within the next 15-20 years - we're either going to have to get them on board with this shiat through economic pressure, political pressure, something.  or we're just going to have to invade them.  or all the work we're doing to stop climate change isnt going to matter a bit.  right now its bad, but its not REALLY bad.  if china and india ramp to USA level per capita greenhouse emissions for even a few years we're all pretty much farked.
 
2021-12-03 12:37:32 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.


The same way every thermal plant does. You use the hot stuff to heat water to make steam to feed through a turbine. But you need a hell of a lot more energy than you feed into it in order to net generate energy.
 
2021-12-03 12:45:39 PM  

Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?


Perovskites.

So naturally, they have to use LEAD for it to work. The current problem (other than Pb), is that their efficiency drops off quickly with time.

Unless there was some way to easily and (energy) cheaply 'reform' their structures overnight.
 
2021-12-03 12:47:09 PM  

Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?


We're doing both. I know this might come as a shock to some people, but we have multiple scientists. At least two, though the exact number is hard to determine because of something quantum. And these scientists (at least two!) work on different things. For example, while these fusion experiments were going on, we also had some breakthroughs in clear aerogel wafers that should make totally transparent soar panels realistic and feasible in the near future. Meanwhile, over the last decade, conventional solar panel prices have dropped by like 70%.

I don't understand this insistence by environmentalists that we only do one thing at a time and anything else is wrong and evil and a diversion of resources. Not only is it a stupid failure to understand how science works, but it also ignores the fact that we will need multiple types of energy generation for different applications. Like, say we want to explore the bottom of the ocean - solar panels don't really help very much there. Or underground. Or at night. Or past a certain point in space. Or on cloudy days. Or... Well, you get the point. Relying entirely on one single source of energy is seriously short-sighted and leaves us vulnerable, plus research on fusion could be incredibly useful in other applications (like creating brand new materials, or new and better rocket engines.)
 
2021-12-03 1:08:27 PM  

Lusiphur: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

We're doing both. I know this might come as a shock to some people, but we have multiple scientists. At least two, though the exact number is hard to determine because of something quantum. And these scientists (at least two!) work on different things. For example, while these fusion experiments were going on, we also had some breakthroughs in clear aerogel wafers that should make totally transparent soar panels realistic and feasible in the near future. Meanwhile, over the last decade, conventional solar panel prices have dropped by like 70%.

I don't understand this insistence by environmentalists that we only do one thing at a time and anything else is wrong and evil and a diversion of resources. Not only is it a stupid failure to understand how science works, but it also ignores the fact that we will need multiple types of energy generation for different applications. Like, say we want to explore the bottom of the ocean - solar panels don't really help very much there. Or underground. Or at night. Or past a certain point in space. Or on cloudy days. Or... Well, you get the point. Relying entirely on one single source of energy is seriously short-sighted and leaves us vulnerable, plus research on fusion could be incredibly useful in other applications (like creating brand new materials, or new and better rocket engines.)


I don't disagree, except on the number of scientists.  That other one is farking lazy!

As far as our sun goes, well it goes pretty far in driving the majority of energetic processes we have access to in our environment - not just direct photonic bombardment.
 
2021-12-03 1:20:43 PM  
The year is 2068.  I'm in my Cybertruck, which I paid for with Bitcoin.  A fusion power plant charges it.  I turn on my Starlink, connect my laptop, and play Star Citizen.  The Chinese elections were last week.  Mike Lindell's head in a jar has released his damning election fraud evidence.
 
2021-12-03 1:37:39 PM  

Meat's dream: The year is 2068.  I'm in my Cybertruck, which I paid for with Bitcoin.  A fusion power plant charges it.  I turn on my Starlink, connect my laptop, and play Star Citizen

buy the new ship for $4500 and a ticket to this year's CitizenCon to see the new release announcement trailer.  The Chinese elections were last week.  Mike Lindell's head in a jar has released his damning election fraud evidence.
 
2021-12-03 1:49:03 PM  

snowjack: oopsboom: Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?

b/c collecting solar energy takes up a lot of space.  it sounds good if you look at total energy coming in.  but thats a fake number that counts all the earths surface - much of which is oceans, mountains, etc.  or covered by clouds at any one time.

a 5 acre solar farm will only give you a few MW
while a 1GW fisson plant will comfortably sit in a much much smaller footprint.

renewables are great.  but we can't pave the planet to cover base grid load either.  nuclear and hydro are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting.  electricity demand isn't going down.

Wouldn't need to pave the planet. An area about the size of Spain could meet all the Earth's projected energy needs for the year 2030 with today's solar panel technology. I mean, that's a LOT, but 'paving the planet' is hyperbole.

[Fark user image image 850x426]


There's a wee downside to that regarding distribution...
 
2021-12-03 1:54:34 PM  

oopsboom: snowjack: By the way, there's a graphic from the same source with a more realistic plan that includes other sustainable energy production options here.

thats more reasonable if they're talking about all rooftop solar.
of course to do that you're going to have to axe murder some oil CEOs first to get laws changed to make it cost effective.

the problem with rooftop solar is you count on individual homeowners to maintain it.  and im not convinced theres much market depth there.  people dont care about the environment or want an additional thing they have to mess with.  they want to flip a switch and have light.  these are people who go 15 years never cleaning their gutters...you think theyre going to maintain solar panels?


The BBC podcast Elements talked to a PV roof rep where their business model was leasing panels to folks. As the efficiencies increase to make it worth while, they upgrade the panels, not the homeowner.

But that was several years ago and I don't think any company is actually doing that.
 
2021-12-03 1:59:00 PM  

oopsboom: also i'd like to point out how great it is that that graphic of the renewable energy future just uses russia/china/india as a place for a text block.  like they're just white space on the map.  lol.

eventually - like within the next 15-20 years - we're either going to have to get them on board with this shiat through economic pressure, political pressure, something.  or we're just going to have to invade them.  or all the work we're doing to stop climate change isnt going to matter a bit.  right now its bad, but its not REALLY bad.  if china and india ramp to USA level per capita greenhouse emissions for even a few years we're all pretty much farked.


I don't think there is a future of anything worthwhile. Plague rats, women re-enslaved, Red states becoming dictatorships.

All of it possible because most people don't want Democracy anymore. Not enough to stop any if this before it's too late (it's too late).

So oil and coal until the total collapse of civilization in about 20 years. Enjoy.
 
2021-12-03 2:02:48 PM  

dsmith42: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.

The same way every thermal plant does. You use the hot stuff to heat water to make steam to feed through a turbine. But you need a hell of a lot more energy than you feed into it in order to net generate energy.


This part still feels like a Far Side chalkboard scientist's chart with a cloud labeled "And then a SECOND miracle occurs".
 
2021-12-03 2:08:53 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: oopsboom: snowjack: By the way, there's a graphic from the same source with a more realistic plan that includes other sustainable energy production options here.

thats more reasonable if they're talking about all rooftop solar.
of course to do that you're going to have to axe murder some oil CEOs first to get laws changed to make it cost effective.

the problem with rooftop solar is you count on individual homeowners to maintain it.  and im not convinced theres much market depth there.  people dont care about the environment or want an additional thing they have to mess with.  they want to flip a switch and have light.  these are people who go 15 years never cleaning their gutters...you think theyre going to maintain solar panels?

The BBC podcast Elements talked to a PV roof rep where their business model was leasing panels to folks. As the efficiencies increase to make it worth while, they upgrade the panels, not the homeowner.

But that was several years ago and I don't think any company is actually doing that.


a lot of deep pockets are actively fighting rooftop solar panel rollouts too.  the base production owners are making it as hard or cost inefficient as possible to decentralize and sell back to the grid as they can.
https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/​b​locking-rooftop-solar
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2​0​21/may/13/solar-power-us-utility-compa​nies-kansas

this is a large part of why, as i stated before, i dont view rooftop solar as a market with a lot of depth.

people seem to assume that (nearly) every house is a candidate for rooftop solar.  i have trouble believing that.  i see it more that its going to be people who are interested or motivated in the idea of solar and willing to take on extra work/costs up front to do it.  which means people who are in a certain wealth bracket.  also people who are in a certain segment of home ownership and thus in a long term residence where they can make modifications that may be a somewhat risky or low payoff investment.  plus people who are willing to put at least some amount of time and effort into maintaining the system - which involves both free time and some technical knowledge.  which invokes both employment status and education for at least 1 member of the household.  plus they actually have to believe solar power works...that its not "fake news" or a "liberal conspiracy"...so that knocks out about 1/3rd of american homes right there.

i'd be shocked if the total number of voluntary residential solar installs is over 10%.
granted thats still more than 3 times what we have now.  but its still not what people like to act like will happen.
 
2021-12-03 2:11:40 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: oopsboom: also i'd like to point out how great it is that that graphic of the renewable energy future just uses russia/china/india as a place for a text block.  like they're just white space on the map.  lol.

eventually - like within the next 15-20 years - we're either going to have to get them on board with this shiat through economic pressure, political pressure, something.  or we're just going to have to invade them.  or all the work we're doing to stop climate change isnt going to matter a bit.  right now its bad, but its not REALLY bad.  if china and india ramp to USA level per capita greenhouse emissions for even a few years we're all pretty much farked.

I don't think there is a future of anything worthwhile. Plague rats, women re-enslaved, Red states becoming dictatorships.

All of it possible because most people don't want Democracy anymore. Not enough to stop any if this before it's too late (it's too late).

So oil and coal until the total collapse of civilization in about 20 years. Enjoy.


in the bolded part are you referencing 'now' or 'the future'?  i can't tell.
 
2021-12-03 2:20:58 PM  

oopsboom: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: oopsboom: also i'd like to point out how great it is that that graphic of the renewable energy future just uses russia/china/india as a place for a text block.  like they're just white space on the map.  lol.

eventually - like within the next 15-20 years - we're either going to have to get them on board with this shiat through economic pressure, political pressure, something.  or we're just going to have to invade them.  or all the work we're doing to stop climate change isnt going to matter a bit.  right now its bad, but its not REALLY bad.  if china and india ramp to USA level per capita greenhouse emissions for even a few years we're all pretty much farked.

I don't think there is a future of anything worthwhile. Plague rats, women re-enslaved, Red states becoming dictatorships.

All of it possible because most people don't want Democracy anymore. Not enough to stop any if this before it's too late (it's too late).

So oil and coal until the total collapse of civilization in about 20 years. Enjoy.

in the bolded part are you referencing 'now' or 'the future'?  i can't tell.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 2:31:15 PM  
Outside the extant NIF, the laser technology has progressed to where a new facility would be much smaller, perhaps by a factor of 10. The smaller system should also see efficiency of making the laser light improve. Inject the beads like a gun, pulse the lasers, build your target chamber from tungsten so we can run it at a few thousand degrees, then run argon between it and a steam system. One gigawatt thermal should be about right to run an ocean freighter via a turbine, and gives everyone a size and power target. PV will tap out ahead of battery storage, and you literally cannot take enough batteries to push a ship across the Pacific.

Think about a final power plant about this size
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-03 3:00:35 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: dsmith42: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.

The same way every thermal plant does. You use the hot stuff to heat water to make steam to feed through a turbine. But you need a hell of a lot more energy than you feed into it in order to net generate energy.

This part still feels like a Far Side chalkboard scientist's chart with a cloud labeled "And then a SECOND miracle occurs".


The helium nucleus carries an electric charge which will be subject to the magnetic fields of the tokamak and remain confined within the plasma, contributing to its continued heating. However, approximately 80 percent of the energy produced is carried away from the plasma by the neutron which has no electrical charge and is therefore unaffected by magnetic fields. The neutrons will be absorbed by the surrounding walls of the tokamak, where their kinetic energy will be transferred to the walls as heat.
In ITER, this heat will be captured by cooling water circulating in the vessel walls and eventually dispersed through cooling towers. In the type of fusion power plant envisaged for the second half of this century, the heat will be used to produce steam and-by way of turbines and alternators-electricity.

 
2021-12-03 3:12:57 PM  
So....is there an actual difference in the energy required to run the machine vs the energy absorbed by its core? Because it sounds very much like wordplay that they crafted to imply a better thing than actually happened
 
2021-12-03 4:54:31 PM  

oopsboom: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: oopsboom: also i'd like to point out how great it is that that graphic of the renewable energy future just uses russia/china/india as a place for a text block.  like they're just white space on the map.  lol.

eventually - like within the next 15-20 years - we're either going to have to get them on board with this shiat through economic pressure, political pressure, something.  or we're just going to have to invade them.  or all the work we're doing to stop climate change isnt going to matter a bit.  right now its bad, but its not REALLY bad.  if china and india ramp to USA level per capita greenhouse emissions for even a few years we're all pretty much farked.

I don't think there is a future of anything worthwhile. Plague rats, women re-enslaved, Red states becoming dictatorships.

All of it possible because most people don't want Democracy anymore. Not enough to stop any if this before it's too late (it's too late).

So oil and coal until the total collapse of civilization in about 20 years. Enjoy.

in the bolded part are you referencing 'now' or 'the future'?  i can't tell.


The future is now.
 
2021-12-03 5:03:01 PM  

dsmith42: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: dsmith42: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Notabunny: FTFA "Achieving ignition in a laboratory remains one of the scientific grand challenges of this era..."

Rookies. I achieved ignition my first day in high school chemistry lab.

The rest of their statement read like jingoistic pride in a new potential weapons program.

I still don't see how 'spolidn' a capsule with a laser produces capturable power unless it's an endless stream of six-figure holoraums.

The same way every thermal plant does. You use the hot stuff to heat water to make steam to feed through a turbine. But you need a hell of a lot more energy than you feed into it in order to net generate energy.

This part still feels like a Far Side chalkboard scientist's chart with a cloud labeled "And then a SECOND miracle occurs".


The helium nucleus carries an electric charge which will be subject to the magnetic fields of the tokamak and remain confined within the plasma, contributing to its continued heating. However, approximately 80 percent of the energy produced is carried away from the plasma by the neutron which has no electrical charge and is therefore unaffected by magnetic fields. The neutrons will be absorbed by the surrounding walls of the tokamak, where their kinetic energy will be transferred to the walls as heat.
In ITER, this heat will be captured by cooling water circulating in the vessel walls and eventually dispersed through cooling towers. In the type of fusion power plant envisaged for the second half of this century, the heat will be used to produce steam and-by way of turbines and alternators-electricity.


"Over their full lifetime, each atom in the structural steel components will be hit by a neutron and jostled from its original position at least three times in an ITER Test Blanket Module. And it will happen fifty or more times in a future commercial fusion power plant. Inevitably, this can change the materials' properties, such as reduction of strength and toughness, development of micro cracks or even rupture."

https://www.euro-fusion.org/news/2021​/​february/testing-fusion-materials-with​-a-hail-of-neutrons/
 
2021-12-03 5:23:16 PM  
That headline is also very carefully worded.

a Fusion Reaction Has Generated More Energy Than Absorbed by The Fuel

But the article clarifies,

The goal is to achieve ignition - a point at which the energy generated by the fusion process exceeds the total energy input.

The experiment, conducted on 8 August, fell just short of that mark; the input from the lasers was 1.9 megajoules. But it's still tremendously exciting, because according to the team's measurements, the fuel capsule absorbed over five times less energy than it generated in the fusion process.


The reactor generated 1.3 megajoules with a 1.9 megajoule input.  Progress, but not yet groundbreaking.
 
2021-12-03 7:37:15 PM  
Surprised to be the first with this:

How close is nuclear fusion power?
Youtube LJ4W1g-6JiY
 
2021-12-03 7:38:06 PM  

Randrew: I keep coming back to the fact that we already have a really big, self-sustaining fusion reactor that floods us with energy daily.  We already pull electricity from it at up to 20% efficiency on a regular basis.

Shouldn't we push a few billions of dollars more into making PV and similar work more efficiently and be more practical and clean to manufacture?


Uhhh... How much time and money do you think has been going into PV over the last 50 years?
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.