• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Steevo said:
same time frame as the minuscule amount of fission waste.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
No, not when on an environment like a talkshow where the host has sole discretion. You want to be a source? Do it right.
 
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


from World Nuclear Association:
Lithium
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
The heat from power generation has no significant effect on global warming; it is the greenhouse gasses that are the issue.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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).

 
agent_x007 said:
When you have a cloudy/rainy day, how do you plan to balance out the power loss of solar power plant ?
Click to expand...

That is where batteries come into play and one keeps some fossil fuel power plants for the really bad days.
 
Andy Shiekh said:
That is where batteries come into play and one keeps some fossil fuel power plants for the really bad days
Click to expand...
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.
 
DeathtoGnomes said:
sorry was referring to the thread not the movie there. Yea that much I knew about the movie.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 - PMC

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 ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
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;

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

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 ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Andy Shiekh said:
Already done

AC vs. DC Powerlines and the Electrical Grid | Energy Central
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Andy Shiekh said:
Quantum cryptography is already commercial.
Click to expand...
Ah yes a fictional solution to a fictional problem where both the problem and solution are the same non existent thing.
 
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."
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
^^ 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top