Funny how 500 MJs of laser light only converted to 1.9 MJ of x-ray energy being directed to the deuterium/tritium pellet yielding 2.5 MJ of actual output energy. I guess we are just going to forget about the 498.1 MJ of wasted laser energy. At the LENR forum I visit, you would be called a charlatan for making an excess energy claim.
More thoughtful look at this new development.
What to know about DOE’s fusion ‘breakthrough’ - POLITICO
What are the key hurdles?
The ignition process that Lawrence Livemore scientists pioneered requires exacting maintenance of the laser cluster in between shots. A typical target costs $100,000 or more and requires hundreds of hours to construct, said British mathematician and author Arthur Turrell, who was present for one Lawrence Livermore shot.
Making this technology work on a commercial scale would escalate those requirements.
“Once you get a single shot working well, you have to repeat it, 10 times a second” to have a sustained commercial reaction, a senior DOE official said recently, speaking on condition of anonymity because DOE’s pilot plant program is in the confidential application stage. “That requires a laser that can fire 10 times a second. It is not fundamentally impossible, but it is very difficult from an engineering perspective.”
With tokamaks, reactors face the challenge of having to make their own fuel, breeding one of the hydrogen isotope fuels — tritium — inside the reactors. There also is a need to improve protection of the reactor from intense heat and neutron bombardment.
We are running out of time.
Fission power sources already do all this.
The most capable co2 scrubbing plant we currently have deployed removes around 4k tons/yr of co2.I'm not going to disagree per se here. You may have done some reading on that topic that I have not. But we actually have CO2 scrubbers. We don't have fusion. So if you could expand on this or provide a link it might be helpful.
Humans will be long gone from this earth before we have Fusion as a practical source of power.With significant costs and risks, and with fuel that isn't exactly plentiful. Fusion seems to address all of these concerns.
Well, first off, I'm pretty sure you thought that fusion had potential application as a weapon.
And, as someone already pointed out, fission already accomplishes those specific purposes. But leaving all that aside, yes, fusion has an enormous economic benefit, and anything that has a direct economic benefit indirectly benefits the military.
So suppose China just keeps using fossil fuels. You would rather they do that than have fusion?
Humans will be long gone from this earth before we have Fusion as a practical source of power.
Well fusion reactors aren’t going to be cheap either and the fuel for nuclear warships is not particularly expensive as far as I know.With significant costs and risks, and with fuel that isn't exactly plentiful. Fusion seems to address all of these concerns.
That we are going to lose since time is running out and we are not getting any smarter.It is a race ...
That we are going to lose since time is running out and we are not getting any smarter.
Humans will be long gone from this earth before we have Fusion as a practical source of power.
"What does that have to do with this thread?" lol are you serious? Truth be told it's already near impossible for me to take you seriously ever since you rageshat yourself over me calling the WWE a "rope opera."
The froth, the rage, the abject ignorance... none of your posts are worth devoting real time too. Makes me hope for change. So, I think you should hit the books, do some legwork. I have recommendations if you're interested. If you're half as clever as you think you are, things should start clicking. I mean I hope so. Perhaps if you were familiar with China's love of Carl Schmitt (the Nazi) you'd be less inclined to carry their water, who knows.
Recent evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens were not the first to control fire.2nd only to controlled fire
Well fusion reactors aren’t going to be cheap either and the fuel for nuclear warships is not particularly expensive as far as I know.
You do have obvious radiation risks if the reactor is damaged or whatever and fusion would mitigate those, but it would not meaningfully change the capabilities of warships.
The most capable co2 scrubbing plant we currently have deployed removes around 4k tons/yr of co2.
In 2020 we released around 35B tons of co2. We'd need 9 million of those facilities deployed right now just to keep up with today's co2 emissions. By 2050, we're tracking to be closer to 43B tons/yr. We probably couldn't build them fast enough.Air-scrubbing machines gain momentum, but long way to go
Just a few years ago, this technology, known as “direct air capture,” was seen by many as an unrealistic fantasy. But the technology has evolved to where people consider it a serious tool in fighting climate change.www.pbs.org
Mind you, that's just to stop emissions. That doesn't take anything back out of the atmosphere. We still have a few trillion (with a T) tons of co2 to move us backward. Also bear in mind that the emissions released today affect us in 20 years. We're experiencing the effects of the co2 emitted in the 2000's.
The possibilities with desalination fusion would open up too, would pretty much save American AG in the west wouldn't it?
Next up: what do we do with all that damn salt? Ha
I'm not saying it doesn't, but like many burgeoning technologies the applications usually come after the new designs are designed, fabricated and tested. You seem to be saying there are no weaponized avenues for fusion, which is a sentiment I do not agree with, yes.
The advantages of fusion over fission are clear enough to warrant it's development. Safety, maintenance, efficiency, cost and availability of fuel, waste levels, all of these traits are significant enough to warrant the upgrade to fusion.
It's not a zero sum game, nor is fusion being offered by anyone as a replacement for all other energy sources. China not being gifted fusion tech doesn't automagically invalidate or remove the huge investments they've made in renewables. What I would rather they do is stop prepping for war, stop the bullying and theft, maybe drop the victim complex and cooperate with the West for mutual benefit.
But again, suppose China has all the energy it wants. Now what? Tell me how this changes the CCP in a way that doesn't bite the rest of the world in the ass.
I’d rather focus on thorium reactors.
Feels like nuclear+renewables is the path forward.
Well fusion reactors aren’t going to be cheap either and the fuel for nuclear warships is not particularly expensive as far as I know.
You do have obvious radiation risks if the reactor is damaged or whatever and fusion would mitigate those, but it would not meaningfully change the capabilities of warships.
Nah he’s afraid they will have arc reactor iron man suits.As I said above in my reply to Kage, fusion will not be available for warships or submarines even after there are commercial fusion reactors because fusion requires large size reactors to be efficient. It's why the miniature experimental reactors they have built output less energy than they receive. We may never see them small enough to put them on naval ships or space ships. Maybe could power a massive orbital space station at some point.