New Energy Era Coming?

[♪alt13]

Actually it is hydrogen in, energy out, then helium out. That energy is in the form of radiation. Yes for input there is no radioactive materials, but the output does involve radiation.

If we are going to classify things this way then we can consider the dirt in my garden a radioactive material. Although yes it is technically radioactive it would be nonsensical to consider it a radioactive material.

We are surrounded by normal background radiation. My understanding is that the emissions from Fusion plants would not exceed background radiation levels and that the radioactivity that is produced is:
1) much less total material than a fission plant or coal plant*
2) Largely confined to the core of the reactor(little or no need to ship and store waste)
3) Much much shorter half-life
-a) tritium has a half life of 12 years
-b) the core itself would be fairly safe to enter within decades

*We are currently producing quite a chunk of our power by burning coal. Coal contains uranium and when burned it is concentrated in coal ash. This Uranium is mostly Uranium 238 that has a half life of 4.5 billion years. The emissions from a current coal plant release about 100 times more radioactivity than a current fission plant of the same size.(although they do not have the same solid waste issues) Still the radioactivity that you would experience if you lived close to a coal plant would only account for a maximum of 5% of the radiation you were exposed to over that year.

Link


So yes I thought that dutch's radioactive materials statement was pure silly.

 

[Siro]

One, the U.S. never invaded anyone for oil. They invaded Iraq because the country must exist in a state of perpetual war to support its vast military industry, along with the naive hope of establishing a friendlier geopolitical situation in the region. This idea that the U.S. invades other countries for resources is ridiculous in this day and age.

Second, I don't understand the relevance of boron to the fusion discussion. Designs that I saw use deuterium and tritium. Regardless, the neutrons produced possess massive energy, and neutron capture is the primary source of power generation, right? I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I don't know about the feasibility of fusion reactors that utilize reactions producing only gamma rays. But I suspect the issue is irrelevant as fusion produces no long lasting radioactive products.

 

[ema]

One, the U.S. never invaded anyone for oil. They invaded Iraq because the country must exist in a state of perpetual war to support its vast military industry, along with the naive hope of establishing a friendlier geopolitical situation in the region. This idea that the U.S. invades other countries for resources is ridiculous in this day and age.

I was talking about conspiracy theories that have been talked probably for the last half century in Turkey, not my own ideas.

Second, I don't understand the relevance of boron to the fusion discussion. Designs that I saw use deuterium and tritium. Regardless, the neutrons produced possess massive energy, and neutron capture is the primary source of power generation, right? I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I don't know about the feasibility of fusion reactors that utilize reactions producing only gamma rays. But I suspect the issue is irrelevant as fusion produces no long lasting radioactive products.

It was only a joke for my fellow men. You have no idea about the conspiracy theories about Boron in Turkey, there are so many ridiculous claims about it so it's a known humor subject for all the Turks.

As for the Boron question;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

https://www.cfoss.com/fusion.html

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhKB-VxJWpg&t=38m5s

 

[ema]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhKB-VxJWpg&t=38m5s

That was interesting, watched it all.

And after watching that conference along with doing some more research about the ideas involving fusion technology, I realized that there are a lot of groups, companies and even communities that advocate the fusion concept and they have produced some different approaches to it. And many of them prefer Hydrogen-Boron to D&T duo as the main fuel. This guy in the video is also advocating their system with Hydrogen-Boron fuel. He explains why it is the better fuel after around 4th min. And their different approach includes generating the electricity directly, without messing with the heat to steam to electricity process.

But I guess, Lockheed doesn't want to deal with the very high ignition point with pB11 for now. As far as I understand, Lockheed sees the future with fusion energy and that all these other groups trying to achieve it so they probably want to knuckle down to it as soon as possible, before anyone else.

 

[TroutBum]

Even if, starting today, it is a reality, and it is proven effective and reliable, there is no way it will be put into place within the next 10 years. Look at how badly the solar initiative has gone, for example. Electricity companies, mining companies, refineries, etc. have too much money at stake, which means the politicians who accept campaign contributions from these companies, and then legislate the use and/or advancement of their agenda, aren't going to be doing the industry any favors. I believe science could, and probably already has, an efficient and viable source of clean renewable energy, and if a major global catastrophe were to happen, it could be up and in place within a year.

Will it happen? I think everyone can agree that eventually human beings will not be burning fossil fuels for energy, but I doubt many of us think it will happen in our lifetimes. At least, I don't. Just like hybrid cars, it will take years of propaganda, ******** government intervention, crying from major oil companies, tax legislation (that will utterly fail many times over before it finally reaches an equilibrium), more propaganda, and then finally consumer consciousness before any real progress is made.

Either that, or I watch too many conspiracy videos on YouTube.

 

[Siro]

Even if, starting today, it is a reality, and it is proven effective and reliable, there is no way it will be put into place within the next 10 years. Look at how badly the solar initiative has gone, for example. Electricity companies, mining companies, refineries, etc. have too much money at stake, which means the politicians who accept campaign contributions from these companies, and then legislate the use and/or advancement of their agenda, aren't going to be doing the industry any favors. I believe science could, and probably already has, an efficient and viable source of clean renewable energy, and if a major global catastrophe were to happen, it could be up and in place within a year.

Will it happen? I think everyone can agree that eventually human beings will not be burning fossil fuels for energy, but I doubt many of us think it will happen in our lifetimes. At least, I don't. Just like hybrid cars, it will take years of propaganda, ******** government intervention, crying from major oil companies, tax legislation (that will utterly fail many times over before it finally reaches an equilibrium), more propaganda, and then finally consumer consciousness before any real progress is made.

Either that, or I watch too many conspiracy videos on YouTube.

Solar energy is doing great. Like really good. Adoption has been increasing exponentially for a while now. I think it's up to something like 5% of total energy production from close to 0% a few years ago (if my memory serves me right). And that's with the many limitations that come with solar, like installation cost, day-time power generation only, unusable in more northern countries, etc.

If affordable fusion is achieved, then the market will do its thing, and the technology will quickly become commonplace.

 

[TroutBum]

Solar energy is doing great. Like really good. Adoption has been increasing exponentially for a while now. I think it's up to something like 5% of total energy production from close to 0% a few years ago (if my memory serves me right). And that's with the many limitations that come with solar, like installation cost, day-time power generation only, unusable in more northern countries, etc.

If affordable fusion is achieved, then the market will do its thing, and the technology will quickly become commonplace.

I'm not disagreeing with you about solar, but 5% over how many years? It justifies the point I was trying to make; so many hurdles, most of which are man made (corporate/political), and then finally consumer consciousness. Yes, eventually, the market will win out, but it is a sloooow process, and the bigger the issue, the slower it goes.

For example: https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57592455-90/bill-com-costs-critics.html.csp

People using solar need to pay a sun tax. People who drive hybrids have to pay a gas tax. So on and so forth.

 

[franklin]

Electricity companies, mining companies, refineries, etc. have too much money at stake,

Nada.

Electric is at the forefront of the alternative energy revolution. They are a utility that earns ROE based on their costs. If the government demands they produce 20% by wind/solar/geothermal they don't give a rats ***. They charge take out huge loans at super low interest rates and raise rates on consumers. It's as stable a business model as there is so they get the lowest rates, and then collect the spread between that rate and what the state regulatory agency is willing to pay.

It's basically investment banking. Why do you think the richest man in the world is heavily invested in simple old power production?

 

[Scat]

C'mon Trout. Why all the negativity? Just hook one of these bad boys up to your trolling motor and make a day of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HYoq6vIVXc

 

[Stifle Tower]

I thought Pons and Fleichsmann had already solved our energy problems up at that university on the hill.

 

[babe]

I'm sure most of you have have heard about many things about nuclear fusion notion including its very promising possible beneficial applications. Well it's at least one of the most used concepts in SciFi literature as one of the crucial scientific breakthroughs that human race had to make to advance. But if you aren't familiar with it, it's basically a kind of nuclear reaction that you joint lighter elements to make heavier elements, which is more or less the same thing with how the Sun or your usual Hydrogen bomb works. The process obviously generates great amounts of energy in the meantime and that's what makes it a very valuable and intriguing concept for our technological advancement.

But as much as the fusion notion is old, there was usually a pessimistic approach about its realization and practical uses other than making bombs, due to its hard-to control nature. However, Lockheed now claims that nuclear fusion era might be much more closer than what most think it is. In fact, they are investing in it and they have a new simple approach to the R&D side of the subject that will allow them to make much faster progress on the topic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fu...kheed-martin-announces-breakthrough-1.2804036

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM

Honestly, I don't know how much truth there is in their claims but even if they somehow show some key improvements on the subject, the coming decades can indeed be a very very crucial turning point in the technological adventure of human-beings. Of course, for number of reasons(like the military use will be the first thing they will do), I loathe the idea of Lockheed Martin having the say and the influence on such a crucial technology for the human race, but nevertheless, it is such an exciting development and can truly change the world in a relatively short period of time, like half a century or so.



Edit: I'd really appreciate it if colton and our other Physics and Chemistry people could give their thoughts and inform us further.

I owe you some rep for starting this thread.

 

[babe]

yes lets flood the earth with more radiation

fusion reactions if initiated without the fission booster method don't produce "radiation" except say heat and light, including perhaps some high energy rays. Well, even the sun floods the earth with those, and with a lot of high energy particles including ions ejected in solar flares and such.

generally not anything like the long-lived radioactive and toxic elements resulting from fission reactions generally.

when you can say the word "radiation" with no fear, I'll believe you have learned something about it. no fear means you actually understand all the kinds of radiation and know how to reduce or minimize the impacts of the "radiation" that is harmful to the world.

hint: without "radiation" in the visible spectrum falling on chlorophyll and the panopoly of associated light-absorbing agents around it, you'd have no bread or fruit, even no milk or meat. No germs either, of course. . . . no life period.

 

[babe]

I thought Pons and Fleichsmann had already solved our energy problems up at that university on the hill.

EJ has explained all that. No sooner did P&F announce their findings than the Oil Cartelists' hired science pros lynched them in the Press, which is largely oil cartelist-owned.

cold fusion is alive and well as on-going research in many labs around the world, as part of the LENR branch of physics, which is increasingly respected. Results are increasingly predictable, and the recent prospect of a news release from a promoter company planning a working power plant dropped oil futures. . . . prices for future deliveries of oil by about 5% overnight, and is part of the reason gasoline prices have taken a recent dip. Well, maybe a much less part than the expanding glut of US production using new techniques for releasing oil from the host rock. . . .

The problems that must be solved for profitable commercial application might take twenty years, and there might be fifty overly optimistic promoter corporates clamoring for investor money with premature expectations, but it will happen one day. . . .

I'm not selling any oil stock though, because those oil companies will manage somehow to be the ones who own the technology before it becomes profitable.