- Thread starter Lawless
- Start date
Not could, it absolutely would be a game changer if it were not for the whole helium-3 thing…….gotta have the fuel.
It's in Cali. Faggots will shut it down because, well, Jane fonda hates reactors.
Sirhr
Sirhr
That’s fine. The cheaper energy is around the world, the more people are lifted out of poverty
And China will use slave labor to develop and produce it and then sell it back to the USA.
Communists are gonna commie.
Last edited:
This is exactly the type of pure research and advancement of the state of the art that is, IMO, an appropriate target for Fed government initiatives and spending. Fusion, room temp (or close) superconductors, hydrogen fuel cell technology, advancement in the state of the art of solar power technology. Perhaps add to this advances in geothermal and tidal power generation.
What is NOT, IMO, the proper role of our government...with our tax dollars....are subsidies for consumers buying battery powered cars, subsidies to install solar panels on your roof, def not subsidies to solar panel manufacturers (yeah, Oblama...I'm talking about Solyndra).
Advancing pure research and the state of the art, for later commercialization by private industry is a proper role for government. Think DARPA projects here.
What the fucking Dimwits are doing is no more or less than wealthy distribution....they take our tax money and give it to some jamoke so he can put solar panels on his roof. This is not governments proper role and in fact those assholes would fuck up a wet dream much less try to stick there hands in forcing tech roll out via subsidies.
Tesla and the like are NOT the answer....not even close.
What is NOT, IMO, the proper role of our government...with our tax dollars....are subsidies for consumers buying battery powered cars, subsidies to install solar panels on your roof, def not subsidies to solar panel manufacturers (yeah, Oblama...I'm talking about Solyndra).
Advancing pure research and the state of the art, for later commercialization by private industry is a proper role for government. Think DARPA projects here.
What the fucking Dimwits are doing is no more or less than wealthy distribution....they take our tax money and give it to some jamoke so he can put solar panels on his roof. This is not governments proper role and in fact those assholes would fuck up a wet dream much less try to stick there hands in forcing tech roll out via subsidies.
Tesla and the like are NOT the answer....not even close.
Its California bullshit. More "free" energy feel good bullshit.
Read this:
"One problem is the fact that early experimental models required more energy to operate than they would be capable of producing. The other great challenge involved getting the tritium that fuels the fusion reaction to initially ignite and create a sustainable reaction. (Tritium or hydrogen-3 is a rare and radioactive isotope of hydrogen.) That latter hurdle has now officially been achieved. It actually happened a little more than a year ago, but it’s now been confirmed."
Now read it again.
Then read it again until you understand it.
There is no free lunch, and claims that a free lunch has been discovered, is just another hoax.
Just like wind and solar. Its not economically feasible thus its another hamster wheel.
Read this:
"One problem is the fact that early experimental models required more energy to operate than they would be capable of producing. The other great challenge involved getting the tritium that fuels the fusion reaction to initially ignite and create a sustainable reaction. (Tritium or hydrogen-3 is a rare and radioactive isotope of hydrogen.) That latter hurdle has now officially been achieved. It actually happened a little more than a year ago, but it’s now been confirmed."
Now read it again.
Then read it again until you understand it.
There is no free lunch, and claims that a free lunch has been discovered, is just another hoax.
Just like wind and solar. Its not economically feasible thus its another hamster wheel.
Fusion power is always just 10 to 20 years away.
I believe what you may have missed is that they did indeed initiate ignition.
Also, you are quoting the section on fusion experiments of the past.
My understanding is that once fusion is ignited, it is self sustaining ( of course this requires access to a fuel source) and then generates far more energy that that used to maintain its integrity.
Ever notice how the fusion guys always have a breakthru in the press right before there budget is up for renewal?
That is why this article is laughable...there has never been a self sustaining plasma
Breakeven is ho hum. Unless the plasma is self sustaining, it is useless as a means to commercial power generation
We are still a long way away
Oh yes…we are still a long way but in my opinion pushing this type of technological boundaries is a legit Gov function while redistributing our tax dollar so someon can buy their toy car Batteris included haha) or home solar panels.
Absolutely nothing in this recent legislation out of the dimwits, to my limited knowledge, does a fucking thing to push us closer to sustainable and clean.
Not when yo "money " is losing it's value daily.........but otherwise you are correct sir.....maybe?
No problem, we'll develop the technology, let the Chinese steal it, and buy the tritium from them.
FJB
ELI5?
Mature fusion power generation technology is still a long, long, long way off. When they get it worked out to the point that Mike Lindell is selling "My Little Fusion Reactor" (Order one in the next 15 minutes and I'll send you two FREE My Pillows!) that's the size of a small beer keg that you simply wire into your home's fuse box and it runs for at least a year or two on a single charge of affordable tritium/helium-3/whatever... then it's all useless vaporware.
I'm 63 years old now, and a fusion power breakthrough has been "just around the corner" for nearly my entire life. I stopped holding my breath about this BS a long time ago. It's proven to be nothing but a multi-billion dollar money-pit that only benefits a small number of "researchers" along with their academic and industry patrons.
/rant OFF
I'm 63 years old now, and a fusion power breakthrough has been "just around the corner" for nearly my entire life. I stopped holding my breath about this BS a long time ago. It's proven to be nothing but a multi-billion dollar money-pit that only benefits a small number of "researchers" along with their academic and industry patrons.
/rant OFF
Yes. More, or less.
Not being funny, there are a lot of unknowns about thorium reactors and liquid salt reactors. Clearly lots of unknowns about fusion reactors.
The main issue with any dense source of energy is that it is a dense source of energy so there's always potential (no pun intended) for things to get energetic in ways you didn't expect.
The whole nuclear industry learned fast in fifty (seventy?!) years since things started, which I why I do not believe we will see another Chernobyl.
Fusion has gotten interesting lately. If we compare the technology for computing and magnetic confinement now with five years ago, we're far better equipped to make progress towards net power production. This has been driven in part by changes in the way research is being performed, which I think will continue to drive progress. My personal feeling is that we're more like 15 years from robust fusion power but that's just a wet finger in air SWAG.
The current largest challenge (IMO) at the moment is how to extract energy in useful ways from ignition (US style holraum) or from fusing plasma (tokamak style) reactors.
A bit like graphene - we achieved something cool, now how the hell do we make it do something useful.
I work in nuclear power, happy to share what I know/can.
Edit: spelling
Last edited:
But you still have morons that allow something to go on that should have sent off massive alarms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rprised/9d015883-8bc8-44a8-bc2b-d1ff0aea0915/
There was another near incident that I can't find now, but a power loss on one reactor almost went critical because they never thought to cross wire the other to allow emergency power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rprised/9d015883-8bc8-44a8-bc2b-d1ff0aea0915/
There was another near incident that I can't find now, but a power loss on one reactor almost went critical because they never thought to cross wire the other to allow emergency power.
Hell, Doc Brown had this shit figured out back in the 80's. What's the problem? 
In my totally not informed opinion, I'm thinking part of the whole problem with the current research towards the fusion thing is that all the ways the reactions are being started and contained and sustained are essentially not conducive to being able to get that energy to do useful productive work.
I think there is a good chance the whole fusion thing will remain a great money pit to pour funds into theoretical science, but actual practical application of such things is not going to happen until a scientific breakthrough in a different field that turns out to be useful for making fusion reactions something that can be put into use.
Uncontained fusion reactions seem to work very well both in nature and also man made ones, the whole problem is of course that doesn't do you any good for trying to build a power plant type thing.
Fission based nuclear power plants can be made to be quite safe and the "waste" can be reprocessed to use again and again until there is very little radioactivity left (but guess what we can't do with our nuclear "waste" in the USA?). In the short term it would be way more beneficial to kick the politicians in the nuts and toss out those idiot regulators and judges that are on the take of the carbon cult movement and pour the scientific funds into making safe, reliable, easily manufactured fission based power units and reprocessing the waste over and over to use as much of it as possible until very little radioactivity remains.
Then stop stalling with proper end of life storage places, and allowing stupid political pandering politicians and judges to block scientifically sound and safe long term permanent disposal sites.
I think there is a good chance the whole fusion thing will remain a great money pit to pour funds into theoretical science, but actual practical application of such things is not going to happen until a scientific breakthrough in a different field that turns out to be useful for making fusion reactions something that can be put into use.
Uncontained fusion reactions seem to work very well both in nature and also man made ones, the whole problem is of course that doesn't do you any good for trying to build a power plant type thing.
Fission based nuclear power plants can be made to be quite safe and the "waste" can be reprocessed to use again and again until there is very little radioactivity left (but guess what we can't do with our nuclear "waste" in the USA?). In the short term it would be way more beneficial to kick the politicians in the nuts and toss out those idiot regulators and judges that are on the take of the carbon cult movement and pour the scientific funds into making safe, reliable, easily manufactured fission based power units and reprocessing the waste over and over to use as much of it as possible until very little radioactivity remains.
Then stop stalling with proper end of life storage places, and allowing stupid political pandering politicians and judges to block scientifically sound and safe long term permanent disposal sites.
Wasn’t he the cat I saw that gave a testimony before congress about fusion? Granted, it was only around 30 years ago so my memory may be off.Hell, Doc Brown had this shit figured out back in the 80's. What's the problem?
Wait I thought Val Kilmer had this figured out, didn’t he make a documentary about it….
I'm referencing Back to the Future 2 and the Mr. Fusion Doc Brown put on the Delorian.
Awesome, I’m definitely interested.
My hesitation with any technology being talked about as viable in any mainstream-ish articles is that it will just be some gov boondoggle and won’t really be very efficient or safe. Call me skeptical…
From what I’ve seen and what my lizard brain can understand of thorium nuclear is that it isn’t as efficient as conventional but the thorium fuel is much more plentiful. And what I’ve read about the Oak Ridge reactor in the 50’s(maybe) it’s much much safer to run. That reactor was allowed to run over a weekend essentially unchecked and it was fine
I’ve also read a tiny bit about being able to scale thorium down pretty small to power just about anything. I know this is a movie but it was amusing, the new Terminator movie had a human main character that was augmented to combat the newest terminators and she was “powered” by a tiny thorium power plant about the size of a mango
So, other than the movie reference, what’s the deal?
I understand skepticism in any of the “green” things, the stupid things like cow farts killing the planet sure make a person roll the eyes. Without research however nothing will be figured out.
Yes fusion has been a pipe dream for a good while but things are impossible….until they aren’t.
When the first “germ” was seen, who would have thought we would “see” DNA…let alone have the ability (however scary) to manipulate it?
I guess it’s a don‘t throw the baby out with the bathwater sort of thing for me.
In any case, nuclear better be the focus of all of the move away from hydrocarbons or we’ll all be in the dark…and I am honestly not unilaterally opposed to that either.
Yes fusion has been a pipe dream for a good while but things are impossible….until they aren’t.
When the first “germ” was seen, who would have thought we would “see” DNA…let alone have the ability (however scary) to manipulate it?
I guess it’s a don‘t throw the baby out with the bathwater sort of thing for me.
In any case, nuclear better be the focus of all of the move away from hydrocarbons or we’ll all be in the dark…and I am honestly not unilaterally opposed to that either.
Ya got me. Been a while since I saw the movie. What I am referencing is the drama that played out in the 80s over cold fusion.
Does cold fusion exist | Encyclopedia.com
Does cold fusion exist?Viewpoint: Yes, the experiments of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons offered legitimate proof that cold fusion exists, and subsequent efforts by other scientists have supported their claim. Source for information on Does cold fusion exist: Science in Dispute dictionary.
I know it's not the same thing, but sorta/kinda. What was the type of 'nuclear device' used in the lighthouses in remote areas since WWII and such? Those ones which were unmanned and some-sort of nuclear decay is what created enough juice for the lamp to illuminate.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs)
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators How It Works Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) are lightweight, compact spacecraft power systems that are extraordinarily reliable. RTGs provide electrical power using heat from the natural radioactive decay of plutonium-238, in the form of...
solarsystem.nasa.gov 
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia
Nuclear is absolutely doable.
Downsizing fission is the answer. It doesn't need to be proven, it has been proven.
No one alive right now, will see fusion in any consumer capacity in their lifetime.
Tiny fission reactors is the real future, but its only available to the military and very select corporations.
I believe they used nuclear fuel / decay heat to power some type or thermocouple…which powered the lights. Lots where made. And apparently pillaged after the fall is the SU
I don't know. There seem to be a lot of benefits to be thorium reactors. For them not to be being exploited in the highly regulated environment in which we find ourselves there must be some reasons not to.
It may be as simple as the fuel paradigm is too young. We have a significant volume of experience operating uranium fuelled reactors (the actual physics and chemistry is SIGNIFICANTLY complex) and the shift away from that may take some time/nevrr happen.
Mango sized reactors, unlikely. Neutron flux, and the pressure/shielding apparatus to the go with it, AND the secondary equipment to extract useful energy (steam generators are LARGE) will likely make it impractical.
FWIW I believe we're on the cusp of a few things. I expect Tokamak energy in the UK will make significant progress to net positive reactors (not an employee, I wish I was). ITER will be redundant before it is completed. Rolls-Royce SMR technology (mini uranium pwr) will replace current reactor designs as the best available technology and will be built in volume on old reactor sites.
I’m certainly not saying a tiny reactor is a reality, it was in a movie after all, but the thought experiment is interesting. With current technology or technology on the distant horizon, how small could these get? Something I have heard talked about is like the size of an emergency generator for a house but could power the house/several houses for decades. Is that potentially possible with what is known right now?
Do you have an opinion on Kirk Sorensen? He’s the first person I saw talking about thorium reactors and seems to be banging the drums hardest. I’ve read some negative press about him and his ideas but it didn’t seem to be addressing his arguments, it was just an ad hominem about him being unrealistic
NIF reporting breakeven was a scientific milestone, but that project isn't really supposed to make an energy source. It's a way to develop weapons science and technology without violating the nuclear test ban treaty.
The real excitement in fusion energy is going to be happening at Commonwealth Fusion Systems with SPARC and ARC. They've developed HTS magnets that are a game-changer for magnetic confinement fusion. This is a private company and they have $1.8B in funding to build a burning plasma experiment, so this isn't just a scientific curiosity.
The real excitement in fusion energy is going to be happening at Commonwealth Fusion Systems with SPARC and ARC. They've developed HTS magnets that are a game-changer for magnetic confinement fusion. This is a private company and they have $1.8B in funding to build a burning plasma experiment, so this isn't just a scientific curiosity.
Last edited:
I guess that distribution model is possible, but it would mean a lot of fissile material spread widely, and hard to control. Again a reactor for 3 houses or a street would be small for sure, but the secondary stuff like steam and cooling systems would probably still be large. And the turbo-generator!
The RR ones I mentioned earlier are somewhere around 300mw. Big units are 1000-1400mw. You're probably taking something like 750kw, which is more likely (whisper it) wind turbine territory.
The only kirks I know are Hammet and Captain, no opinion on the guy. I I did a little reading on thorium reactors today and I think they have enough compromises and drawbacksthat they don't really answer more questions than they raise. I think India are chasing it because they have thorium and no one wants them to have uranium.
Thats interesting about India. They already have nuke warheads that can reach regionally.
I don't see what the point is on people being all concerned about India having some Uranium when they are already a declared nuclear power with a decent little arsenal of nukes.
I personally think Thorium reactors are a bit of a red herring designed to send developing nations down a dead end road for now.
For all those saying the 3rd world countries should have "safer" thorium reactors, I'd simply say, show me at least 1 commercial, successful thorium reactor in any of the western countries that is a productive part of the power grid on a large scale.... Nope...
If you’re interested in small fission options, how about 3D printing your reactor?
They’re also getting to the point with additive manufacturing that they think they can now make nuclear components that are ‘born qualified‘. Fission is ready to take off if people want it.
Edit to add: TCR is a great acronym since it actually came from ‘trash can reactor’. As in, can we build a trash can sized nuclear reactor.
Home - Transformational Challenge Reactor
tcr.ornl.gov
They’re also getting to the point with additive manufacturing that they think they can now make nuclear components that are ‘born qualified‘. Fission is ready to take off if people want it.
Edit to add: TCR is a great acronym since it actually came from ‘trash can reactor’. As in, can we build a trash can sized nuclear reactor.
Fusion would be great.
This causes a problem.
Those that control the energy on the face of the earth may be left out.
This ^^^ is why we'll not likely see it.
R
This causes a problem.
Those that control the energy on the face of the earth may be left out.
This ^^^ is why we'll not likely see it.
R
I predict oil money will be overwhelmed by venture capital looking to start the next energy boom. CFS has a former google CIO as a founder, and the tech money connections are why they have secured $1.8B in funding after making the first magnet. Other venture capital is looking to jump in the game. Things are going to get interesting soon.
Edit: I forgot that one of the original CFS investors is ENI, an Italian company that has made most of it’s money in fossil fuels but has now become a 'energy company’.
Activities in the world
www.eni.com Last edited:
Not a fair argument. How easy do you think it is to get any gov to allow testing/construction?
I think I understand Doingmypart’s concern that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. But, for something that is seemingly so safe with a fuel that is also seemingly so plentiful I wish it could get some sort of legitimate shot. We also know that first generation anything is not very efficient so a few iterations down the road should be much more refined. Something else I noticed while I was reading is that spent thorium can’t be used to make nuclear weapons. Call me skeptical(again) but I’m sure that plays a role also
Oh fuck yes, I wantIf you’re interested in small fission options, how about 3D printing your reactor?
Home - Transformational Challenge Reactor
tcr.ornl.gov
They’re also getting to the point with additive manufacturing that they think they can now make nuclear components that are ‘born qualified‘. Fission is ready to take off if people want it.
Edit to add: TCR is a great acronym since it actually came from ‘trash can reactor’. As in, can we build a trash can sized nuclear reactor.
In a couple generations, there may very well be nuclear weapons that don't rely on large quantities of radioactive material.
