Fusion and start up companys. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 01:00:10 am
content: I just read an interesting article in Nov.2 2015 Time magazine about fusion and some start up co's working on it.https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/time-magazine-cover/A more detailed article.http://www.setventures.com/unlimited-energy-for-everyone-forever-fusion-cover-time-magazine/Story about some of the start ups.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/technology/start-ups-take-on-challenge-of-nuclear-fusion.html?_r=0Mind you I know next to zero about fusion I found all this very interesting, I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.I do know that it is very difficult to contain the plasma and reach the high temps. required.bill

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 01:04:06 am
content: Nuclear energy really is the future of mankind - as it has been the past of mankind -> all the fuels we have on this planet, one way or another, comes from a star with gazillion nuclear bombs are detonated every second.We will just need to figure out a way to make it work safely, and economically.However, given the severe downside of an accident here, I think it is best that it is done by the states, not some private ventures.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 01:08:44 am
content: I am referring to fusion not fission.fusion is clean and no 300k year waste issues, If what I read is correct.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 01:23:44 am
content: edit bad link

author: HAL-42b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 01:34:33 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on February 09, 2016, 01:04:06 amI'm only interested in energy sources that I can own and control personally.Outside of that it doesn't matter what governments and companies burn in order to sell energy. They might be burning coal or nuclear fuel, neither has any benefit to me.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 02:04:06 am
content: So old fashioned to boil water to generate electricity! I mean whenever a working situation requires extreme things like heat, pressure a truck load of other issues are attached to it making it very expensive and only run'ed by specialists under load of law's. Cold fusion but that one are often connected with scam schemes and free energy figures...

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 02:22:03 am
content: Halthanks for your opinion.MTI can only infer from your comment that you have a better way?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 03:57:42 am
content: Quote from: HAL-42b on February 09, 2016, 01:34:33 amThat seems very restrictive unless maybe you own a coal mine or oil well.Of course, I guess geothermal would qualify.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 04:11:18 am
content: And 99.999% of the people would not have or want their own power generation system.So lets drop that part of the discussion and continue with the topic of the thread.

author: HAL-42b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 10:48:40 am
content: Quote from: rdl on February 09, 2016, 03:57:42 amWind, solar, geothermal and micro-hydro.For all energy outside of that I'm already paying market prices. If major scientific breakthrough is achieved I will still be paying market prices. For me nothing will change. It is not like the government will allow me to install a reactor in my garage. Therefore it is completely irrelevant to me how research in other areas is conducted and financed.Power companies can finance their own research, it's not like I'm not already paying them in cold hard cash.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 10:59:14 am
content: "unless maybe you own a coal mine or oil well."Not only owning his own coal mine, he owns his own coal and his own universe,

author: HAL-42b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 11:54:55 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on February 09, 2016, 10:59:14 amExcept that this has nothing to do with what I said.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 12:09:27 pm
content: while we (humanity) are making progress to achieving sustainable fusion with projects like ITER, it's going to come too late for out immediate energy needspersonally i believe we need to be building more fission reactors to generate the energy for our immediate needs while we continue to improve the ability to collect, store and use the energy that is provided to earth 24/7 by the existing fusion device we have already... it's called the Sunpersonally i would like to see in the future that we should all be energy independent, capturing our own energy with solar panels but there should also be large scale national energy generation using fusion for large industry and those unable to have their own solar solution

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 12:30:59 pm
content: Quote from: bills on February 09, 2016, 01:08:44 amThe comment made did not have anything that specified fission.Quote from: dannyf on February 09, 2016, 01:04:06 amAny energy production facility - by its very nature - will need to have safety as a priority.We can guess what measures might be necessary for a sustained fusion reactor power generation plant, but we still have to design and implement them on the appropriate scale .... and then repeat the exercise as we discover the shortcomings of the earlier designs.Don't forget, there are some high energy neutrons floating around. They aren't to be ignored.Certainly, there is no issue with fallout or long term storage of radioactive material, but we still don't know exactly what would happen if a fusion power plant were to fail. There may not be any risk in regards to radiation after a failure, but you can't rule out structural failure of components that could be explosive by nature - such as pressure vessels.While I am only crystal balling here, the fact remains it has to be done with safety in mind.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 12:39:35 am
content: quote: Don't forget, there are some high energy neutrons floating around. They aren't to be ignored.Tri Alpha claims their design has solved the high energy neutron issue.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 12:46:03 am
content: Solving the issue isn't what I was referring to - it was the safety considerations in a failure condition.Specifically - that we haven't had a practical implementation yet - so the range of failure conditions can only be speculated at this time. The real world tends to educate us much more than our imaginations.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 12:59:46 am
content: Quote from: HAL-42b on February 09, 2016, 10:48:40 amWind and solar are not controllable. Micro-hydro maybe, depends on the source. Most rivers/streams, etc. have significant seasonal variation in flow. Geothermal is not actually controllable, but it is relatively constant.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 01:14:50 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on February 10, 2016, 12:46:03 amThe claim is if something should go wrong the reactor just shuts down. ( no I don't think it is that simple)As I said in my op I find this interesting and think now with private company's working on it we could see some progress.It does seem to have a chance to solve a lot of problems without causing new ones .

author: barry14
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 01:34:09 am
content: Forum members might be interested in the following announcement:Lockheed Martin Pursuing Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor ConceptPALMDALE, Calif., Oct. 15, 2014 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] Skunk Works® team is working on a new compact fusion reactor (CFR) that can be developed and deployed in as little as ten years. Currently, there are several patents pending that cover their approach.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 02:12:42 am
content: Quote from: barry14 on February 10, 2016, 01:34:09 amTen years, again. I seem to recall that has always been the promise/estimate forever. If LMT is investing their own money for development, then fine. But if they campaign/lobby for a Federal funded project then color me unimpressed.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 03:39:42 am
content: Quote from: dexters_lab on February 09, 2016, 12:09:27 pmI agree.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 02:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: bills on February 10, 2016, 12:39:35 amYou can reduce it by using expensive to obtain ions, but you can't "solve" the issue. Shielding would still be much more important in fusion reactors compared to fission as even relatively low radiation fusion chains produce more radiation than equivalent powered fission plants when running. Of course the lower amount of waste is an upside, but reprocessing has come a long way and when decommissioning fusion plants you'll still have an awful lot of irradiated material to deal with. In the long run shielding and irradiated material will be an even bigger issue when/if we get to straight hydrogen-hydrogen fusion.Quote from: bills on February 10, 2016, 01:14:50 amIt probably is that simple. It's one of the reasons fusion is seen as being intrinsically safer than fission even given the higher radiation. The hardest problem with a nuclear pile is controlling the reaction, if you lose power or some other problem occurs it can runaway. And any breach in confinement presents a risk of long term radiation sources being released. The hardest problem with fusion is sustaining a reaction. If you lose power the reactor shuts down. Barring irradiated shielding and the like if confinement is lost the reaction shuts down and no more radiation is being produced. Other parts of the plant may be just as prone to explode etc as in any other power plant but the core isn't.EDIT:Well that's my understanding anyway, but IANANP and I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm wrong.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 08:41:27 pm
content: hard to know without a great deal of knowledge of the physics involvedthere would be an awful lot of energy 'in the system', how that energy comes out in some kind of disaster could be very complex as particles interact with each other and the surrounding materials and thats not thinking about what happens to all that energy in the magnetic fieldi was reading up about the beam dumping at the lhc the other day, there is just over 10 gigajoules in the beam and magnets...

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 09:40:07 pm
content: Quote from: bills on February 09, 2016, 02:22:03 amYes indeed!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 10, 2016, 11:55:43 pm
content: Quote from: dexters_lab on February 10, 2016, 08:41:27 pmThat is exactly my point.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 03:13:02 pm
content: Quote from: dexters_lab on February 10, 2016, 08:41:27 pmAs I understand it, there is high energy levels, but at very low density. Once constriction is lost by the time the plasma hits the container wall it's way way down in energy.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 01:38:06 am
content: The plasma beam is just one component of a "system". Thereareone or two other bits ....