Yawn. Nonsense. It is not viable yet. Neither is it cheap.
They've managed to produce a return. Harnessing for long enough to gain potentially something back
However the parts aren't sustainable or cost effective. Meanwhile the potential for output isn't unlimited. It is harnessing for long enough to get returns. How much by the comparison needed to generate it? Further how much energy is provided, wattage, and how often does it stress the means harnessing.
Tediously out by larger margins if indeed it becomes the next standard adopted.
Currently fission is still the reactors being constructed, currently, there are builds and plans for a number more and in smaller sizes.
If such a breakthrough is imminent then why indeed are fission reactors being constructed. The demand. Because Fusion hasn't got a working model generating for the grid. It is still experimental.
I guess I read that article after I read the headline. It is as confirmed decades away. But it has been like this for years. Everytime it wants more funding. The breakthrough was announced earlier this year and also last. Breaking temperatures, and harnessing longer. Enough to potentially power something, but not enough to sustain the grid or indefinitely. In the meantime fission is being constructed and it's designs are getting smaller. I don't know why it calls it clean and sustainable. Can anybody else tell me about electro magnets and superheated plasma. Irony I guess it's not the nuclear waste?
And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.
It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ (1kWh) of electricity to get 2.1 MJ (0.6kWh) of laser light to make 2.5 MJ (0.7kWh) of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.
Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.
Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.
Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.
I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
I believe the nuclear shilling is just a diversion to tie up money while not creating a solution.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.
Yawn. Nonsense. It is not viable yet. Neither is it cheap.
They've managed to produce a return. Harnessing for long enough to gain potentially something back
However the parts aren't sustainable or cost effective. Meanwhile the potential for output isn't unlimited. It is harnessing for long enough to get returns. How much by the comparison needed to generate it? Further how much energy is provided, wattage, and how often does it stress the means harnessing.
Tediously out by larger margins if indeed it becomes the next standard adopted.
Currently fission is still the reactors being constructed, currently, there are builds and plans for a number more and in smaller sizes.
If such a breakthrough is imminent then why indeed are fission reactors being constructed. The demand. Because Fusion hasn't got a working model generating for the grid. It is still experimental.
I guess I read that article after I read the headline. It is as confirmed decades away. But it has been like this for years. Everytime it wants more funding. The breakthrough was announced earlier this year and also last. Breaking temperatures, and harnessing longer. Enough to potentially power something, but not enough to sustain the grid or indefinitely. In the meantime fission is being constructed and it's designs are getting smaller. I don't know why it calls it clean and sustainable. Can anybody else tell me about electro magnets and superheated plasma. Irony I guess it's not the nuclear waste?
Absolutely despite some gains already running up trillions.
And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.
It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ (1kWh) of electricity to get 2.1 MJ (0.6kWh) of laser light to make 2.5 MJ (0.7kWh) of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.
Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.
Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.
Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.
Thank you
I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.