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.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle.
To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.
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.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle. To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.