Fusion energy

[mikbone]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-announce-scientific-breakthrough-fusion-energy-sources-2022-12-12/

Fingers crossed.

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, mikbone said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-announce-scientific-breakthrough-fusion-energy-sources-2022-12-12/

Fingers crossed.

Meh.  I've heard it before.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Too bad it takes more energy to make nuclear fusion than it gives off presently.  Here is to hoping that nuclear fusion can become a power source soon that we can use.  I doubt we are close to discovering this though.

Nuclear fission with Thorium seems like a good source of power from what I have studied.

I have also heard one way humanity can dispose of nuclear waste is very deep drilling into the Earth in a stable region.  The waste would be placed so deep that once the hole is sealed the waste would very likely remain undisturbed for over tens of thousands of years.

[Vort]

Fusion is a lie. It's been brought back triple speed today. Someone's making bank off of it. It's all hype, though. I boldly predict that nuclear fusion will never become a public power source in my lifetime. It's a scam. Yes, I am being serious.

I could be wrong. It would be great if the researchers proved me wrong. Good times. But it won't happen, in my estimation. When I was a boy in the early 1970s and learned about fusion, it was confidently predicted that nuclear fusion was 25 years away. And it has basically remained 25 years away for my lifetime of nearly 60 years. That's Einsteinian relativity right there, folks.

There are solid technical reasons why it's unlikely that fusion power will happen any time soon; indeed, perhaps not at all. But I doubt anyone reading this cares about that. Suffice it to say that it won't happen, not like the headlines have been blaring for the last 3-5 years. (Maybe longer. The rebirth of Fusion Frenzy has been going on a while now.) It is a scam, perpetrated by people making money off the idea. Might be as simple as the research machine looking out for its middle-term future. It might be a conspiracy (yes, conspiracies exist) of the oil companies to distract people into awaiting a never-to-come energy source that will save us from the evils of Big Oil, while in the meantime we keep lining the sultans' pockets. But whoever is behind it, it's a scam and a lie. If the media had an ounce of integrity, someone would take a hard look into the topic and do some tough investigative reporting on it. Yeah, good luck with that.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

I was yesterday years old when I learned part of the background on why the US has so many ignorant people hating and fearing nuclear power.  Because the democrat national platform was anti-nuclear power for almost five decades, and didn't change until 2020.  

Because democrats spent all their time decrying the evils of nuclear proliferation and nuclear threat and nuclear armageddon and nuclear waste, and either ignored or harped against nuclear power.  For every one time the democrats mentioned US nuclear power, they mentioned fifty times how we can't have breeder reactors because someone might make a nuclear bomb with it.

Because Carter killed breeder reactors in the US, making a bunch of investors lose their shirts, so now every time someone tries to get people excited about nuclear power, all the money brokers say "I'd rather invest in friggin' bitcoin than this political hot potato."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/?sh=65b763645829

Well, at least it finally changed in 2020.  Now we just need a generation to pass and all the old superstitious fearful weirdos to age out and get replaced by younger less ignorant people.

 

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

younger less ignorant people

I have some disappointing news for you, NT...

Edited December 12, 2022 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

Well, perhaps “ignorant in other ways“. I have some woke millennials that I hang out with at work, they are all for nuclear power, and wonder why the US hasn’t done it yet. They assume it’s because capitalism is evil.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, perhaps “ignorant in other ways“. I have some woke millennials that I hang out with at work, they are all for nuclear power, and wonder why the US hasn’t done it yet. They assume it’s because capitalism is evil.

It's because climate change (along with "social justice" and redistribution of wealth) is one of the 3 great pillars of the liberal left. Widespread adoption of nuclear power would solve much of the co2 problem they constantly whine about. They can't afford to have one of their great talking points disappear...a stool needs at least 3 legs.

Every democrat I associate with is vehemently opposed to nuclear...but they can't tell me why other than saying it's "dangerous".

[NeuroTypical]

2 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Every democrat I associate with is vehemently opposed to nuclear...but they can't tell me why other than saying it's "dangerous".

I'd agree.  There's a difference between democrats and woke millennial liberals.  I'm not sure if they'll grow up to be democrats.

Although Biden is sure trying his best to entice them. 

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-invites-drag-performers-232859900.html

 

[scottyg]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'd agree.  There's a difference between democrats and woke millennial liberals.  I'm not sure if they'll grow up to be democrats.

Although Biden is sure trying his best to entice them. 

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-invites-drag-performers-232859900.html

 

We need to get some new emoji options. A throw up or face slap are surely needed.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

I have some disappointing news for you, NT...

I was thinking the same thing.

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, perhaps “ignorant in other ways“. I have some woke millennials that I hang out with at work, they are all for nuclear power, and wonder why the US hasn’t done it yet.

That is quite interesting.

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

They assume it’s because capitalism is evil.

Oh, of course.

[Traveler]

One thing we should have figured out by now - if there is an advanced intelligent civilization of similar life forms like us any where in our universe - they do not utilize nuclear power in any way similar to that which we understand.  It is my personal opinion that as smart as we think we are - we are no where near even a Kardashev level I civilization here on earth.  And we are a long way off of mastering the resources of our own planet.  Good greef - we cannot even learn to get along with each other.  Sometimes I think we would all be better off with a more serious attitude about religion and figguring out how we fit into a neighborhood - let alone our planet or someday the universe.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

14 hours ago, scottyg said:

Every democrat I associate with is vehemently opposed to nuclear...but they can't tell me why other than saying it's "dang

100% correct. 
 

One of my dearest friends is a democrats democrat. We make a bet on baseball every year and the loser donates to the DNC or the Ayn Rand institute.   I’ve sent him books on various conservative values and while doesn’t agree, he always learns something. In fact, he changed his mind on a few issues thanks our conversations over the last 20+ years. 
 

:: sigh :: 

 

Except for nuclear power. He’s stuck in the 70’s mind frame where he thinks it's incredibly dangerous and should be banned forever. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by LDSGator

[scottyg]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

100% correct. 
 

One of my dearest friends is a democrats democrat. We make a bet on baseball every year and the loser donates to the DNC or the Ayn Rand institute.   I’ve sent him books on various conservative values and while doesn’t agree, he always learns something. In fact, he changed his mind on a few issues thanks our conversations over the last 20+ years. 
 

:: sigh :: 

 

Except for nuclear power. He’s stuck in the 70’s mind frame where he thinks it's incredibly dangerous and should be banned forever. 

Ever see the show Chernobyl? Not a bad show (a bit graphic and embellished at times) but I feel that it was made in part to encourage people to hate and fear nuclear power. That could just be a conspiracy theory in my head. But, I have had several people tell me to watch it and then get back to them with my changed opinion. When I tell them I've already seen it they fume at me for keeping my view that nuclear is the way to go.

Many are surprised to know that we have almost 100 nuclear power plants across our country, many of them powering some of the bluest spots on the map. Without them, we could have close to 100 million people without power. Or, we could replace them with coal. Our modern reactors, safeguards, and better disposal/storage practices are so much better now then they were back then that it is folly to make comparisons with the 70's. The arrogant Soviets simply cut fundamental corners and emergency fail-safes thinking it would never come back to bite them. Much of the world knows better now.

[mikbone]

“On December 5, an array of lasers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, fired 2.05 megajoules of energy at a tiny cylinder holding a pellet of frozen deuterium and tritium, heavier forms of hydrogen. The pellet compressed and generated temperatures and pressures intense enough to cause the hydrogen inside it to fuse. In a tiny blaze lasting less than a billionth of a second, the fusing atomic nuclei released 3.15 megajoules of energy—about 50 percent more than had been used to heat the pellet.“

 

Nice.  Now we just have to extend the length of time by a factor of 10^12, contain the heat safely and couple it to a steam generator and we are in business.

Next year?

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Ever see the show Chernobyl? Not a bad show (a bit graphic and embellished at times) but I feel that it was made in part to encourage people to hate and fear nuclear power. That could just be a conspiracy theory in my head. But, I have had several people tell me to watch it and then get back to them with my changed opinion. When I tell them I've already seen it they fume at me for keeping my view that nuclear is the way to go.

Many are surprised to know that we have almost 100 nuclear power plants across our country, many of them powering some of the bluest spots on the map. Without them, we could have close to 100 million people without power. Or, we could replace them with coal. Our modern reactors, safeguards, and better disposal/storage practices are so much better now then they were back then that it is folly to make comparisons with the 70's. The arrogant Soviets simply cut fundamental corners and emergency fail-safes thinking it would never come back to bite them. Much of the world knows better now.

All great points. Agree totally, once again.
 

From what I’ve read (and I am no expert, so again @Vort call me out if I’m wrong) nuclear is actually much cleaner than most other power sources we have now! 

[mikbone]

5 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Ever see the show Chernobyl?

Oh yeah!  Great show.  The human errors were so over the top.

Even a rock can be a deadly tool if an ignoramus is using it.

I loved the scene when they almost flew over the reactor.  The heroism and sacrifice of the miners.  And the fact that many of the exposed personnel and family members survived without serious consequence.

The concrete and steel encasement shielding the reactor is pretty impressive as well.

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

From what I’ve read (and I am no expert, so again @Vort call me out if I’m wrong) nuclear is actually much cleaner than most other power sources we have now! 

A nuclear science professor on social media tells me it's theoretically possible to mine radioactive materials from seawater.  Just an awful lot of it, not sure if it's practical, but the science is there.

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

A nuclear science professor on social media tells me it's theoretically possible to mine radioactive materials from seawater.  Just an awful lot of it, not sure if it's practical, but the science is there.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/granite-countertops-and-radiation#aboutgranite

You can mine radioactive materials from many kitchens in the USA.

[LDSGator]

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1119904819/nuclear-power-environmentalists-california-germany-japan

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-activists-who-embrace-nuclear-power

Even though I think we’re correct and way too many on the left are against it for the wrong reasons, hopefully it’s changing.  NPR and The Yorker are not part of the vast right wing conspiracy. 

[Vort]

10 hours ago, mikbone said:

“On December 5, an array of lasers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, fired 2.05 megajoules of energy at a tiny cylinder holding a pellet of frozen deuterium and tritium, heavier forms of hydrogen. The pellet compressed and generated temperatures and pressures intense enough to cause the hydrogen inside it to fuse. In a tiny blaze lasting less than a billionth of a second, the fusing atomic nuclei released 3.15 megajoules of energy—about 50 percent more than had been used to heat the pellet.“

 

Nice.  Now we just have to extend the length of time by a factor of 10^12, contain the heat safely and couple it to a steam generator and we are in business

(See tl;dr at the bottom if you don't want to read this whole thing.)

Not quite. The laws of thermodynamics limit the efficiency of conversion of heat into motion to (T_high - T_low) / T_high. If we could somehow make our exhaust temperature T_low to be absolute zero (0 K, -273.15° C, or -459.67° F), we could have 100% efficiency! Alas, that will never happen.

Water, our working fluid in pretty much all turbine generators, freezes at 273.15 K (0° C or 32° F). Lower than this, the solid ice makes it hard to pump around or otherwise be useful as a working fluid. In fact, the ideal T_low for a working fluid is just below its melting point, which for water is 373.15 K (100° C or 212° F). So let's use 373 K as our T_low (which is silly, because it's just barely below boiling, but let's pretend).

A quick Google search reveals this source, which says: "The highest inlet steam temperature currently applied to actual supercritical pressure and USC steam turbines, is between 566°C and 620°C." Using the higher value, 620°C (about 893 K), as our T_high, our theoretical best possible efficiency on electricity generation is

(T_high - T_low) / T_high = (893 K - 373 K) / (893 K) = 520 / 893 = 58.2%

This is our absolute maximum mathematically allowed efficiency on our electricity generation. Of course, my numbers are simply unrealistic for real operating conditions, and we have not even tried to include the numerous other energy vampires that will decrease our efficiency. Heat engine efficiencies much above about 50% are exceedingly rare and usually involve carefully curated lab setup conditions. In actual practice, if a heat engine reaches better than 40% efficiency, that's considered good.

So what kind of efficiency can we expect for energy production based on the above laser-driven fusion experiment? Well, what kind of efficiency does it produce? That's easily calculated:

(3.15 MJ)/(2.05 MJ) = just under 154%

In other words, for every 100 joules of energy we put into the system, we get out 154 joules of heat. Now we have to turn that heat into usable energy. As we calculated above, we can do that with a best-possible-case scenario of 58.2%. So our net yield is

(1.54)(0.582) = 0.896

That means 89.6 joules out for every 100 joules in.

As Scooby Doo would say, ruh roh.

According to this, our absolute best-case scenario involves us initially putting 100 joules of electrical energy into the process to get back out...less than 90 joules of electrical energy. At a bare minimum not counting the inefficiency of the lasers (which may have an efficiency of 10% or so), we're still losing energy to this fusion process.

Best case, folks. Best case.

tl;dr

Fusion efficiency will need to be well over 150% to make it a viable commercial path to energy generation. Maybe more like 10,000%, just for starters.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Vort
Worked in some new info from Googling and from Carb

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

From what I’ve read (and I am no expert, so again @Vort call me out if I’m wrong) nuclear is actually much cleaner than most all other power sources we have now! 

Ftfy.

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Ftfy.

Lol. 

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

A nuclear science professor on social media tells me it's theoretically possible to mine radioactive materials from seawater.  Just an awful lot of it, not sure if it's practical, but the science is there.

Last I saw (and I have no source for this), it requires something like eight times more energy to extract uranium from seawater than the electricity that uranium could generate. I know the Hanford area in my state (WA) is researching more efficient methods of seawater extraction of uranium. I don't know, maybe it will come to something eventually. Let's hope.

[mikbone]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Fusion efficiency will need to be well over 150% to make it a viable commercial path to energy generation. Maybe more like 10,000%, just for starters.

Still betting we will have a viable fusion reactor creating reasonable amounts of energy before civilians are jetting around in flying cars that can be parked in the garage.

Or the USA win the world cup.

Edited December 13, 2022 by mikbone