Nuclear Fusion

[Winnipeger]

No, I wasn't even thinking in terms of relating it to the fusion thing...but it's certainly applicable to a number of other big issues these days.

Yes well your point about revisiting that speech it's well taken. Is it emblazoned on some U.S. monument somewhere? He pretty well lays out a large part of the problem with America. But I'll leave that alone because what does a Canuck know about anything anyway? Haha

 

[Briar Lee]

This is a big issue I have with nuclear fission plants. The waste products are deadly for close to a quarter of a million years before becoming inert. Anyone ever tried storing something for 250,000 years, or know of a stable society that's lasted that long?

Recorded human history is barely 10,000 years old. The events in the New Testament happened only 2,000 years ago.

But let me let you in on a secret.

I saw a mentally disabled man yesterday in court, and the world doesn’t give a damn if he’s cold and hungry tonight. I advised him how to stall an eviction, and directed him to the nearest Christian Church who might help him find shelter, if he asks.

The open secret is we don’t care about our living brothers and sisters, and surely don’t care about them a quarter million years in the future.

The main business district in this town is well over a century old. When new it was all heated with wood, or coal, and now natural gas.

These buildings will last centuries more.

Even today, the little houses with the little old ladies on Social Security and flower boxes are powered by a technology and a science far beyond any normal citizen’s ability to fully grasp.

My garage is warm and snug tonight, my new tin of Capstan has produced a flake of fragrant tobacco I’m savoring in my Lee Five Star.

That poor disabled man, I hope is warm too, you know?

Whatever we do to preserve the world for generations unborn must not add one little brick, to his already heavy load.

And if our ruin comes from overspending, which I do not a moment believe it will, spending 1% of the defense budget on nuclear fusion research won’t be the cause.

 

[Winnipeger]

In fact, exeeding parity was not achieved this time. Yes, they state that they used 2.04 megajoules and received 3.13 megajoules (152%+!). But in fact it's only the energy of laser rays which's been calculated. Lasers have their own energy conversion efficiency (ECE), then transformers, additional systems etc. It all sums up to about 400 megajoules being used. Which gives us around 0.75% efficiency.

But it's a breakthrough anyway: they've got the energy in the end of the day. POC. However, it's only heat so it's a long way till it's going to be turned into useful electricity (and there will be another ECE barrier).

So we're like 1/400 till the expected target and probably a few decades away. But we're slowly moving in the right direction.

So my question is, at what point does the power output exceed the expended energy within the system, the cost of inputs, like Deuterium and Tritium production, including all the externalities. My (possibly poor) understanding is that fusion energy output is so abundant that it could power itself; but how large a circle is being powered and what are the externalities? Is it so potentially powerful that it could cover all its own costs in the end? Like, that's why on Star Trek, humans didn't use money anymore right?

 

[Briar Lee]

So my question is, at what point does the power output exceed the expended energy within the system, the cost of inputs, like Deuterium and Tritium production, including all the externalities. My (possibly poor) understanding is that fusion energy output is so abundant that it could power itself; but how large a circle is being powered and what are the externalities? Is it so potentially powerful that it could cover all its own costs in the end? Like, that's why on Star Trek, humans didn't use money anymore right?

As the crow flies, I live about forty miles from the Callaway County Nuclear power plant and about the same distance fork Bagnell Dam at Lake of the Ozarks.

I’ve personally considered Bagnell Dam a greater achievement than Callaway, because Bagnell was built mostly with gasoline powered shovels, mules, and steam locomotives. The turbines and regulators were made in 1929. It had a two hundred year engineering design, but they’ll stretch that long before 2130 comes.

The fuel cost for Calloway is two cents a kilowatt hour and other costs a penny.

Once perfected, the fuel costs of a fusion reactor would be four times less than Callaway, theoretically, but it will be a helluva lot less money to fuel it, whatever they spend now.

If you go see the Valley of the Kings in Egypt there are all these huge, very wasteful pyramids over there.

Egypt didn’t go broke building pyramids.

Neither did Rome, building all those wasteful public buildings and aqueducts.

Every yard of concrete, every bit of steel, and every thing in the fusion reactors will be bought from an American and every American who operates them will spend their wages right here. And we will have very, very cheap electricity as a benefit.

Which, will leave the old men that bitch about wasteful spending searching for new things to bitch about.

 

[vates]

Good question.

To give a perspective, here's how it looks like now:



So the process still consumes 100 times more energy than it yields.

However, it is still a breakthrough. For the first time in scientific history fusion provided more energy than of the lasers fired.



It proves that there's a way.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".

Now we know that the path is real and we have around 400 steps to make.

Not bad at all.

 

[karam]

I did, and I haven't paid a power bill in 8 years. Instead I get the occasional check for $50-120. In NC, the power company installed them for us at no cost, and we still get a check. I'm not sure why people are so opposed to it. We've yet to ever run a battery down. We always tend to generate much more than we use, and we leave lights on and run the hvac all year. I also push the thing when I am casting, running a kiln, vacuum pumps, and an electric furnace for hours, and still, we get checks.

Great to hear and genuinely happy for you! In Greece the solar panel craze was about 10-15 years ago, a lot of people got into very nice contracts with the national grid provider and recouped their investment many times over. Over time the contracts became worse and worse, but still there are plenty of people powering their homes and getting a small check back with solar panels installed on their roof. People complain it looks bad, spoils the horizon, even that it makes it dangerous to drive. For a country like Greece, with so much sun and so many mountain ridges and islands it is bonkers not to invest in this, in particular since the fuel we use (because we have it in abundance) is both the weakest and dirtiest type of coal (lignite).

Someone has to buy, install, and maintain those windmills. Overhead means it ain't free. It just means that you are all one step closer to no longer funding terrorists for your energy. Maybe.

Amen. Been saying this for about 20 years already for both nuclear and renewable. Interestingly in Greece it is the loony left and far right who are against both renewables AND nuclear while at the same time going on about meat-eating and cars (the loony left in this case). When you begin to dig into it the thread eventually leads to ties and funding in one way or another from Russia.

Couple of good articles:

• The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables - https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/
• The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables - https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/08/the-only-green-new-deals-that-have-ever-worked-were-done-with-nuclear-not-renewables/

On topic, I was also very happy for this, indeed it could be among our greatest scientific achievements. Antibiotics and vaccines were in my opinion the counterpart in medicine, this and fission is the counterpart in physics/chemistry/engineering

 

[sablebrush52]

But let me let you in on a secret.

I saw a mentally disabled man yesterday in court, and the world doesn’t give a damn if he’s cold and hungry tonight. I advised him how to stall an eviction, and directed him to the nearest Christian Church who might help him find shelter, if he asks.

The open secret is we don’t care about our living brothers and sisters, and surely don’t care about them a quarter million years in the future.

There are many people who are exceptions to this way of being, but in the main, you're spot on. Hasn't changed since Og clubbed Mog so that he could steal a piece off of Mog's daughter.

 

[tbradsim1]

I’m still waiting for a no fuel lighter

 

[mingc]

I’m still waiting for a no fuel lighter

Magnifying glass and sunlight

 

[Andriko]

And has that happened? I guess it could be argued. But nobody is profiting off of fusion energy at this point, so it seems funny to argue against something that is essentially purely experimental, on the grounds of it being a special interest, sapping government resources.

Globally the fusion 'industry' is worth billions of dollars. The people profiting from it are the scientists, lobbyists and other hangers on. Science and scientists are no less a special interest group than any other, and will happily take more money if they can get it, and we will all be told to obey 'The Science.'

 

[Winnipeger]

Globally the fusion 'industry' is worth billions of dollars. The people profiting from it are the scientists, lobbyists and other hangers on.

What are you arguing in favour of? Eliminating science?

" About 33 companies are involved in nuclear fusion research, according to Forbes, but none of these are publicly funded, meaning that individuals cannot just buy a share of their stock online. Privately funded nuclear fusion research gained around $2.8 billion in investments from figures including Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos last year, according to the Fusion Industry Association, bringing total investments to nearly $5 billion.

The company with the most investments is TAE Technologies, which received nearly $1 billion on its own, and one successful new company is Helion Energy, which gained $500 million. Across the sector, private investment into fusion energy has now overtaken government funding, according to Forbes. "

[Can you invest in nuclear fusion energy? - https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-interest-investments-1766757]

Science and scientists are no less a special interest group than any other, and will happily take more money if they can get it, and we will all be told to obey 'The Science.'

fallacy of non sequitur | logic - https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallacy-of-non-sequitur

 

[Andriko]

I am not sure where the non sequitur happened, the reasoning is pretty simple. Scientists are people. People pursue what they consider to be their self interest. When I see something like Fusion, which is 'always 20 years away', and attracts a lot of headlines and investment, and yet doesn't seem to have actually made any progress towards it's stated goal, I become sceptical.

To claim that I wish to eliminate science perhaps is a non sequitur, as I never actually expressed that desire, and pointing out that scientists are just as susceptible to human nature as anyone else is based on logical reasoning.

If it is true that fusion research is all privately funded, than that's excellent. Though the group that did the laser ignition are a government built facility ($3.5billion I think).

It is not to say I have any particular bug bear against fusion, but a lot of crap gets done to us and a lot of our money spent by people making appeals to authority ('I am an expert, so you should listen to me'), and I think we should be aware of that.

 

[Winnipeger]

I am not sure where the non sequitur happened, the reasoning is pretty simple. Scientists are people. People pursue what they consider to be their self interest. When I see something like Fusion, which is 'always 20 years away', and attracts a lot of headlines and investment, and yet doesn't seem to have actually made any progress towards it's stated goal, I become sceptical.

To claim that I wish to eliminate science perhaps is a non sequitur, as I never actually expressed that desire, and pointing out that scientists are just as susceptible to human nature as anyone else is based on logical reasoning.

If it is true that fusion research is all privately funded, than that's excellent. Though the group that did the laser ignition are a government built facility ($3.5billion I think).

It is not to say I have any particular bug bear against fusion, but a lot of crap gets done to us and a lot of our money spent by people making appeals to authority ('I am an expert, so you should listen to me'), and I think we should be aware of that.

The non sequitur is "we will all be told to obey 'The Science.'" That doesn't logically follow from your previous assertions. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. I think in a free society you're required to follow 'The Law'. I'm not sure what you mean by "The Science".

In terms of "profiting" and all that, it looks like capitalists are staring to pour money in where they feel profits may be had in the future, if the research pays off. Scientists doing research and making a salary are not capitalists. They're just people. If you don't like where governments are allocating tax dollars you're free to vote them out of office, in theory. R&D stimulates the economy, and stimulating the economy is in the public interest.

In terms of making progress towards its stated goal, fusion research has finally done just that. Why else would Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates be investing money in it?

 

[Andriko]

The non sequitur is "we will all be told to obey 'The Science.'" That doesn't logically follow from your previous assertions. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. I think in a free society you're required to follow 'The Law'. I'm not sure what you mean by "The Science".

In terms of "profiting" and all that, it looks like capitalists are staring to pour money in where they feel profits may be had in the future, if the research pays off. Scientists doing research and making a salary are not capitalists. They're just people. If you don't like where governments are allocating tax dollars you're free to vote them out of office, in theory. R&D stimulates the economy, and stimulating the economy is in the public interest.

In terms of making progress towards its stated goal, fusion research has finally done just that. Why else would Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates be investing money in it?

Following 'The Science' was a reference to the, now demonstrably bogus, rules we were told to follow over the last two years (and which became law). Any dissent was suppressed because of 'The Science', even when that dissent came from people knowlegable in the field. I am trying to avoid the topic as it is political and a no-no for the forum rules, and I wouldn't wish an interesting discussion to be locked out (or locked down...). Essentially, I am urging caution that we aren't being taken for a ride.

And as I said, private investors can do what they like with their money, though I would say that scientists earning a salary are 'capitalists' in the sense that they are profiting from their skills and expertise in order to benefit themselves. I think that our disagreement hinges a lot on the fact that I don't see scientists as pure hearted and altruistic actors in society, and I think we are too willing to let people get away with things because of their claimed expertise. I also don't believe that people's good intentions, no matter how sincere, necessarily produce good outcomes, and that it is important to consider the incentives that a system creates - in this instance large grants to develop fusion power.

Regarding your last point, the progress made is that the amount of energy out of the system is now 0.5% instead of 0.4%, with no clear path to extracting any of that energy for useful purposes. Fusion has great PR, and every year or so there is a story like this that makes headlines, but it seems to me that we are no further along than we were 10 years ago, hence my skepticism. But as I said, if Jeff Bezos wants to invest all his money into it, then good luck to him and I hope he's right.

 

[Winnipeger]

Following 'The Science' was a reference to the, now demonstrably bogus, rules we were told to follow over the last two years (and which became law). Any dissent was suppressed because of 'The Science', even when that dissent came from people knowlegable in the field. I am trying to avoid the topic as it is political and a no-no for the forum rules, and I wouldn't wish an interesting discussion to be locked out (or locked down...). Essentially, I am urging caution that we aren't being taken for a ride.

And as I said, private investors can do what they like with their money, though I would say that scientists earning a salary are 'capitalists' in the sense that they are profiting from their skills and expertise in order to benefit themselves. I think that our disagreement hinges a lot on the fact that I don't see scientists as pure hearted and altruistic actors in society, and I think we are too willing to let people get away with things because of their claimed expertise. I also don't believe that people's good intentions, no matter how sincere, necessarily produce good outcomes, and that it is important to consider the incentives that a system creates - in this instance large grants to develop fusion power.

Regarding your last point, the progress made is that the amount of energy out of the system is now 0.5% instead of 0.4%, with no clear path to extracting any of that energy for useful purposes. Fusion has great PR, and every year or so there is a story like this that makes headlines, but it seems to me that we are no further along than we were 10 years ago, hence my skepticism. But as I said, if Jeff Bezos wants to invest all his money into it, then good luck to him and I hope he's right.

Yes. I figured you were trying to inject politics into the discussion, which just shows that my objections were well-founded.

Your statement — "every year or so there is a story like this" — is not applicable to the announcement they made last week. It was a first in the history of fusion research, which is why it's being hailed as a breakthrough. It was the first proof of concept in 70 years of research. It's a big deal.

Now,

The ITER scheduled to begin operating in 2025 will have ten to twenty times the power output of the National Ignition Facility reactor in California that announced its breakeven last week. In order to understand what exponential growth looks like, you just have to look at computers from the 1950's to today. Maybe fusion power has a lot of unknown unknowns and it's centuries away, or maybe it'll be proved impossible for some reason. Maybe it's thirty years away, or if you believe U.S. propaganda: ten. Nobody knows. But if cities of the future might have little self-contained suns powering their grids, with no radioactive waste, and no air pollution, isn't that something worth investigating? As a public investment, this isn't the F-35 boondoggle. At least not yet.

Finally, we can both agree that there was a whole lot of mismanagement during the pandemic and governments are corrupt and incompetent, etc. etc. But this isn't the place for that. As you said it's "political and a no-no for the forum rules." This is a General Discussion topic about Nuclear Fusion.

I kind of — but not quite — got into trouble for talking about global warming on another thread a while ago, which is funny, because that's not a political issue. Scientific? Ethical? Yes. Political? No. Not to me anyway. But everyone wants to see everything through a political lens because they've been conditioned to think like that. It's tiresome having politics inject itself into everything nowadays. It's just a big show and a distraction, and the election cycle is a drag on social and economic progress. Is it the "best worst system"? Maybe. Can we improve on it, or is this the end of history? It might get worse before it gets better, but change is inevitable. So don't get too worked up about mask mandates or whatever. Nothing is forever, and society could be a hell of a lot worse than it is in most places nowadays. At least we don't have a 50% child mortality rate now, or whatever it was 150 years ago.

Anyway I'm digressing. See how easy it is to slip into talking about politics?

 

[Andriko]

I wasn't trying to inject politics into the discussion, in fact I was deliberately trying to avoid it as I clearly said.

Every few years there is a similar 'break through', yet the fundamental problems remain - it produces a tiny yield, on top of which there is no clear path to extracting the yield it does produce. Furthermore, the source of the fuel itself (tritium) is hard to come by has it's own problems, also yet to be addressed.

Maybe it's thirty years away, or if you believe U.S. propaganda: ten. Nobody knows. But if cities of the future might have little self-contained suns powering their grids, with no radioactive waste, and no air pollution, isn't that something worth investigating?

The promise of vague benefits to come at an unspecified date is something that troubles me and is an entirely emotional appeal with no basis in logic. It is one step away from 'do it for The Children'. I will repeat myself - if you or any other private individual think it is worth investigating, that is fine. However, it seems to me that this is another potential waste of resources in pursuit of a chimera, and I once again refer back to Eisenhower who warned of this very thing.

 

[Briar Lee]

Eisenhower said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

—-
Ike sent the 82nd Airborne to integrate the Little Rock Schools.

He commissioned the Interstate System.

To spend a tiny fraction of what the military industrial complex uses for fusion research, Ike would approve.

 

[Winnipeger]

I wasn't trying to inject politics into the discussion, in fact I was deliberately trying to avoid it as I clearly said.

Ok.

"fusion power is just another special interest leeching money off of big government for no benefit."

That's a pretty political statement. It's certainly not about science.

"Science and scientists are no less a special interest group than any other, and will happily take more money if they can get it, and we will all be told to obey 'The Science.'"

That seemed like a non sequitur to me, but you clarified it:

"Following 'The Science' was a reference to the, now demonstrably bogus, rules we were told to follow over the last two years..."

I didn't say you were being political, you did:

"I am trying to avoid the topic as it is political".

Meaning the topic you brought up?

Thank you for clarifying your subtext.

I understand why the moderators don't want any politics on this forum because it obviously leads to arguments and camps.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Andriko]

I'll leave the discussion here with a link to a Scientist who makes the case I am trying to make in a much more sophisticated way with reference to Quantum Computing (I too can make appeals to authority!).

She also has similar videos on Fusion which I would recommend, and she is a fusion supporter.

 

[aspiring_sage]

I always cringe when I see links to the definitions of logical fallacies…
Well, I’m gonna say I’m impressed you guys kept it civil and brought it back. Thanks. This is a good community.