Fusion Power

[Stewy]

(12-13-2022, 05:10 PM)Stewy Wrote: A slight correction to what I previously posted in explanation to GMDino.  I did some more research....

This was specifically a US based effort out in California.
-The US funded and sanctioned - Facility is called "Ignition"
-ITER is an international consortia Fusion effort of which the US is apart.
-A UK effort actually achieved positive energy from a reaction last year, but the % gain was very small, like less than 2%
-Ignition reaction generated OVER 50% more energy than was put into the reaction more than 50x the efficiency of the UK effort
-Ignition is a laser based approach, vs. the magnetic based approach of ITER and others
-Ignition uses 129 lasers, all focusing XRAYs constructively to start the fusion reaction
-ITER and other magnetic field fusion attempts use super strong magnetic fields to cause and contain the reaction
---I believe the laser based approach is pure "ignition" and not containment like the magnetic field version.
-Both methods use Deuterium (known as heavy water) as their fuel, which can be found and easily accessed from Seawater

Strangely, finding deep detail on Ignition (for we science geeks) is actually a struggle.  :)

(08-27-2023, 01:31 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sorry, too lazy to find the right thread...

What do you have to say about the recent replication of fusion gain?  Is it fully viable, or is the jury still out?  Is it possible to reach commercial scale within the next 30-50 years?

See my latest above about Ignition, and scroll up to find out more.  Assuming you read the above, my response to you would be:

ITER:  is an attempt to scale up a Magnetic Containmentinemnt based Fusion approach to a more commercial level.  Note:  The UK succeeded is producing more energy than it used, but only by 2%.  With that said, ITER ha been running into glitches, delays and cost over runs.  it doesn't help that Russia has a big hand in this and is having issues paying it's part of the bills.

Ignition:  See above, but laser based instead of Magnetic Containment.  This is solely a US funded effort, and I believe it is largely military, thus I wouldn't be surprised if the US keeps it tight to the vest, even with publications going out.  If Ignition can achieve a 50% energy gain (25x the magnetic), over the Mag Contain. methos, that is a HUGE competitive advantage for the US, and I'm betting the military will be loath to allow the scientists to share how to do it even for replication purposes.  If they believe in it and it works, then why share it?  The flip side could be that it's just a big hoax and they don't want to admit it (See Cold Fusion previously - google).

As for commercial viability.....I've said before and have never wavered that barring SIGNIFICANT and potentially unheard of breakthroughs, we are at least a century away from commercial fusion.  Why?  #1 - Mostly the reaction only last micro seconds before the fuel is used up;  #2 - ITER is an attempt to scale it up, but it is a colossal undertaking (look it up on youtube); #3 - Fusions Dirty little secret that no one talks about - Deuterium produces radioactive waste the same as Fission reactions, so it is no cleaner than Fission (currently).

Summary:  We're nowhere near commercial fusion.  We have to replace the current reactions, maintain the reactions, contain them, make the system more efficient, deal with the waste, THEN scale them up with technologies likely not even invented yet for commercial use.