Fusion Power

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-27-2023, 02:26 PM)Stewy Wrote: 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.

Sounds like the best answer is still to design and build some modernized nuclear power plants (there has to be some significant upgrades we can make from the 1950s designs, no? Improved material technology at the very least) if we want reliable energy without oil and coal. Not sure how else they are going to meet energy needs with all the push for electric cars, electric stoves, and heat pumps if commercial fusion is that far away.