5 ms·

Fusion is not the problem. Fusion is understood very well. The problem is plasma physics. If you happen to understand German, listen to this podcast about Wende

by dukoid 10y ago

Fusion is not the problem. Fusion is understood very well. The problem is plasma physics. If you happen to understand German, listen to this podcast about Wendelstein 7-X https://alternativlos.org/36/ https://alternativlos.org/36/

smoyer 10y ago
I'm a fan of "new" approaches to fusion too - the 7-X and the Lockheed "Compact Fusion" [0] designs have a better chance of producing continuous fusion, do their research in much shorter time frames and prove/disprove theories at much lower cost. [0] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...
- dukoid 10y ago
  The stellarator approach is not new though. It was more or less "given up" when the Soviets had early success with a Tokamak. But some researchers were still curious why the stellarator didn't work as expected. And it turned out that problems were understandable and solvable with modern computers... In the podcast, their main criticism of other approaches is that they either don't publish their numbers --- or they are quite bad. "Some" fusion is relatively easy, producing energy with fusion is hard: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-video/10680762/Schoolboys-nuclear-fusion-test-how-he-did-it.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-video/106807...
  - smoyer 10y ago
    All true ... but how many more iterations of promising ideas and how many more ideas for small scale systems are languishing because of ITER? If it doesn't work, is it because they just need the funding for a much bigger Tokamak? I'm not usually a technical visionary but I'll predict that when they build a Tokamak that's as big as the sun (supplied with sufficient fuel), it will produce a net positive output and be self-sustaining.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It fascinates me that producing net energy with fusion is actually really easy, relatively speaking. It was figured out in the early 1950s and immediately put to use. What's hard is doing it at less than a yottawatt scale, so that the resulting energy could be used to power a city rather than obliterate it. I guess it's another example of how it's easier to destroy than to create. For comparison, controlled fission was performed before the explodey kind, and the first fission electricity was produced only three years after the first fission bomb.

by dukoid 10y ago

smoyer 10y ago

I'm a fan of "new" approaches to fusion too - the 7-X and the Lockheed "Compact Fusion" [0] designs have a better chance of producing continuous fusion, do their research in much shorter time frames and prove/disprove theories at much lower cost. [0] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...

dukoid 10y ago
The stellarator approach is not new though. It was more or less "given up" when the Soviets had early success with a Tokamak. But some researchers were still curious why the stellarator didn't work as expected. And it turned out that problems were understandable and solvable with modern computers... In the podcast, their main criticism of other approaches is that they either don't publish their numbers --- or they are quite bad. "Some" fusion is relatively easy, producing energy with fusion is hard: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-video/10680762/Schoolboys-nuclear-fusion-test-how-he-did-it.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-video/106807...
- smoyer 10y ago
  All true ... but how many more iterations of promising ideas and how many more ideas for small scale systems are languishing because of ITER? If it doesn't work, is it because they just need the funding for a much bigger Tokamak? I'm not usually a technical visionary but I'll predict that when they build a Tokamak that's as big as the sun (supplied with sufficient fuel), it will produce a net positive output and be self-sustaining.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It fascinates me that producing net energy with fusion is actually really easy, relatively speaking. It was figured out in the early 1950s and immediately put to use. What's hard is doing it at less than a yottawatt scale, so that the resulting energy could be used to power a city rather than obliterate it. I guess it's another example of how it's easier to destroy than to create. For comparison, controlled fission was performed before the explodey kind, and the first fission electricity was produced only three years after the first fission bomb.