5 ms·

Suppose that they were testing right now a dimensional portal to the core of the Sun. Would that provide practical fusion power? "At the center of the Sun, fus

by vba616 4y ago

Suppose that they were testing right now a dimensional portal to the core of the Sun. Would that provide practical fusion power? "At the center of the Sun, fusion power is estimated by models to be about 276.5 watts/m3." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core According to a page about the "UK's Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors" this type of fission reactor core is on the order of 10 x 10 x 10 m^3 in volume. https://www.edfenergy.com/about/nuclear/graphite-core https://www.edfenergy.com/about/nuclear/graphite-core It is said one reactor puts out about 1.5 gigawatts (thermal), there may be two cores, but I don't care except about orders of magnitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor 1.5 GW / 1000 / 276.5 is roughly 5,000 by my arithmetic. So basically fission provides on the order of three to four orders of magnitude more power than a magic portal to the center of the Sun.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Stable plasma is a science experiment, even the most hopeful alternative concepts are incredibly low power density, and likely entirely unrelated to power generation in this century, but this comparison is disingenuous. Existing technology is already orders of magnitude higher power density than our sun and doesn't even use the same reaction. The comparison is analogous to comparing oxidation of iron bearing minerals to a steam engine and dismissing the idea of fire.
- vba616 4y ago
  >this comparison is disingenuous. I have no earthly reason for wanting practical fusion power to be impossible, or to prevent it if it is possible. I'm receptive to being un-convinced that it is hopeless, if you have anything to say. But I am convinced of my conclusion and I put it out there to solicit an explanation of what convinces other people otherwise.. >The comparison is analogous to comparing oxidation of iron bearing minerals to a steam engine and dismissing the idea of fire. I don't follow this analogy. First of all, I was dismissing practical fusion reactors on earth, not the phenomenon of fusion. So that is not like dismissing fire, but steam engines (I guess). Secondly, in a parallel universe where fire as we know it was never observed, only slow oxidation, shouldn't we be more skeptical a steam engine would work? Massive wildfires seem to me like just the sort of evidence that fire technology is practical that I don't see for fusion. I would like to understand the reasoning that convinces you fusion power plants are plausible and I promise not to reject it out of hand as inadequate whether or not I buy it.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    We observe much faster fusion in bigger stars or in ones that run out of hydrogen. Ironically the thing that slows it down is fusion. Stars are not very dense so they produce exactly enough energy to hold some hydrogen up and no more. Contrapositively the only thing even loosely analogous to photovoltaics is much worse, and there are no natural wind turbines or water impellers. Conversion of sugars to work is pretty poor as well. I'm not bullish on fusion as a viable bulk electricity or heat source any time this century (or possibly ever on earth), but current approaches are already much better than your analogy. The stable plasma concept probably won't work without much better magnets and a whole host of other highly unlikely advances. If you want a concept that is not obviously terrible, look up Helion.

by vba616 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Stable plasma is a science experiment, even the most hopeful alternative concepts are incredibly low power density, and likely entirely unrelated to power generation in this century, but this comparison is disingenuous. Existing technology is already orders of magnitude higher power density than our sun and doesn't even use the same reaction. The comparison is analogous to comparing oxidation of iron bearing minerals to a steam engine and dismissing the idea of fire.

vba616 4y ago
>this comparison is disingenuous. I have no earthly reason for wanting practical fusion power to be impossible, or to prevent it if it is possible. I'm receptive to being un-convinced that it is hopeless, if you have anything to say. But I am convinced of my conclusion and I put it out there to solicit an explanation of what convinces other people otherwise.. >The comparison is analogous to comparing oxidation of iron bearing minerals to a steam engine and dismissing the idea of fire. I don't follow this analogy. First of all, I was dismissing practical fusion reactors on earth, not the phenomenon of fusion. So that is not like dismissing fire, but steam engines (I guess). Secondly, in a parallel universe where fire as we know it was never observed, only slow oxidation, shouldn't we be more skeptical a steam engine would work? Massive wildfires seem to me like just the sort of evidence that fire technology is practical that I don't see for fusion. I would like to understand the reasoning that convinces you fusion power plants are plausible and I promise not to reject it out of hand as inadequate whether or not I buy it.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  We observe much faster fusion in bigger stars or in ones that run out of hydrogen. Ironically the thing that slows it down is fusion. Stars are not very dense so they produce exactly enough energy to hold some hydrogen up and no more. Contrapositively the only thing even loosely analogous to photovoltaics is much worse, and there are no natural wind turbines or water impellers. Conversion of sugars to work is pretty poor as well. I'm not bullish on fusion as a viable bulk electricity or heat source any time this century (or possibly ever on earth), but current approaches are already much better than your analogy. The stable plasma concept probably won't work without much better magnets and a whole host of other highly unlikely advances. If you want a concept that is not obviously terrible, look up Helion.