5 ms·
"no really" is about right. even if you have managed to produce sustainable fusion with a good bit of output energy (a very big if), you still have the problem
by zabzonk 2y ago
"no really" is about right. even if you have managed to produce sustainable fusion with a good bit of output energy (a very big if), you still have the problem of producing useable electricity from it, which as I understand it is one of the things that ITER was supposed to prototype.
- thrw42A8N 2y agoSteam. The actual problem is reaction vessel wall ablation.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoThis is one of the reasons General Fusion, mentioned in the article, uses a liquid metal reaction vessel, spinning to create a cavity. (I think a mixture of molten lead and lithium?)
- thrw42A8N 2y agoYes, incredible idea. I really hope it works out.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoSteam is uneconomical versus solar power. If all the fusion is doing is heating water it will always lose on cost even if the fusion was free. c.f. coal. The bulk of the cost of a coal power plant is the steam turbine etc. And coal is not economical.
- thrw42A8N 2y agoMy city has a steam/hot water distribution network. No need to convert to electricity for quite a lot of residential energy usage.
- Thegn 2y agoWell, we could always just set up solar panels and use it to capture output from the massive fusion reaction 8.5 light minutes away from us. Does that count as a successful utilization of fusion?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Does that count as a successful utilization of fusion? In the way a fire is a steam engine.
- packetlost 2y agoUse a Bohrium blanket to absorb the neutron bombardment.