Fusion energy device sets a record by running for 20 seconds

Nafensoriel said:
Embrittlement doesn't work that way. When a neutron hits something with enough force it is degraded. This process is similar to how a photon degrades matter(ie sunlight) but much more high energy. Yes radioactive elements can be created via neutrons. No it isn't high level waste. No it is not generally capable of producing more radioactivity. Yes it generally is very short dangerous half-life's that are created.

The issue with people who have no actual contact with the nuclear industry is that they are told all nuclear waste is some horrific thing they should avoid. The reality is most of it is basically harmless. You can find more long term exposure in new york due to radon gas than you will EVER GET from working in a waste disposal site. What you don't seem to understand is most "waste" is less radioactive than every day encounters after an extremely short time. Most of the dangerous radiation is also alpha.... which can be shielded by a sheet of paper. The only time such material is dangerous is if you eat or drink it. Since most of the waste does not dissolve in water and will not decay on its own it is no different than radioactive ORE.

IE your fears are unfounded. Trust me when I tell you that you are exposed to more radiation from airplanes than you will ever be at risk from from nuclear waste. The amount of background radioactives in your life are far more a concern to you than a piece of graphite buried in a glass filled cask in the desert. Living down wind(50km+) from a coal power plant will give you more health risks from radioactivity than living next to a modern nuclear waste dump.

As to fusion power and its waste products.. Yes tritium is required to start an ITER design. After the reaction is stable however only deuterium and lithium are required to sustain the reaction. Fission reactors are not going to go away simply because sometimes you don't need to power half a planet from one reactor and there are certain things we need to power our society that can only come from a fission reactor(crapton of medical tech). Everyone has doubts for fusion. The reality is people think because the sun requires stupendous mass that that somehow invalidates the science. The reality is we pretty much know fusion can happen already and we know it will be massively power positive. The only challenge is finding out how to do that with our current technology or having to wait until we have the technology to actually make the thing work. This is not uncommon. We knew that cellphones and lithium batteries were a thing long before we as a species even had the ability to produce such things. Sometimes you have to wait for material science to catch up. Sucks but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
One thing to note about your last paragraph, while fusion produces four times more power per reaction than fission does, fission fuel being solid (vs gaseous fuel for fusion) means it has far more power generation capacity. What fusion brings to the table is nearly unlimited fuel and far less dangerous or long term waste if we can ever figure it out.
 
I will repeat it again - High or low level no one wants it. The Nuclear Industry has an image problem and thereofore a waste disposal problem - even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Nafensoriel said:
As to fusion power and its waste products.. Yes tritium is required to start an ITER design. After the reaction is stable however only deuterium and lithium are required to sustain the reaction. Fission reactors are not going to go away simply because sometimes you don't need to power half a planet from one reactor and there are certain things we need to power our society that can only come from a fission reactor(crapton of medical tech). Everyone has doubts for fusion. The reality is people think because the sun requires stupendous mass that that somehow invalidates the science. The reality is we pretty much know fusion can happen already and we know it will be massively power positive. The only challenge is finding out how to do that with our current technology or having to wait until we have the technology to actually make the thing work. This is not uncommon. We knew that cellphones and lithium batteries were a thing long before we as a species even had the ability to produce such things. Sometimes you have to wait for material science to catch up. Sucks but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

At least you acknowledged the Tritium need. Now a self-sustaining fusion reaction of this type would require a Lithium Containing Blanket ie "Breeder Blanket" is needed. Gaps in the blanket and processing to extract the tritium from the blanket (real world) reduce the amount of tritium available for use so we are far from "self-sustaining". Less than ten percent of the injected tritium fuel will actually be burned in the core before it escapes. Now we have to recover and re-inject the fuel - constantly. So if we lose even one percent of the fuel, even the largest lithium blanket surplus cannot make up for this loss. Looking at Tokamaks, ten percent was never recovered.

Hardly self-sustaining.
Plus we have the Magnetic Confinement that sucks huge power. Parasitic power requirements show any reactor below 1000MWe is un-economical.

Neutron damage to the internal components inside the lithium blanket will be so severe that replacement on a annual basis will be required.
 
DukenukemX said:
In developed countries we're losing people, not gaining. Places like United States and Europe have an aging population, which means people aren't fucking enough. If we do gain people it's through immigration. The best solution to preventing an increase in population is education, not starvation.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention these things. Have you heard of the rat utopia project? If not, look it up. You'll be stunned at the similarities it shares with humanity at this point in time.
 
Mega6 said:
I will repeat it again - High or low level no one wants it. The Nuclear Industry has an image problem and thereofore a waste disposal problem - even if you refuse to acknowledge it.



At least you acknowledged the Tritium need. Now a self-sustaining fusion reaction of this type would require a Lithium Containing Blanket ie "Breeder Blanket" is needed. Gaps in the blanket and processing to extract the tritium from the blanket (real world) reduce the amount of tritium available for use so we are far from "self-sustaining". Less than ten percent of the injected tritium fuel will actually be burned in the core before it escapes. Now we have to recover and re-inject the fuel - constantly. So if we lose even one percent of the fuel, even the largest lithium blanket surplus cannot make up for this loss. Looking at Tokamaks, ten percent was never recovered.

Hardly self-sustaining.
Plus we have the Magnetic Confinement that sucks huge power. Parasitic power requirements show any reactor below 1000MWe is un-economical.

Neutron damage to the internal components inside the lithium blanket will be so severe that replacement on a annual basis will be required.
Click to expand...
You are applying DT reactions to DD reactions. DD is specifically sought after for its lack of high energy neutrons. For laboratory testing, however, DT is far more reactive. End point practical fusion will most likely be DD with lithium doping.
Damage to the lithium blanket is not remotely as bad as you seem to assume it is once the reaction is stable. Unstable reactions produce... unstable results. Prototype reactors all suffer from these types of issues(not just fusion).

DD reactions are the end goal. You have to work with sub optimal materials that give you a higher percentage chance of success when prototyping and researching. Tritium is not idea. It's expensive and has a host of issues in its creation. No one, not even the scientists building these test reactors, is disputing that. The thing is no one on the planet is advocating for DT reactors to be end level products. Deuterium-Deuterium reactions are more stable, more efficient, safer, and the fuel is quite bluntly everywhere.

Your assumptions on waste not being wanted is just, again, misunderstanding what "waste" is. 90% of all "nuclear waste" are tools and clothing. It's taken to a dump not much unlike a civic waste dump. It's basically trash and technically more safe than trash if you consider biological waste.
High level waste first goes into a pool(or drycask) for a few years(usually 5). This isn't because its "safe" but because the crap generates heat for the first few years. Once it is no longer hot its just stored. In 50 years its effectively able to be buried anywhere. In 1000-5000 years its back to the same level of radioactivity found in the ore that created it.
EVERYONE wants nuclear waste... because nuclear waste has a DEFINIATE END OF LIFE.
Cadmium? Mercury? POPs make nuclear waste look like a kitten compared to a sabertooth tiger.
Google "Trail BC". See a town where the metals pollution is so bad you cant eat tomatoes grown in the bloody soil. You think nuclear waste is bad compared to that? That land is gone. Forever. From everyone. Nuclear waste? 50 years and you don't even know its in the dirt for 99.7% of it.

Not to mention that the entire nuclear industry since 1950s has produced less hazardous waste by ton than one coal power plant does in a year. Please... tell me more about how nuclear waste is the devil.
Fusion waste is even less in both toxicity and amount.

----------------
@BinarySynapse
Yep that is also very true. Solid generally kicks the crap out of liquids for energy density. It's also the reason governments are starting to bank on aSMRs because its just the sanest solution out there at the moment. Even when fusion becomes a reality I expect some form of SMR will exist for the majority of the planet with fusion only being utilized in space and large cities.
 
Mega6 said:
You're just too much.
Click to expand...
I repeat. Make an argument against metal or chemical contamination being worse than nuclear waste. Please.
I genuinely will be happy if you can disprove decades of personal industry experience and education.

Tell me how you would rather have cadmium, lead, mercury, and any of the major persistent organic pollutants than nuclear waste. Let me show you a simple picture...
Nuclear_dry_storage.jpg
OH NOES! Those poor workers are being exposed to high level nuclear waste! They are going..... to be entirely fine. The land they are standing on is... going to be entirely fine.

Lets look at what Teck dropped into the trail BC area:

Air release
36,465 tons of Zinc
22,688 tons of Lead
1,225 tons of Arsenic
1,103 tons of Cadmium
97 tons of Mercury

Water/soil release
1,314,00 tons of Lead
4,434,750 tons of Cadmium
302,250 tons of Mercury
525,600,000 tons of Zinc

Every.. Single.. Line is for life. It has no half life. It is physically killing actual human beings right now. It will kill actual human beings for the rest of humanities existence on this planet.

Please. Educate me on the devil that is nuclear waste. Tell me how its really bad. I didn't even touch POPs which have killed or maimed millions around the world.
You think tritium is bad? You think fission byproducts are bad?
List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia
It is estimated that over 400 thousand people die every year in the United states alone due to lead.
The total number of people who die to nuclear isn't even a foot note in history compared to what metal and POPs have killed. Stalin and Mao Zedong don't hold a candle to metal and Pops.
Stairs are more lethal than nuclear has been in its ENTIRE EXISTANCE and that includes bomb deaths.

Grow up.​

 
Mega6 said:
Radiators are efficient, the exhaust heat is not relevant to "global warming" effect. It is all the other factors that people are discounting from this "perfect fusion reactor solution".
Click to expand...
Oh, what is the efficiency, and why wouldn't a increase in emission of a greenhouse gas be relevant?

I bet you are one of those corrupt green energy lobbyists who are slipping cash into the pockets of the local Amish assemblymen....
 
Nafensoriel said:
I repeat. Make an argument against metal or chemical contamination being worse than nuclear waste. Please.
I genuinely will be happy if you can disprove decades of personal industry experience and education.

Tell me how you would rather have cadmium, lead, mercury, and any of the major persistent organic pollutants than nuclear waste. Let me show you a simple picture...
View attachment 314994
OH NOES! Those poor workers are being exposed to high level nuclear waste! They are going..... to be entirely fine. The land they are standing on is... going to be entirely fine.

Lets look at what Teck dropped into the trail BC area:

Air release
36,465 tons of Zinc
22,688 tons of Lead
1,225 tons of Arsenic
1,103 tons of Cadmium
97 tons of Mercury

Water/soil release
1,314,00 tons of Lead
4,434,750 tons of Cadmium
302,250 tons of Mercury
525,600,000 tons of Zinc

Every.. Single.. Line is for life. It has no half life. It is physically killing actual human beings right now. It will kill actual human beings for the rest of humanities existence on this planet.

Please. Educate me on the devil that is nuclear waste. Tell me how its really bad. I didn't even touch POPs which have killed or maimed millions around the world.
You think tritium is bad? You think fission byproducts are bad?
List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia
It is estimated that over 400 thousand people die every year in the United states alone due to lead.
The total number of people who die to nuclear isn't even a foot note in history compared to what metal and POPs have killed. Stalin and Mao Zedong don't hold a candle to metal and Pops.
Stairs are more lethal than nuclear has been in its ENTIRE EXISTANCE and that includes bomb deaths.

Grow up.​

Click to expand...

You know the problem same as I do. People don't want facts or science. They want to believe what they want to believe. It's a lot like religion.

I did once get to see one of the spent fuel casks up close shortly after the lid was welded on. It was an interesting experience in that when you put your hand on it it's still quite warm.

I regularly have a little tritium in my system. Good stuff. Helps me see in the dark.
 
Wat said:
Oh, what is the efficiency, and why wouldn't a increase in emission of a greenhouse gas be relevant?

I bet you are one of those corrupt green energy lobbyists who are slipping cash into the pockets of the local Amish assemblymen....
Click to expand...
wat? Hahah, from the guy you needed steam conversion explained. ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top