running over-unity is a mythical condition where more energy is produced by a system than the amount of energy which exists in that system or is put into that system.
~ simply not going to happen ~
but can science find a way to harness new sources of energy to replace current energy sources?
I had problems watching the video on the NBC site. I found the same video on YouTube that played without problems, if anyone is interested.
Everyone focuses attention on the tokamak reactor but that is only part of what needs to be considered. For fusion to be a practical energy source there will also be a need to produce fuel and deal with waste that is generated.
Fusion requires elemental hydrogen as a fuel; where is that hydrogen going to come from? Producing hydrogen fuel requires energy and logistics. Storing hydrogen as a liquid also requires energy. Establishing an infrastructure to produce and deliver hydrogen means that we could just use hydrogen as a fuel and avoid the need for fusion.
The fusion reaction consumes hydrogen and produces helium as a waste byproduct. The hydrogen fuel cannot be recovered; there isn't any natural processes on earth to convert helium into hydrogen. Helium will poison the fusion reaction so not all the hydrogen will be consumed. Helium is chemically inert so can't be used to chemically produce anything else. What is to be done with the waste helium and hydrogen? I don't think just releasing the waste gas into the atmosphere is a good idea because it could eventually disrupt the upper atmosphere.
Making fusion a practical energy source is going to require more than just a reactor.
Fusion requires elemental hydrogen as a fuel; where is that hydrogen going to come from?
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Producing hydrogen fuel requires energy and logistics.
Yup, and if you build it they will come.
Storing hydrogen as a liquid also requires energy. Establishing an infrastructure to produce and deliver hydrogen means that we could just use hydrogen as a fuel and avoid the need for fusion.
See previous answer.
What is to be done with the waste helium and hydrogen?
Recycle and reuse the hydrogen, party balloons for the helium. They are very simple to deal with compared to radioactive waste or climate change from carbon dioxide.
I don't think just releasing the waste gas into the atmosphere is a good idea because it could eventually disrupt the upper atmosphere.
Again details for something that currently doesn't exist. By that thought processes we should never have built and computers or microcircuits because we do not have a safe way of disposing of them when no longer wanted. Current nuclear plants do not have a good way to dispose of their waste. Coal plants do not have a safe way to dispose of their waste, either.
Making fusion a practical energy source is going to require more than just a reactor.
That's a "no duh" type of comment. But since fusion reactors currently do not exist, they will come.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Hydrogen is abundant on earth but not in a form suitable for fusion reactions. Extraction and refining will be necessary for fusion to work as an energy source. Attempting to obtain hydrogen from space will require even more hydrogen fuel. There isn't a free lunch.
Yup, and if you build it they will come.
Build what? A hydrogen infrastructure? Seems like building a tokamak reactor puts the cart before the horse. The people in the video indicate that a fusion reactor is close to becoming a reality. But that reality is going to depend upon ability to supply fuel. Otherwise fusion will remain an interesting physics experiment.
Again details for something that currently doesn't exist. By that thought processes we should never have built and computers or microcircuits because we do not have a safe way of disposing of them when no longer wanted. Current nuclear plants do not have a good way to dispose of their waste. Coal plants do not have a safe way to dispose of their waste, either.
How has solving those issues after they become problems worked out? The whole problem of climate change has resulted from ignoring the consequences of waste byproducts. Helium is different because the gas can rise to the upper atmosphere. If we can't deal with stratospheric CO2 then helium even higher in the atmosphere would be an even more intractable problem.
Hydrogen is abundant on earth but not in a form suitable for fusion reactions.
Actually the two elements that seem to be the most efficient sources for the fusion reaction are fairly abundant on earth. Seawater would be the most ready source for deuterium (²H at 30g/m³) and earth's crust for lithium (at 30 ppm) as source for tritium (³H).
Then you better notify all the scientists and engineers working on them, and all the governments and corporations funding fusion research, and say, "hey guys that will never work, just give up." I assume you are smarter than all of them combined.
Actually the two elements that seem to be the most efficient sources for the fusion reaction are fairly abundant on earth. Seawater would be the most ready source for deuterium (²H at 30g/m³) and earth's crust for lithium (at 30 ppm) as source for tritium (³H).
Yes but they aren't abundant in elemental form.
Fusion energy is an interesting idea. At present all the effort has been focused on obtaining a sustained fusion reaction which is the required first step. Without a sustained fusion reaction it hasn't been possible to determine real world performance; the projected performance has only been theoretical. That lack of real world performance information has been used to put off planning for the infrastructure that will also be needed.
The available types of ancillary power technology suggests that a fusion reactor will only be a heat source. That means the fusion reaction must produce more heat than is required to sustain the reaction. Extracting excess heat provides the means to obtain useful energy. So, the fusion reactor becomes an alternative heat source in conventional boiler based power generation.
The fusion reaction should produce electromagnetic radiation similar to solar radiation. However, the containment system and harsh working environment inside the reactor means that using existing technology to generate electricity from electromagnet radiation isn't practical. While it may be possible to extract electromagnetic radiation from the reactor using some sort of light guide (like fiber optics) IMO that wouldn't be sufficient to generate a lot of electricity. If the sustained fusion reaction begins emitting high energy electromagnetic radiation, like x-rays and gamma rays, then safety becomes a large concern.
Umm....yes. They are, as I said, as deuterium and lithium. Those are elements. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and lithium is an element (No. 3 in the periodic table of the elements).
I apparently have way more scientific knowledge than yours truly
Fusion is an interesting physics experiment and merits research as such. But there has been little explanation how fusion would be utilized as an energy source.
A fusion reactor would either be a source of electromagnetic radiation (light), a source of electrons, or a heat source.
The necessary containment and harsh working environment in a fusion reactor means it would very difficult to utilize electromagnet radiation to generate electricity. It is doubtful that the reactor would produce enough electromagnetic radiation to provide a significant amount of electricity.
The fusion reaction would also produce a plasma containing beta particles (electrons); I suppose the reactor could be used as a capacitor type electron source. Using the reactor as a capacitor to supply electrons means the generated electricity would be direct current rather than alternating current. DC electricity distribution is inefficient and severely limits the distance that the electricity can be transmitted over a grid. Using a fusion reactor as an electron source would not be practical.
As a heat source fusion competes with other alternative heat sources; such as biomass, hydrogen, fission nuclear, or solar/molten salt, as examples. But that practical use for generating electricity depends upon conventional boiler technology and mechanical dynamos. There are many practical means of generating heat so a tokamak would be novel but doesn't really provide anything new. A tokamak reactor would still require a logistics infrastructure for production and delivery of fuel; fusion would only be a replacement for combustion. There are many other alternatives that would be less expensive to develop and deploy than fusion reactors.
Umm....yes. They are, as I said, as deuterium and lithium. Those are elements. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and lithium is an element (No. 3 in the periodic table of the elements).
The prominent source of deuterium is heavy water. Attempting to produce deuterium from the atmosphere by fractional distillation is an energy intensive process and would still require separating deuterium from hydrogen.
Lithium is not present in elemental form because of oxygen and water in the environment.
The oxides and salts work for fusion bombs because sustaining a reaction is not the objective and the presence of heavier elements do not prevent the reaction. The radioactive fallout is the result of oxides and salts being present.
There aren't that many elements on the periodic chart that are naturally occurring in elemental form. Oxygen and water in the environment prevents that.
What is to be done with the waste helium and hydrogen? I don't think just releasing the waste gas into the atmosphere is a good idea because it could eventually disrupt the upper atmosphere.
There's actually been a shortage of helium for a long time and since it is the byproduct of radioactive decay of uranium, there is no other way to produce it.
A recent find of millions of metric tonnes of helium in Russia has reduced the shortage ( and may indicate a huge uranium lode )
What is to be done with the waste helium and hydrogen? I don't think just releasing the waste gas into the atmosphere is a good idea because it could eventually disrupt the upper atmosphere.
Vent both to the atmosphere is the safest most reliable way of getting rid of waste Helium and Hydrogen.
Helium is the second lightest element (behind Hydrogen) and readily vents out of the atmosphere into space. this is the reason it is not naturally obtainable on earth. It has to be refined out of other chemical compounds it is trapped in. The largest source is the natural gas fields of the United States.
The US is the largest producer of Helium in the world.
As the second most available element in the universe, (again behind Hydrogen) it is completely inert and poses absolutely no harm to the environment.
Like all "fossil fuels" earth's supply of helium is finite, and as a component of natural gas ( usually less than a fraction of 1 percent ) it is collected as a byproduct with no financial incentive.
The US may be Number One in helium collection now, but "expert" opinion is that the earth will run out of helium in about thirty years affecting the
manufacturing and cleaning industries as well as the operation of MRI machines.
All I can say I wish they find a way to collect some of it when they get the fusion reactors running, then we will have a virtually unlimited supply.....
I suppose they could shift over to nitrogen but that doesn't hold anywhere near as cold as liquid helium.....
Nasa would be in a real quandry, they use helium for a number of critical purposes one of which is to pressurize LOX flasks in spacecraft engines and another is to purge fuel lines with non flammable gasses......
I imagine they will eventually come up with other solutions....
Helium is the second lightest element (behind Hydrogen) and readily vents out of the atmosphere into space. this is the reason it is not naturally obtainable on earth. It has to be refined out of other chemical compounds it is trapped in. The largest source is the natural gas fields of the United States.
Solar wind is composed of ionized forms of hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of heavier elements. Typically the solar wind contains about 8 pct helium; however, a coronal mass ejection may increase helium content to 20 pct. The earth's magnetic field directs the charged particles of hydrogen and helium into the atmosphere where a portion is captured.
So, hydrogen and helium may be vented from the atmosphere but hydrogen and helium are also captured by the atmosphere. The presence of seasonal helium 'bubbles' in the upper atmosphere over the poles has been observed (but AFAIK has only been studied as a tracer).
With the carbon based energy cartel's having so many politicians in its pocket the biggest stumbling block to this possible future source of renewable energy is the same one we have to other existing renewable sources already in existence: POLITICS. And as long as money drives politics that obstacle is much greater than any of the technological issues. Just look what a total hysterical, frenzied freak-out and massive lie campaign from the right and even a bit of the political middle that a mere statement of the necessity for renewable non-carbon based energy production and general ways of achieving (not a single mention, for instance, of a single cow or hamburger being taken away from anyone), the Green New Deal sparked. In fact, it's rather funny that many of the people above commenting in this article who seem to like this complex, expensive and decades-away science based solution refuse to accept the basic simple and obvious cause for why this would be necessary. IOW, selective science deniers who refuse to accept the basic science right in front of our noses (literally) but swoon at the idea of this massively expensive, complicated and long-term "solution." And, I note that nothing in the video addressed safety of these reactors. They may be smaller* but they will still contain reactions generated millions degrees. Maybe one of them exploding might not release much radioactive material but I suspect that it still could do some significant, widespread damage.
* I may have missed it but was there a mention of how many it would take in the U.S. to actually replace all of the possible practical replacement uses for carbon based fuels?
Current designs are up into the 2-3K megawatt range. Meaning one fusion reactor could replace pretty much any standard power generation method.....
Initially they wouldn't be cheaper to build but if proven safe, ZERO pollution emissions, no particulates, no greenhouse gasses.
When you combine the costs of construction and fueling a typical power station and cleaning up it's residues it not quite a wash on cost, but getting closer.
as far as environmental impact a Fusion power station has the same airborne environmental impact as a hydro generating station. When factoring in surface impacts it has the potential to be cheaper and cleaner than a hydro plant.
There are development projects in Fusion going on in nations all over the world on all continents except Antarctica, and all of them have been sharing their info/technology as agreed to by Reagan and Gorbachev..... way back in the 80's....
I'm not holding my breath. Are you? Even this very optimistic article puts the timeline for this to have any practical effect in decades. Humans on this planet may not have the luxury of decades to wait.
Personally, I think any energy technology that doesn't involve dialithium crystals and a whisky drinking Scotsman shouting "I'm giving her everything she's got Captain. She canna take much more Captain. It's gonna blow", is just a failed technology doomed to eternal obscurity.
Fusion could sure help solve a whole lot of energy problems.
over unity? in your dreams only.
cheers
What does that even mean?
running over-unity is a mythical condition where more energy is produced by a system than the amount of energy which exists in that system or is put into that system.
~ simply not going to happen ~
but can science find a way to harness new sources of energy to replace current energy sources?
id bet a dollar on it.
cheers
I had problems watching the video on the NBC site. I found the same video on YouTube that played without problems, if anyone is interested.
Everyone focuses attention on the tokamak reactor but that is only part of what needs to be considered. For fusion to be a practical energy source there will also be a need to produce fuel and deal with waste that is generated.
Fusion requires elemental hydrogen as a fuel; where is that hydrogen going to come from? Producing hydrogen fuel requires energy and logistics. Storing hydrogen as a liquid also requires energy. Establishing an infrastructure to produce and deliver hydrogen means that we could just use hydrogen as a fuel and avoid the need for fusion.
The fusion reaction consumes hydrogen and produces helium as a waste byproduct. The hydrogen fuel cannot be recovered; there isn't any natural processes on earth to convert helium into hydrogen. Helium will poison the fusion reaction so not all the hydrogen will be consumed. Helium is chemically inert so can't be used to chemically produce anything else. What is to be done with the waste helium and hydrogen? I don't think just releasing the waste gas into the atmosphere is a good idea because it could eventually disrupt the upper atmosphere.
Making fusion a practical energy source is going to require more than just a reactor.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Yup, and if you build it they will come.
See previous answer.
Recycle and reuse the hydrogen, party balloons for the helium. They are very simple to deal with compared to radioactive waste or climate change from carbon dioxide.
Again details for something that currently doesn't exist. By that thought processes we should never have built and computers or microcircuits because we do not have a safe way of disposing of them when no longer wanted. Current nuclear plants do not have a good way to dispose of their waste. Coal plants do not have a safe way to dispose of their waste, either.
That's a "no duh" type of comment. But since fusion reactors currently do not exist, they will come.
Hydrogen is abundant on earth but not in a form suitable for fusion reactions. Extraction and refining will be necessary for fusion to work as an energy source. Attempting to obtain hydrogen from space will require even more hydrogen fuel. There isn't a free lunch.
Build what? A hydrogen infrastructure? Seems like building a tokamak reactor puts the cart before the horse. The people in the video indicate that a fusion reactor is close to becoming a reality. But that reality is going to depend upon ability to supply fuel. Otherwise fusion will remain an interesting physics experiment.
How has solving those issues after they become problems worked out? The whole problem of climate change has resulted from ignoring the consequences of waste byproducts. Helium is different because the gas can rise to the upper atmosphere. If we can't deal with stratospheric CO2 then helium even higher in the atmosphere would be an even more intractable problem.
Actually the two elements that seem to be the most efficient sources for the fusion reaction are fairly abundant on earth. Seawater would be the most ready source for deuterium (²H at 30g/m³) and earth's crust for lithium (at 30 ppm) as source for tritium (³H).
Then you better notify all the scientists and engineers working on them, and all the governments and corporations funding fusion research, and say, "hey guys that will never work, just give up." I assume you are smarter than all of them combined.
Yes but they aren't abundant in elemental form.
Fusion energy is an interesting idea. At present all the effort has been focused on obtaining a sustained fusion reaction which is the required first step. Without a sustained fusion reaction it hasn't been possible to determine real world performance; the projected performance has only been theoretical. That lack of real world performance information has been used to put off planning for the infrastructure that will also be needed.
The available types of ancillary power technology suggests that a fusion reactor will only be a heat source. That means the fusion reaction must produce more heat than is required to sustain the reaction. Extracting excess heat provides the means to obtain useful energy. So, the fusion reactor becomes an alternative heat source in conventional boiler based power generation.
The fusion reaction should produce electromagnetic radiation similar to solar radiation. However, the containment system and harsh working environment inside the reactor means that using existing technology to generate electricity from electromagnet radiation isn't practical. While it may be possible to extract electromagnetic radiation from the reactor using some sort of light guide (like fiber optics) IMO that wouldn't be sufficient to generate a lot of electricity. If the sustained fusion reaction begins emitting high energy electromagnetic radiation, like x-rays and gamma rays, then safety becomes a large concern.
Umm....yes. They are, as I said, as deuterium and lithium. Those are elements. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and lithium is an element (No. 3 in the periodic table of the elements).
Fusion is an interesting physics experiment and merits research as such. But there has been little explanation how fusion would be utilized as an energy source.
A fusion reactor would either be a source of electromagnetic radiation (light), a source of electrons, or a heat source.
The necessary containment and harsh working environment in a fusion reactor means it would very difficult to utilize electromagnet radiation to generate electricity. It is doubtful that the reactor would produce enough electromagnetic radiation to provide a significant amount of electricity.
The fusion reaction would also produce a plasma containing beta particles (electrons); I suppose the reactor could be used as a capacitor type electron source. Using the reactor as a capacitor to supply electrons means the generated electricity would be direct current rather than alternating current. DC electricity distribution is inefficient and severely limits the distance that the electricity can be transmitted over a grid. Using a fusion reactor as an electron source would not be practical.
As a heat source fusion competes with other alternative heat sources; such as biomass, hydrogen, fission nuclear, or solar/molten salt, as examples. But that practical use for generating electricity depends upon conventional boiler technology and mechanical dynamos. There are many practical means of generating heat so a tokamak would be novel but doesn't really provide anything new. A tokamak reactor would still require a logistics infrastructure for production and delivery of fuel; fusion would only be a replacement for combustion. There are many other alternatives that would be less expensive to develop and deploy than fusion reactors.
The prominent source of deuterium is heavy water. Attempting to produce deuterium from the atmosphere by fractional distillation is an energy intensive process and would still require separating deuterium from hydrogen.
Lithium is not present in elemental form because of oxygen and water in the environment.
The oxides and salts work for fusion bombs because sustaining a reaction is not the objective and the presence of heavier elements do not prevent the reaction. The radioactive fallout is the result of oxides and salts being present.
There aren't that many elements on the periodic chart that are naturally occurring in elemental form. Oxygen and water in the environment prevents that.
There's actually been a shortage of helium for a long time and since it is the byproduct of radioactive decay of uranium, there is no other way to produce it.
A recent find of millions of metric tonnes of helium in Russia has reduced the shortage ( and may indicate a huge uranium lode )
Hydrogen can be recycled.
Vent both to the atmosphere is the safest most reliable way of getting rid of waste Helium and Hydrogen.
Helium is the second lightest element (behind Hydrogen) and readily vents out of the atmosphere into space. this is the reason it is not naturally obtainable on earth. It has to be refined out of other chemical compounds it is trapped in. The largest source is the natural gas fields of the United States.
The US is the largest producer of Helium in the world.
As the second most available element in the universe, (again behind Hydrogen) it is completely inert and poses absolutely no harm to the environment.
Like all "fossil fuels" earth's supply of helium is finite, and as a component of natural gas ( usually less than a fraction of 1 percent ) it is collected as a byproduct with no financial incentive.
The US may be Number One in helium collection now, but "expert" opinion is that the earth will run out of helium in about thirty years affecting the
manufacturing and cleaning industries as well as the operation of MRI machines.
No argument from me....
All I can say I wish they find a way to collect some of it when they get the fusion reactors running, then we will have a virtually unlimited supply.....
I suppose they could shift over to nitrogen but that doesn't hold anywhere near as cold as liquid helium.....
Nasa would be in a real quandry, they use helium for a number of critical purposes one of which is to pressurize LOX flasks in spacecraft engines and another is to purge fuel lines with non flammable gasses......
I imagine they will eventually come up with other solutions....
That was my point.
Instead of venting to the atmosphere, both the hydrogen and helium can be collected and recycled
Solar wind is composed of ionized forms of hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of heavier elements. Typically the solar wind contains about 8 pct helium; however, a coronal mass ejection may increase helium content to 20 pct. The earth's magnetic field directs the charged particles of hydrogen and helium into the atmosphere where a portion is captured.
So, hydrogen and helium may be vented from the atmosphere but hydrogen and helium are also captured by the atmosphere. The presence of seasonal helium 'bubbles' in the upper atmosphere over the poles has been observed (but AFAIK has only been studied as a tracer).
With the carbon based energy cartel's having so many politicians in its pocket the biggest stumbling block to this possible future source of renewable energy is the same one we have to other existing renewable sources already in existence: POLITICS. And as long as money drives politics that obstacle is much greater than any of the technological issues. Just look what a total hysterical, frenzied freak-out and massive lie campaign from the right and even a bit of the political middle that a mere statement of the necessity for renewable non-carbon based energy production and general ways of achieving (not a single mention, for instance, of a single cow or hamburger being taken away from anyone), the Green New Deal sparked. In fact, it's rather funny that many of the people above commenting in this article who seem to like this complex, expensive and decades-away science based solution refuse to accept the basic simple and obvious cause for why this would be necessary. IOW, selective science deniers who refuse to accept the basic science right in front of our noses (literally) but swoon at the idea of this massively expensive, complicated and long-term "solution." And, I note that nothing in the video addressed safety of these reactors. They may be smaller* but they will still contain reactions generated millions degrees. Maybe one of them exploding might not release much radioactive material but I suspect that it still could do some significant, widespread damage.
* I may have missed it but was there a mention of how many it would take in the U.S. to actually replace all of the possible practical replacement uses for carbon based fuels?
Current designs are up into the 2-3K megawatt range. Meaning one fusion reactor could replace pretty much any standard power generation method.....
Initially they wouldn't be cheaper to build but if proven safe, ZERO pollution emissions, no particulates, no greenhouse gasses.
When you combine the costs of construction and fueling a typical power station and cleaning up it's residues it not quite a wash on cost, but getting closer.
as far as environmental impact a Fusion power station has the same airborne environmental impact as a hydro generating station. When factoring in surface impacts it has the potential to be cheaper and cleaner than a hydro plant.
There are development projects in Fusion going on in nations all over the world on all continents except Antarctica, and all of them have been sharing their info/technology as agreed to by Reagan and Gorbachev..... way back in the 80's....
They are getting close to actually doing it.....
I'm not holding my breath. Are you? Even this very optimistic article puts the timeline for this to have any practical effect in decades. Humans on this planet may not have the luxury of decades to wait.
I'm usually a tech optimist... but fusion has been "just around the corner" for thirty years. I grown skeptical.
Personally, I think any energy technology that doesn't involve dialithium crystals and a whisky drinking Scotsman shouting "I'm giving her everything she's got Captain. She canna take much more Captain. It's gonna blow", is just a failed technology doomed to eternal obscurity.
Star Trek - Next Generation:
"Force of Nature" !
There you go. Now that's what I am talking about.
This article got me started on a Google trip - you know, when you just let one link lead you to another and to another and to another ...
I wound up checking out NH3 as a fuel . Intriguing.