Jonathan FoleyBefore you get too excited about overhyped fusion energy news, read this.
Fusion is not really the energy answer many folks think it is.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
Lasse schelde@globalecoguy a most interesting read! @michammel -du havde desværre ret.😐
Rü@globalecoguy Very good read. Providing a very detailed look at the challenges faced, when building a fusion plant. IMHO these will not be overcome any time soon, and if at all, then with major impacts on financial viability of a fusion plant of _any_ approach. As much as I hope for fusion being viable, it most likely will stay in the realm of basic research for the foreseeable future.
twilwel antifascist@globalecoguy Everyday a huge fusion reactor rises above the horizon. Literally, not figuratively. It is so abundant and cheap that it may be better to periodically shut down a huge overcapacity of solar arrays, than frantically trying to use all the capacity. This would solve a lot of the problem of “Dunkelflaute” / seasonal storage.
Alexandra ThornGreat article. Thanks for sharing.
Quote: "But unlike what happens in solar fusion—which uses ordinary hydrogen—Earth-bound fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions."
Tim McCormack@globalecoguy This is a tangent, but I'm amused at this line that explains "24 orders of magnitude more reactive":
«Think of the numeral one with 24 zeroes after it.»
In slightly more space, the author could have written:
«That's 1000000000000000000000000 times as reactive.»
...and I feel like that might be more effective communication. :-P
Nathan@globalecoguy We are orbiting a fusion reactor. Seems like all we need to do is collect the free energy from it... and be careful about sunburns.