Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

'Fusion power on grid by 2030' says scientist

14 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
Nzo

Fusion power would be amazing but we have all been hearing about it being viable for some time now. And 13 years is not enough time to go from breakthrough to full blown power plant. So I say bullocks. Sounds like the industry needs more investment money to be burned away.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Thomson

If their science was as proven as they think it is, they would have succeeded in developing fusion energy more than sixty years ago, when they first started trying. This is just a BS announcement so they can go to Congress and ask for more funding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog

it's money talk and maybe just talk we will get..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I have to agree....

Quote

"I think fusion energy on the grid by 2030 is certainly within reach by this point," said Marmar, who maintains that the biggest remaining hurdle is finding a way to effectively sustain a fusion reaction.

"So we know that fusion works; we know that the nuclear physics works. There are no questions from the nuclear physics. There are questions left on the technology side."

So, the only tiny hurdle left is how to actually get fusion to sustain? Isn't that the same problem they have had for 50 years? What makes this guy think it will be solved in the next couple years. Sounds like complete Rainbow Wishes to me.

http://www.sciencealert.com/mit-scientist-asserts-that-we-will-have-fusion-energy-by-2030

Quote

That's what we still don't understand about using fusion: not knowing how to sustain is the only thing holding us back, according to Marmar.

...

Marmar does concede that even if there's committed research, the 2030s still could be a fairly aggressive timeline to adhere to. Of course, a little pressure and healthy competition to meet a deadline might be just the motivation that's needed.

That's like saying we know how hydro power should work, but we just don't know how to build a dam yet. Without the technology of the dam to store energy, there is no hydro power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa

I've said for years that harnessing the fusion reaction is the ONLY real clean energy that we should be concentrating on for future clean energy needs.  All other claims that clean energy needs can be handled by solar, wind and/or hydro is just ridiculous for many reasons and if continued to be promoted as the only options (even if combined) for clean energy, will just cause increased global atmospheric pollution in the decades to come and the jury is still out on how harmful that pollution really will be (due to the total failure of all AGW models over the last 25 years.)  The only other energy production that can come close to supplying global energy needs with no atmospheric pollution is traditional nuclear fission, but we all know that the non-atmospheric byproducts of this tech is not the greatest to deal with. 

 

So with that said, I don't care if this announcement is designed to get more funding for this research.  If they are truly making the progress they're claiming, and it's demonstrable, I would tell them to say whatever they need to to get as much money as they can to continue this R&D.  If we don't figure out nuclear fusion energy production when it looks like it's feasible and we're unwilling to convert to massive nuclear fission energy production, then atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses will continue to rise under current clean energy efforts, which may or may not be a long term problem for Earth.  All global warming proponents who hate nuclear fission should be pushing this nuclear fusion research like it's the best last hope on a sinking ship.  If the claims in this announcement are true then it's very exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell

It won't work. If there was any merit in it, Doc would already have suddenly appeared to me in a flying DeLorean and have invited me to return with him to the future...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom the Photon
4 hours ago, Lilly said:

I also know that Lockheed Martin is working on developing a cold fusion reactor as well.

"Compact fusion", not "cold fusion".  I've just read their website and they clearly state they are simply trying to scale down the current tokamak designs by making more efficient use of the powerful magnetic fields required to contain the super-hot plasma.  I took plasma physics in third year at university - the maths was horrendous!  It's rather more complicated than just increasing the current in electromagnets.  The moving charged particles in a plasma generate their own magnetic fields that oppose the external one.  Extracting the heat energy after fusion is also going to be difficult to manage.  But engineers will overcome all these problems in time.

Cold fusion is a defunct idea - the concept that you can force particles to fuse at room temperature.  This is patently not possible or else it would be happening all the time around us and all matter would have fused and converted to energy a long time ago.  Any physicist who claims it works is a charlatan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

I beat cold fusion I beat cold fusion http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/300512-system-uses-fusion-as-fuel/  .  Anyways I do have the first use of fusion. Thats what all those unexplained booms were from 2014 til now and still. They're detonating large explosions under pre cut huge blocks of earth. The blocks are worth millions in weight displcement and the hole dug is about 5% efficient to the kw energy of the explosive. 

 

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

There is also the Super Saiyan Fusion. Just one Super Saiyan could probably power the whole world.

hqdefault.jpg

Has about as much chance of actually happening IMHO as fusion power plants being online by 2030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog

Thinking about it... Fusion power is already on the grid with solar power and wind power, water cycle providing rain for hydroelectric dam is also powered with fusion.

We all ride on the fusion power of the sun, the only legit god we have.

Edited by Jon the frog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

One variant of the joke is that "fusion is always thirty years away". So I guess "thirteen years away" is a bit of a pun.

I recently dug out one of my old physics books (Concepts of Modern Physics, Arthur Beiser, 1973 edition). Beiser wrote: "Whilst nuclear fusion reactors present more severe practical difficulties than fission reactors, there is little doubt that they will eventually become a reality".

Beiser was careful to include the word "eventually". Forty-five years later, we are still waiting.

The practical difficulties are, essentially, twofold. Firstly, finding a way to contain the plasma for long periods (contrary to popular belief, the problem is not so much that the walls of the vessel will melt - though at a temperature of millions of degrees, the plasma does not have a high energy density - the problem is that if the plasma came into contact with anything, it would rapidly cool). Secondly, building reactors that produce more energy than is required to sustain the fusion.

I recently watched rerun of a documentary on nuclear fusion by Brian Cox. Generally speaking, the world spends about a billion dollars each year on fusion research. That might sound like a great deal, but not in contrast to the thirty billion dollars (in today's money) spent over three years on the Manhattan Project. Cox concluded by saying that currently the "energy crisis" is simply not yet big enough to galvanize governments into real action. His prediction is that fusion will become viable by the mid-point of this century. I would love to believe him - but his prediction is the same old "thirty years"!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
22 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I recently watched rerun of a documentary on nuclear fusion by Brian Cox. Generally speaking, the world spends about a billion dollars each year on fusion research. That might sound like a great deal, but not in contrast to the thirty billion dollars (in today's money) spent over three years on the Manhattan Project. Cox concluded by saying that currently the "energy crisis" is simply not yet big enough to galvanize governments into real action. His prediction is that fusion will become viable by the mid-point of this century. I would love to believe him - but his prediction is the same old "thirty years"!

And gasoline in the US was supposed to be at $5 a gallon 10 years ago....

I'm not holding my breath on if Fusion will ever be viable in my lifetime.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.