Fusion power a step closer to being feasible

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I fully expect the energy companies to squash this firmly beneath their jack boots if it goes any further...

But still. A step closer to fusion? That's AWESOME.

 

[DrOswald]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621

I LOVE LIVING IN THE FUTURE!

Now all we have left on the "Officially the future" checklist are mechs, robot butlers, flying cars, jetpacks, standard infantry armed with laser/plasma guns instead of caveman-bullet-spewers, viable FTL that doesn't involve any stupid time dilation where everyone I know and love ages and dies during a round trip to Betelgeuse IV, and Brain-in-robot-body technology.

Doesn't this just make EVERYONE happy?

I have great hopes for fusion power plants in the future, it is a technology I have been following since I was a small child and read the entry for fusion in my parents encyclopedia (I was kind of strange.)

You may want to check out the High Beta Fusion Reactor, a different type of fusion reactor that is being purposed and worked on right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY

2 important points that differentiate this reactor from other fusion reactors:

The reactor will be small. Small enough that it could be transported by a large truck and built on a production line instead of requiring a significant investment of infrastructure. This means that the plant can be easily mass produced, can be quickly installed, it can be easily relocated to adjust for fluctuating energy demands, and a whole host of other advantages.

The development time for the reactor is significantly shorter. If everything goes according to plan we should have a working model (a fully realized and efficient plant) by 2017-2018 and a production model (a plant design that can be mass produced) by 2022-2023.

 

[Gorrath]

I would have pointed out that the far greater benefit of laser weapons is the near instantaneous hit after fire. The one real use for laser weapons would be hitting high speed targets which is possible with lasers when computer guidance is applied. This can be applied mainly to taking down missiles, which is one of the biggest problems in modern warfare(not the shoddy game) because they are really hard to intercept with ballistic weapons even with computer guidance.

Well...hitting instantly is very useful, yes, though hitting missiles (if you mean ballistic missiles) isn't very difficult. Things that can maneuver are more of a problem.

Tell that to the militarys of the world, missile interception is still a massive gamble every time even for world powers like the USA.

The problem being that if you don't already have a craft in the air and near the vicinity that can shoot it down when the alert sounds, you're gonna have to rely on the AA which is a crap shoot because as I said, shooting down missiles with ballistics is difficult even with computer guidance. A near instantaneous weapon like a laser could greatly reduce the odds of missing the missile.

I'm curious as to what makes you say that. I've had extensive experience around ballistic anti-missile weapons and found them to be really, really effective. The successful engagement rate of even targets as small as mortars was quite high.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I dunno, I think this is the perfect project for Big Oil. It's not like most of us can afford a home fusion kit. I bet bare minimum it takes over a hundred years before fusion generator technology becomes so affordable that any but the largest corporations with the deepest pockets can afford it. That means Big Oil companies are in a unique position to divert their resources into Big Fusion the moment the technology is proven, and they can milk the public with a (for all intents and purposes) limitless source of energy, after the initial hardware infrastructure is paid for.

This.

This is a fairly brilliant idea, actually. Big Oil knows that, eventually, they're gonna run out of product. If they get behind Fusion, they might even be able to get it working faster, and they'd keep control over world energy consumption.

OT: The above aside, the original article is awesome news! It's too bad they didn't reach ignition, but still, that's a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Gorrath]

Now if only everything else would stop being so shit.

A single, manly tear rolls from my eye every time fusion power is getting nearer.

Maybe there won't be an energy crisis in the future...

Odd. The closer fusion power gets to me, the more my DNA unravels

Yeah, but then the DNA becomes infused with new fusion energy, which, because the name says so, fuses your DNA back together, after which you gain amazing fusion super powers. Don't you want amazing fusion super powers? You can call yourself FU Man and put a big FU on your costume!

 

[spartan231490]

Guys, it's just one experiment. It could have been anything, even a measurement error. Until this is repeated reliably it's virtually meaningless.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The problem being that if you don't already have a craft in the air and near the vicinity that can shoot it down when the alert sounds, you're gonna have to rely on the AA which is a crap shoot because as I said, shooting down missiles with ballistics is difficult even with computer guidance. A near instantaneous weapon like a laser could greatly reduce the odds of missing the missile.

I'm curious as to what makes you say that. I've had extensive experience around ballistic anti-missile weapons and found them to be really, really effective. The successful engagement rate of even targets as small as mortars was quite high.

I think I see what's going on here.

Gorrath, you're talking about low atmosphere interception systems, like Patriot missiles, right?

snekadid, you're talking about orbital nuke/long range missile interception systems, right?

Because we've had one since the 90s or earlier (Patriot missiles) whereas no one has ever been able to pull off intercepting intercontinental or orbital missiles before. The USA keeps trying, and failing, to make that system work, but the distances are just too great for standard ballistic systems to manage. Lasers, however, might be able to take out intercontinental or orbital missiles, is what you're saying senkadid. Correct?

 

[Gorrath]

I think I see what's going on here.

Gorrath, you're talking about low atmosphere interception systems, like Patriot missiles, right?

snekadid, you're talking about orbital nuke/long range missile interception systems, right?

Because we've had one since the 90s or earlier (Patriot missiles) whereas no one has ever been able to pull off intercepting intercontinental or orbital missiles before. The USA keeps trying, and failing, to make that system work, but the distances are just too great for standard ballistic systems to manage. Lasers, however, might be able to take out intercontinental or orbital missiles, is what you're saying senkadid. Correct?

Indeed I am, though I didn't want to use the Patriot as an example as its success rates are highly debated, especially for the first Gulf War. I'm not sure how effective laser weapons would actually be at intercepting ICBMs either as the range on laser weapons is currently rather limited and their implementation is based more on taking over the role of things like Phalanx/C-Ram.

 

[snekadid]

The problem being that if you don't already have a craft in the air and near the vicinity that can shoot it down when the alert sounds, you're gonna have to rely on the AA which is a crap shoot because as I said, shooting down missiles with ballistics is difficult even with computer guidance. A near instantaneous weapon like a laser could greatly reduce the odds of missing the missile.

I'm curious as to what makes you say that. I've had extensive experience around ballistic anti-missile weapons and found them to be really, really effective. The successful engagement rate of even targets as small as mortars was quite high.

I think I see what's going on here.

Gorrath, you're talking about low atmosphere interception systems, like Patriot missiles, right?

snekadid, you're talking about orbital nuke/long range missile interception systems, right?

Because we've had one since the 90s or earlier (Patriot missiles) whereas no one has ever been able to pull off intercepting intercontinental or orbital missiles before. The USA keeps trying, and failing, to make that system work, but the distances are just too great for standard ballistic systems to manage. Lasers, however, might be able to take out intercontinental or orbital missiles, is what you're saying senkadid. Correct?

Yea, That's what I was talking about. I was confused as to what Gorrath was saying because the mathematics behind targeting something that far away has too many variables. Sorry if what I said was misleading, I'm not referring to something that can be launched from a fighter, I was talking about the missiles that become a talking point every time North Korea feels they aren't being paid attention to anymore.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because we've had one since the 90s or earlier (Patriot missiles) whereas no one has ever been able to pull off intercepting intercontinental or orbital missiles before. The USA keeps trying, and failing, to make that system work, but the distances are just too great for standard ballistic systems to manage. Lasers, however, might be able to take out intercontinental or orbital missiles, is what you're saying senkadid. Correct?

Er, as I understand it, the US has managed to successfully destroy targets representing ICBMs and orbiting satellites.

Also, many nations invested and are investing in anti missile missiles to defend against ICBMs. The US and USSR signed SALT to limit how many they could have, allowing them to defend one target each (noticeably, the Soviets chose Moscow, as a decoy). Nowdays, lots of places are getting Aegis systems.

I don't see why this would be the case if they weren't useful.

 

[Heronblade]

You might be interested in the laser weapons now being tested aboard US naval vessels. With what they've seen so far, they can bring down small craft in the air and on the sea while using energy that would cost less than 1 USD. The primary benefit of laser based weapons is really just cost.

Oh sure, mounted on a warship, possibly nuclear powered. The OP mentions them being standard infantry weapons, though I guess you could carry an extension cord along.

P.S. The only currently working model for a warp engine requires far more energy than any fusion generator can provide. In fact, in order to travel across the milky way galaxy, a ship using such a drive would burn through approximately the equivalent of all of the energy contained within all of the matter in the observable universe. Just so you have a better sense of scale, the blast unleashed by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted the equivalent of about 12 grams of matter to energy

Current working model for a warp engine?

Oh, and Hiroshima was less than one gram. The yield was about 16 kilotons, and 1 gram equates to a bit more than 21.5 kilotons. Nagasaki was a little bit more than one gram.

(As an aside, you know when Star Trek has replicators and transporters that work by transmuting things into energy, and/or then transmuting them into matter? It is vitally important to get them serviced regularly, 1 gram of conversion going wrong and you've got no ship left)

I'm speaking of the Alcubierre drive and the experiments based on it. No, the term working model not mean that one of these things has actually been built.

Explosive yield is not quite what I meant. The total amount of energy released by the bombs in question was much greater than that, only a relatively small fraction of said energy (about 5%) was in a directly destructive form.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Explosive yield is not quite what I meant. The total amount of energy released by the bombs in question was much greater than that, only a relatively small fraction of said energy (about 5%) was in a directly destructive form.

It was? I thought they measured the total output. Certainly, the destructive energy is less than that, and it doesn't scale upwards smoothly.

 

[Gorrath]

The problem being that if you don't already have a craft in the air and near the vicinity that can shoot it down when the alert sounds, you're gonna have to rely on the AA which is a crap shoot because as I said, shooting down missiles with ballistics is difficult even with computer guidance. A near instantaneous weapon like a laser could greatly reduce the odds of missing the missile.

I'm curious as to what makes you say that. I've had extensive experience around ballistic anti-missile weapons and found them to be really, really effective. The successful engagement rate of even targets as small as mortars was quite high.

I think I see what's going on here.

Gorrath, you're talking about low atmosphere interception systems, like Patriot missiles, right?

snekadid, you're talking about orbital nuke/long range missile interception systems, right?

Because we've had one since the 90s or earlier (Patriot missiles) whereas no one has ever been able to pull off intercepting intercontinental or orbital missiles before. The USA keeps trying, and failing, to make that system work, but the distances are just too great for standard ballistic systems to manage. Lasers, however, might be able to take out intercontinental or orbital missiles, is what you're saying senkadid. Correct?

Yea, That's what I was talking about. I was confused as to what Gorrath was saying because the mathematics behind targeting something that far away has too many variables. Sorry if what I said was misleading, I'm not referring to something that can be launched from a fighter, I was talking about the missiles that become a talking point every time North Korea feels they aren't being paid attention to anymore.

Thanks for the clarification. I know the U.S. has the GMD and I think Russia has an anti-ICBM system called A-35. The Russian system uses nuclear payload while the U.S. system is a conventional kinetic payload. My knowledge of these systems is more lacking than that of the lower altitude systems so I don't really know how effective they actually are. I've no knowledge of a laser-based anti-ICBM defense system but the idea is intriguing if we can overcome the range issues associated with effective laser weapon systems.

 

[Heronblade]

There are things that fusion power simply cannot replace, at least for the next hundred years or so, there will always be a need for high energy hydrocarbons. Also, if fusion becomes a profitable investment for energy production, the smart move for big oil will be to just expand their repertoire, not bury it.

P.S. The only currently working model for a warp engine requires far more energy than any fusion generator can provide. In fact, in order to travel across the milky way galaxy, a ship using such a drive would burn through approximately the equivalent of all of the energy contained within all of the matter in the observable universe. Just so you have a better sense of scale, the blast unleashed by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted the equivalent of about 12 grams of matter to energy

Fusion might be an answer to even more mundane energy needs, depending on how efficient we can make the fusion process. If you have a massive over-production of energy, you can use some of that energy to draw carbon from the atmosphere and create fuel from it, reversing the atmospheric effect of carbon emissions while also creating a 'new' supply of hydrocarbon fuel. This process will take much more energy than it produces, but if you have an over-abundant source of energy to begin with, you're all set. This would allow cars and such to continue to run on hydrocarbon fuels while making the whole process carbon neutral at the same time. Of course this is all predicated on that hypothesized, super efficient fusion process.

I'd much rather use such a process to start mass producing carbon nanotubes. Strongest material known to man, and it happens to also be a superconductor. Drop a cable of the stuff down from geostationary orbit, and not only have you solved 90% of our problems getting into space, but the cable itself moving through solar wind would act as a generator that would put even our hypothetical hyper-efficient nuclear fusion plants to shame. It would be a freaking huge project, but not unattainable, and definitely worth the effort.

Explosive yield is not quite what I meant. The total amount of energy released by the bombs in question was much greater than that, only a relatively small fraction of said energy (about 5%) was in a directly destructive form.

It was? I thought they measured the total output. Certainly, the destructive energy is less than that, and it doesn't scale upwards smoothly.

Just checked with wikipedia, according to it, Little Boy had about 9.3-13.3 grams converted to energy in total, about 0.6 grams of which were converted to kinetic and heat.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Is the success replicable? Is it consistent?
If so, then we actually made that milestone.

 

[Gorrath]

There are things that fusion power simply cannot replace, at least for the next hundred years or so, there will always be a need for high energy hydrocarbons. Also, if fusion becomes a profitable investment for energy production, the smart move for big oil will be to just expand their repertoire, not bury it.

P.S. The only currently working model for a warp engine requires far more energy than any fusion generator can provide. In fact, in order to travel across the milky way galaxy, a ship using such a drive would burn through approximately the equivalent of all of the energy contained within all of the matter in the observable universe. Just so you have a better sense of scale, the blast unleashed by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted the equivalent of about 12 grams of matter to energy

Fusion might be an answer to even more mundane energy needs, depending on how efficient we can make the fusion process. If you have a massive over-production of energy, you can use some of that energy to draw carbon from the atmosphere and create fuel from it, reversing the atmospheric effect of carbon emissions while also creating a 'new' supply of hydrocarbon fuel. This process will take much more energy than it produces, but if you have an over-abundant source of energy to begin with, you're all set. This would allow cars and such to continue to run on hydrocarbon fuels while making the whole process carbon neutral at the same time. Of course this is all predicated on that hypothesized, super efficient fusion process.

I'd much rather use such a process to start mass producing carbon nanotubes. Strongest material known to man, and it happens to also be a superconductor. Drop a cable of the stuff down from geostationary orbit, and not only have you solved 90% of our problems getting into space, but the cable itself moving through solar wind would act as a generator that would put even our hypothetical hyper-efficient nuclear power plants to shame. It would be a freaking huge project, but not unattainable, and definitely worth the effort.

Oh I'd be as excited as anyone about a space elevator. The power station you describe is immensely amusing to me because I actually drew something like that up when I was quite young for a grade-school science project. It is an exciting concept to be sure, but much like other big-picture energy fixes it does leave a lot of question marks about how we run things like autos. While we've made some serious progress in alternative fuels, nothing beats hydrocarbons for energy storage and extraction in autos so the idea that we could recycle hydrocarbon fuel right out of the atmosphere is an interesting one. Energy production is a central part of the issue, but so are transportation and storage and these big-picture energy production ideas often leave big question marks about those issues.

 

[snekadid]

Yea, That's what I was talking about. I was confused as to what Gorrath was saying because the mathematics behind targeting something that far away has too many variables. Sorry if what I said was misleading, I'm not referring to something that can be launched from a fighter, I was talking about the missiles that become a talking point every time North Korea feels they aren't being paid attention to anymore.

Thanks for the clarification. I know the U.S. has the GMD and I think Russia has an anti-ICBM system called A-35. The Russian system uses nuclear payload while the U.S. system is a conventional kinetic payload. My knowledge of these systems is more lacking than that of the lower altitude systems so I don't really know how effective they actually are. I've no knowledge of a laser-based anti-ICBM defense system but the idea is intriguing if we can overcome the range issues associated with effective laser weapon systems.

Well yes, but considering the topic was brought up based off of the future existence of a working fusion power source, something that is still far off, it leads that we would make advancements in laser technology considering it is something we are more familiar with(even if most of our experience with it is in a non-weapon capacity).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Er, as I understand it, the US has managed to successfully destroy targets representing ICBMs and orbiting satellites.

Also, many nations invested and are investing in anti missile missiles to defend against ICBMs. The US and USSR signed SALT to limit how many they could have, allowing them to defend one target each (noticeably, the Soviets chose Moscow, as a decoy). Nowdays, lots of places are getting Aegis systems.

I don't see why this would be the case if they weren't useful.

As I understand it (and I may be a few years out of date), the hit rate for systems like Aegis are actually abysmally low. They hit like 1 out of 4 missiles.

They're worth investing in because A) people hope they will get better and B) even reducing missile hits by 25% would save thousands of lives in the event of a nuclear strike.

Indeed I am, though I didn't want to use the Patriot as an example as its success rates are highly debated, especially for the first Gulf War.

Yeah, but they are the sort of system you mean, and they were the only system whose name I could remember. Also, I haven't done a ton of research on this or anything - I just happen to remember an episode of the West Wing that talked about how difficult it was to take out intercontinental nuclear missiles.

 

[ShipofFools]

Now if only everything else would stop being so shit.

A single, manly tear rolls from my eye every time fusion power is getting nearer.

Maybe there won't be an energy crisis in the future...

Odd. The closer fusion power gets to me, the more my DNA unravels

haha!
That's why my DNA is encased like the spore of a mushroom, making it possible for my DNA to travel with it's mushroom brothers through the vast ocean that is space. My body will be destroyed, but I will live on, not as an earthbound mammal but a bright child of the stars!
Join me, my friends, join the mushroom!

Oh my tinfoil hat fell off! The beams! THE BEAMS!


EDIT: This was an excellent 500th post.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As I understand it (and I may be a few years out of date), the hit rate for systems like Aegis are actually abysmally low. They hit like 1 out of 4 missiles.

Depends what you mean by "hit". Skin to skin contact is a lot harder than destroying a missile with a nuclear warhead. Not something you are allowed to really test nowdays, though.

Just checked with wikipedia, according to it, Little Boy had about 9.3-13.3 grams converted to energy in total, about 0.6 grams of which were converted to kinetic and heat.

Hmmm, it says "Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams (9.3 to 13.3 gr) of matter"...I'm not sure how to read that, looks like a mistake more than anything else.