Nuclear fusion

[Yellow Bear]

10 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, the Jet project was only meant to go about 8 years , now going on 40 so will they ever come up with a solution on Fusion energy ??

No, but like the "climate scientists" some people have made a dammed fine living out of failure/miss information.  

[ditchman]

you lot are certainly a "half glass empty".......crew.................come on lighten up......think of jeesus on the cross whistling and singing "look on the bright side of life..🎵.."

.............

[enfieldspares]

On 22/12/2023 at 17:08, adzyvilla said:

It's been 'around the corner' for decades. 

Yeah, Like (for those in Leicestershire who will understand the reference) re-opening the Ivanhoe Line.

[McSpredder]

Almost thirty years ago somebody told me: "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be".

What is it predicted to cost?   When Calder Hall opened we were told that electricity would soon be too cheap to meter, but I still get bills every month.

Is there an estimated date when fusion power stations might be up and running, and coupled to the grid?   Might the inhabitants of East Anglia still be muttering "Norfolk in use" in a hundred years time?

 

 

 

 

[oowee]

23 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Where there's a will there's a way.

Im sure they'll crack it at some point, the only question is when.

^^^^^ This. 

In between times make the most of Octopus agile and a few batteries. 

[Stonepark]

47 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

Almost thirty years ago somebody told me: "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be".

What is it predicted to cost?   When Calder Hall opened we were told that electricity would soon be too cheap to meter, but I still get bills every month.

Is there an estimated date when fusion power stations might be up and running, and coupled to the grid?   Might the inhabitants of East Anglia still be muttering "Norfolk in use" in a hundred years time?

 

 

 

 

The current generation of Nuclear (Fission) reactors are as efficent as they can be (using between 5-10% of fuel loaded into them), and most governments are still going down this route, but more complicated and safer, ramping up the price massively.

Lately a lot has been said about off shore wind asking for cfd strike price rates to be lifted form the £47 per MWH mark to £70ish (2012 prices), Hinkley was set previously at £92.50 (2012 prices)and is rumoured to be asking for £150 per MWH (2012 prices)by the time it comes into operation in 2028, it's build cost having gone from £18billion to £32 billion.

Rolls Royce modular reactors are just smaller versions of these (but developed from the Navy reactors line) and really most of the development is to work out how to make the future Navy reactors better, only providing the next generation of modular civilian reactors as almost an after thought.

Top end global private investment (and some governments such as China) is going into (Modular) Molten Salt Reactors (MSR's) which were abondoned in the 60's by the USA as they did not have a military purpose (they do not require the high enrichment of Uranium235 that current reactors use - so no enriched bomb material and no plutonium), even though they are inherently safer (not pressurised and cannot runaway) and more efficent (use between 80% and 100%) of the fuel loaded into them. As a bonus, they can also use fuel from other decay sequences such as the Thorium line, of which there is thousands of years of supplies on the planet and spent material from current reactors.

Fusion is a boon doggle as our cousins across the Atlantic would say.

 

[manthing]

16 hours ago, amateur said:

I don't disagree. The problem is replicating it in a controlled fashion.

It's been done on a small scale a few times now from what I read the other day. Now that it can be done, it will be done on a larger and larger scale until commercially viable. I'd like to see it in my years left but one never knows.

Never say never.

[manthing]

16 hours ago, Stonepark said:

It's not my list of conditions, it's physics......

And every now and again we are told of things that shouldn't exist in the universe because they don't follow our understanding of physics.

Maybe we just don't fully understand everything that physics has to show us. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, Stonepark said:

The current generation of Nuclear (Fission) reactors are as efficent as they can be (using between 5-10% of fuel loaded into them), and most governments are still going down this route, but more complicated and safer, ramping up the price massively.

Lately a lot has been said about off shore wind asking for cfd strike price rates to be lifted form the £47 per MWH mark to £70ish (2012 prices), Hinkley was set previously at £92.50 (2012 prices)and is rumoured to be asking for £150 per MWH (2012 prices)by the time it comes into operation in 2028, it's build cost having gone from £18billion to £32 billion.

Rolls Royce modular reactors are just smaller versions of these (but developed from the Navy reactors line) and really most of the development is to work out how to make the future Navy reactors better, only providing the next generation of modular civilian reactors as almost an after thought.

Top end global private investment (and some governments such as China) is going into (Modular) Molten Salt Reactors (MSR's) which were abondoned in the 60's by the USA as they did not have a military purpose (they do not require the high enrichment of Uranium235 that current reactors use - so no enriched bomb material and no plutonium), even though they are inherently safer (not pressurised and cannot runaway) and more efficent (use between 80% and 100%) of the fuel loaded into them. As a bonus, they can also use fuel from other decay sequences such as the Thorium line, of which there is thousands of years of supplies on the planet and spent material from current reactors.

Fusion is a boon doggle as our cousins across the Atlantic would say.

 

I do not believe current reactors use highly enriched uranium, somewhere up to about 12%, that term is normally used when describing material for atomic weapons.

[old'un]

19 hours ago, Stonepark said:

It's not my list of conditions, it's physics......

so the voyages of the Starship Enterprise are, as we know for the most, pure fiction (at this time) but when I look back at some of the technology depicted in the series it does make you think what else, that is/was pure science fiction will one day become a reality.

I honestly believe that the things that are thought to-be impossible today will become reality tomorrow, perhaps not in my or your lifetime.

Never say never, there's a lot we don't yet know or understand.

 

15 hours ago, ditchman said:

Klingons on the starboard bow...🎵

For a bit of fun….these guys seem to understand how a Starship is powered...https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-Starship-Enterprise-powered

[ditchman]

18 minutes ago, old'un said:

so the voyages of the Starship Enterprise are, as we know for the most, pure fiction (at this time) but when I look back at some of the technology depicted in the series it does make you think what else, that is/was pure science fiction will one day become a reality.

I honestly believe that the things that are thought to-be impossible today will become reality tomorrow, perhaps not in my or your lifetime.

Never say never, there's a lot we don't yet know or understand.

 

For a bit of fun….these guys seem to understand how a Starship is powered...https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-Starship-Enterprise-powered

i believe the ion drive already excists..............basically (im led to understand) it is an electric charge fired thro mecury vapour.....i think NASA are doing experiments with it...it produces a very small ammount of thrust but in space it would be used for probes on long journys as the acceleration would be the time factor...

[Stonepark]

7 hours ago, manthing said:

And every now and again we are told of things that shouldn't exist in the universe because they don't follow our understanding of physics.

Maybe we just don't fully understand everything that physics has to show us. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Things that shouldn't exist? Don't follow the high school level of physics dumbed down so it can be "understood"?

The problem is that like other things.... people are locked into a narrative or paradigm and fail to look, much less understand, and those who do are often excommucated because they don't agree with the "concensus".

 

Well Galileo was right, the earth is a ball and orbits the sun

Einstein was correct E=mc2

Robitaillie is correct... the sun is a liquid/semi-sold

Vogt was right... the sun micro-novas on a 12,000 yearly basis

Davidson is right... the universe is Electro-magnetic and dark matter doesn't exist

 

Bought and paid for follow the narritive/consensus scientists are wrong about other things as well such as :-

Climate change & global warming & CO2

COVID virus

Fusion on earth

mRNA vaccines

to name a few

 

4 hours ago, ditchman said:

i believe the ion drive already excists..............basically (im led to understand) it is an electric charge fired thro mecury vapour.....i think NASA are doing experiments with it...it produces a very small ammount of thrust but in space it would be used for probes on long journys as the acceleration would be the time factor...

Yes, the ion drive already exists but as noted is simple well understood physics.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Stonepark

[Stonepark]

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I do not believe current reactors use highly enriched uranium, somewhere up to about 12%, that term is normally used when describing material for atomic weapons.

The whole point is that U235 occurs naturally as part of Uranium at a percentage of 0.7%, U238 being the other 99.3%.

In order to bring U235 up to useable levels for civilian purposes, the method uses the same equipment to bring U235 up to military purposes, you just feed it back through an extra few times, not disimilar to multiple distilled alcohol. U235 decay also produces plutonium as a by product wich is also military capable.

Nuclear weapons use high grade U235 to minimise the weapon size.

Low grade nuclear weapons can work with 20% U235, even lower down to 12% could be made but the issue is the size of the device.

Reactors can "runaway" with 3-4% U235 (civilian grade).

MSR's lower the risk of nuclear accidents in multiple ways over "conventional" reactors.

[adzyvilla]

55 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Things that shouldn't exist? Don't follow the high school level of physics dumbed down so it can be "understood"?

The problem is that like other things.... people are locked into a narrative or paradigm and fail to look, much less understand, and those who do are often excommucated because they don't agree with the "concensus".

 

Well Galileo was right, the earth is a ball and orbits the sun

Einstein was correct E=mc2

Robitaillie is correct... the sun is a liquid/semi-sold

Vogt was right... the sun micro-novas on a 12,000 yearly basis

Davidson is right... the universe is Electro-magnetic and dark matter doesn't exist

 

Bought and paid for follow the narritive/consensus scientists are wrong about other things as well such as :-

Climate change & global warming & CO2

COVID virus

Fusion on earth

mRNA vaccines

to name a few

 

Yes, the ion drive already exists but as noted is simple well understood physics.

A fellow Ben Davidson fan? I thought I was th only one....

[Stonepark]

1 minute ago, adzyvilla said:

A fellow Ben Davidson fan? I thought I was th only one....

😁 Only the best company......

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Stonepark said:

The whole point is that U235 occurs naturally as part of Uranium at a percentage of 0.7%, U238 being the other 99.3%.

In order to bring U235 up to useable levels for civilian purposes, the method uses the same equipment to bring U235 up to military purposes, you just feed it back through an extra few times, not disimilar to multiple distilled alcohol. U235 decay also produces plutonium as a by product wich is also military capable.

Nuclear weapons use high grade U235 to minimise the weapon size.

Low grade nuclear weapons can work with 20% U235, even lower down to 12% could be made but the issue is the size of the device.

Reactors can "runaway" with 3-4% U235 (civilian grade).

MSR's lower the risk of nuclear accidents in multiple ways over "conventional" reactors.

Yes I understand that I was just correcting the term you used of "high enriched uranium" that is usually reserved to discribe material suitable for use in atomic weapons, civilian power stations do not need fuel enriched to anything like those levels.

[manthing]

On 24/12/2023 at 14:07, Stonepark said:

Things that shouldn't exist? Don't follow the high school level of physics dumbed down so it can be "understood"?

The problem is that like other things.... people are locked into a narrative or paradigm and fail to look, much less understand, and those who do are often excommucated because they don't agree with the "concensus".

Not arguing matey but this is the latest one.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1393906094541259?s=yWDuG2&fs=e

In the grand scheme of things we are about as advanced as kids in a sand box at best when it comes to knowing about things universal.

[Stonepark]

8 hours ago, manthing said:

Not arguing matey but this is the latest one.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1393906094541259?s=yWDuG2&fs=e

In the grand scheme of things we are about as advanced as kids in a sand box at best when it comes to knowing about things universal.

I appreciate you are not arguing.

There was a meme kicking about somewhere in lst few days.. might have been X (twitter) but pointing out that nearly all progress is not being driven by mainstream scientists but those who sit outside it and question the so called "settled science".

The JW telescope can't be ignored as easily as individuals who have raised these sorts of points previously but told they are conspiracy theorists etc by those who have "settled".

While clearly there are some processes we understand completely, the reluctance of often the majority to accept factual information and ignore the truth of what we may not fully understand because it doesn't fit their models, theories and simulations is telling.

Below is a slide showing inputs to the Earths atmosphere that is not accounted for in climate models used by the IPCC.

Yet these models are treated as predictions and government policy is based on them, yet they cannot and do no model the past or present, so how can they possibly model the future?

[Newbie to this]

9 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Yet these models are treated as predictions and government policy is based on them, yet they cannot and do no model the past or present, so how can they possibly model the future?

Magic?

Magic which is paid for by climate taxes 

[old man]

Way beyond my mental ability (or interest) here but whatever happens the power generation that  maybe somehow results from this will inevitably come from reactors that are built and owned by someone else because our dim wits have given away control of all of our utilities to third parties using the guise of competition between suppliers being good for us? 😄

[Red696]

Some of the contributors on this thread must be great fun at a party…

[islandgun]

3 hours ago, old man said:

Way beyond my mental ability (or interest) here but whatever happens the power generation that  maybe somehow results from this will inevitably come from reactors that are built and owned by someone else because our dim wits have given away control of all of our utilities to third parties using the guise of competition between suppliers being good for us? 😄

Dont worry OM Im sure the nice Russians or Chinese will provide us with cut price energy, if not Im sure the nice farmers will sustainably hand dig the few acres that aren't planted to trees to provide us with the vegan diet we will all be enjoying..on that note I wish you a happy new year😉

[old man]

3 hours ago, islandgun said:

Dont worry OM Im sure the nice Russians or Chinese will provide us with cut price energy, if not Im sure the nice farmers will sustainably hand dig the few acres that aren't planted to trees to provide us with the vegan diet we will all be enjoying..on that note I wish you a happy new year😉

The same to you Sir. 😃

One thing is certain, as always, the architects of this utter insane garbage suffocating the UK will be the least affected?

4 hours ago, Red696 said:

Some of the contributors on this thread must be great fun at a party…

Worry not Red, parties will definitely not be allowed at our low social level? 😄

[oowee]

8 hours ago, islandgun said:

Dont worry OM Im sure the nice Russians or Chinese will provide us with cut price energy, if not Im sure the nice farmers will sustainably hand dig the few acres that aren't planted to trees to provide us with the vegan diet we will all be enjoying..on that note I wish you a happy new year😉

WE could cut our own energy costs in half but our could'nt care less govt say 'no to onshore wind'. We want cheaper power then there is a price to pay. 

[islandgun]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

WE could cut our own energy costs in half but our could'nt care less govt say 'no to onshore wind'. We want cheaper power then there is a price to pay. 

Indeed stick them in every garden and on every home in the country, you will still need fuel to make and to transport, and food to feed the erecters..... I also wish you a happy new year and hope your chosen government [when it gets in] doesn't make a lash up of everything like the current lot