Fusion when?

SOON

We need MIT's ARC/SPARC

Are you, too, following Tokamak Energy?

Is fusion a meme?

Also can renewables be used to satisfy world power demand? I hate renewables and wish we could all just research fusion

>Also can renewables be used to satisfy world power demand?
Yes, but it's a complicated and expensive process that takes a pretty advanced energy grid and tons and tons of large-scale batteries, pumped storage power stations or power to gas facilities with tons of mostly unused gas plants.
Building this stuff is pretty fucking complicated and expensive. Although once you have it, you do get some return by saving money on fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies and maintining this system probably isn't all that expensive once you have it. You're still wasting energy/money on the inefficient power-to-gas storage and the mostly unused gas plants.

>Is fusion a meme?
No. Scientists just got too excited several times in the past.
Back in the day they just succeeded in harnessing Fission and Fusion already worked in atomic bombs. So it couldn't be more than 20 years away right? Well it turns out plasma physics is really fucking hard so that didn't work out at all.
Then the russians found the Tokamak design. Again people thought - the rest has to be trivial - 20 years and we're done. Well turns out the Tokamak had its own share of problems. So again that delayed things.

This time the situation is different. The basic science is mostly done. There's a lot of things left to research to make these reactors more effective.
But 20-30 years is plausible just for optimization. Most of this time will be spent on building facilities anyway, rather than actually doing research.
Sadly that's still too late to limit climate change to any useful degree anymore.

Thanks for the answer.

ITER is a science project.
If Fusion reactors have to be that big to have a net gain they'll never be economical.

SPARC/ARC is our only hope.

Well, there's absolutely no reason to think that they couldn't scale back down again after ITER if high temperature super conductors turn out to be as great for fusion as they seem.
Either way, you might want to take a look at these guys:
tokamakenergy.co.uk/about-us/

ITER costs the same as a new traditional fusion power plant

meant *fission obviously

Isn't the problem with superconductors that the only way to overcome their max limit is by making them bigger?
I thought that this is exactly what ARC does, by using newer superconductors with higher limits.

They're both tokamaks anyway.

You do understand that pretty much all the shit we've done militarily over the last 50 years was in order to force the world to use our dollars to buy oil, right? Just what do you think would happen to this threat to our economy if we can't control it?

Right now

>Build an underground reservoir
>Drop a thermonuclear bomb into it
>Boom
>Use the steam to drive turbines
>Repeat

ITER was designed by taking the strongest magnets that existed at the time of its planning and then scaling up the reactor until they had net energy gain.
Now while ITER is being built, science advances and finds better superconductors that can yield even stronger magnetic fields.
Now they'll just keep building ITER the way it was designed, because it's simply too late to change their design anymore with the facility already half built and most of the magnets already lying around.
But, as I was trying to say in my last post, I can think of no real reason why the successor of ITER, DEMO, wouldn't try to go for the strongest magnets available again by the time it enters its design stage.
As it seems to me right now, they would probably use high temperature superconductors just like ARC and Tokamak energy plan to. Therefore at the end of the day, DEMO would ultimately benefit from the same reduced size as these other projects. It's just that SPARC->ARC would be scaling up while ITER->DEMO would stay the same in size or even scale down.
These high temperature superconductors aren't arcane technology that only start-ups and universities can use.

The cost of the initial construction is only a small part of the equation.
Long term operation cost is much more important, something that goes up with complexity and size.

Right, and how does that make anything I just said incorrect?

Never. Period.

This is what left-wingers get right. Fusion and nuclear energy are dangerous and wont tackle climate change. We need to reallocate funding for fusion and nuclear to alternative renewables, like solar and wind power.

>nuclear power
>dangerous
How does it feel to be a fucking idiot?
Nuclear power is incredibly safe, and safe for the environment.

...

When are you going to post some original cringe, schizo?

I'm bet anybody here that they achieve fusion in a hydrogen saturated Palladium or Nickel matrix long before these magnetic containment monstrosities do.

brilliantlightpower.com/

Brilliant Light Power Inc. (BLP) has announced that the firm has continuously generated over 1 million Watts of power from a new primary source, with enough power to eventually vaporize their test apparatus.

According to the company, the power is released by the conversion of hydrogen atoms from water molecules by lowering the hydrogen nuclei’s orbiting electron into a lower energy level producing something called a “Hydrino.”

The “SunCell” is reported to generate over 100 times the power required to ignite to the Hydrino reaction.

...

It's not as crazy as you think...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

It's a scam.

It's funny because your faggot renewables demand both rare metals that must be mined and toxic glass treatment chemicals which countries like China or India would just dump into the oceans and rivers and also kill far more people per Tw/h of energy produced than nuclear.

...

This is now a Mr. Cool Ice thread!

>look at me! I'm retarded!

Can i just say that looks sexy as fuck?

its been scheduled for next thursday

>sabotage early fusion reactors
>media campaign emphasising the "nuclear" in "nuclear fusion"
>let confused people lobby it into the ground

Seems too easy, desu.

>every other first world country goes through with it
>prove viability
>oil jews fail anyway and make nothing from it
They'd be better off investing in alternative uses for oil, or just starting up fusion companies themselves using the oil money

i had a good chuckle