Feasibility of a Fusion Reactor within the next ~50 years?

File: 1442935228054.jpg (138KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 768x1024px

My heart says yes
My mind says maybe...
My dick says FOR THE GOD EMPEROR!

>>8468367
I'm going to guess that's >40,000 ears of waiting then.

>>8468363
Once I finish my PhD in nuclear physics, we'll get it within a couple of years, I just need funding.

>>8468363
>50 years
your timeframe is so retardedly long there is no reason to predict.

That's like asking if we'll have a moon colony within the next 200 years.

technically we already have a ton!

File: impactofnuclearfusion.jpg (287KB, 1414x879px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1414x879px

>>8468363

no idea. In the mean time, let's consider the implications

https://youtu.be/8Pmgr6FtYcY

>>8468363
If I ask scientist that arn't involved in this, they tell thats bullshit. If I ask people who get govern. mony to build fusion they say 10 to 25 years.

>>8468363
We already have fusion reactors.

We'll probably have self-sustaining fusion when ITER is running fully.

Practical fusion power is a different matter. Fusion produces fast neutrons which are harder to moderate than those produced by fission, making it harder to extract heat energy. Absorption is also harder, making irradiation of the plant a major issue. Plasma stability is a hard problem at high power levels.

Even if we can get them working as a (technically) practical source of power, the capital cost could be so high as to make them commercially non-viable.

ITER could just end up proving that tokomaks (or magnetic-confinement fusion generally) are a dead end, and the other approaches are nothing more than laboratory experiments at this point.

Given that we just recently found out that we have access to an essentially unlimited supply of uranium we can economically harvest from the ocean, we should probably throw more weight into new, safer fission reactors. With the right tech and the correct thrust of enthusiam for it, we could do amazing things with a big build-up of nuclear power (large scale water desalinization, ripping CO2 out of the atmosphere and using it in commerce and science, etc)

I follow the current wave of fusion research with a lot of interest, in particular I'm cautiously hopeful Helion energy will blow everyone's fucking minds and surprise us with viable fusion in like 5 years or less, but you have to focus on whats doable now, not what MIGHT be doable in the indeterminate future. Nuclear power needs to stop fucking around and get moving.

>>8469571
>Fusion produces fast neutrons which are harder to moderate than those produced by fission, making it harder to extract heat energy.

The advanced fuels version of fusion doesn't have this issue, but it's even harder than standard dt fusion to get going. tri alpha energy are hammering away at it, but who knows how long that shit's going to take.

>>8469584
Generating power is not the problem. It is the capacity to store it that makes it hard to utilise it.

>>8468363
Why? Trump got elected, we don't need ((((clean energy)))) any more.

>>8469585
> it's even harder than standard dt fusion to get going
If you're referring to 1H-11B fusion, that's the understatement of the century.

From wikipedia:
> At 123 keV, the optimum temperature for this reaction is nearly ten times higher than that for the pure hydrogen reactions, the energy confinement must be 500 times better than that required for the D-T reaction, and the power density will be 2500 times lower than for D-T.

IOW, not even remotely viable without a radically different approach.

The other alternatives would be to use one of the other light-isotope reactions (D-D, D-3He). While not entirely aneutronic, fast neutrons don't make up the bulk of the energy output (as is the case for D-T), which makes energy capture easier and reduces the issues with neutron activation.

Even so, power density for D-D is ~1.5% of that for D-T. Not as bad as 1H-11B, but still a pretty massive drop.

>>8469605
yeah we do, and trump said he's going to pour resources into clean energy to make clean air.


look, i get it, you don't like him because reasons. but if he's going to work towards the goal of clean energy under the guise of "clean air and american jobs", then let him.

>>8469605
>a nuclear reactor emmiting hard gamma radiation in every direction with no possibility of stopping it is "clean"

WTF

>>8468363
Dont think so, we will learn some new stuff but it wont be ready in 50 years.

Other thought: Why is nobody discussing a global solar power grid. Are the distances too far or is it just because politics? The sun would always shine, developing nations could earn some money, etc.