Quote from: Solar on December 31, 2020, 06:52:32 PM
Hey dumb ass! I never said either!!!
You are quickly wearing out your welcome here. If all you came here to do is be a punk ass kid, I suggest you find another forum!

The fact is that the chinese fusion reactor has achieved nothing because more energy went in than came out.  Do you comprehend this? or that this has already been achieved?

Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 08:15:44 AM
The fact is that the chinese fusion reactor has achieved nothing because more energy went in than came out.  Do you comprehend this? or that this has already been achieved?

This is huge for China, and the rest of the world will be watching. A plant like this, fusion not fission, is not planned until 2040 here in the US, and that is if the liberals can not kill it. If, and that is a big if, China can pull it off, it might help the US get in the game. If the US wants to remain energy independent, this would go along way of getting us there. But, you are right, if one was only looking at the startup costs, it does not look promising, but neither did the fission plants. But there are others who can see the long range prospects. And I have to admit, a magnetic field that can create temps 10x the temp of the sun's core is pretty impressive.

Quote from: Possum on January 01, 2021, 09:16:59 AM
This is huge for China, and the rest of the world will be watching. A plant like this, fusion not fission, is not planned until 2040 here in the US, and that is if the liberals can not kill it. If, and that is a big if, China can pull it off, it might help the US get in the game. If the US wants to remain energy independent, this would go along way of getting us there. But, you are right, if one was only looking at the startup costs, it does not look promising, but neither did the fission plants. But there are others who can see the long range prospects. And I have to admit, a magnetic field that can create temps 10x the temp of the sun's core is pretty impressive.

This reactor is a total failure and there are no plans for a fusion reactor that is efficient because none exist.  Again the chinese reactor used more energy than it produced

Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 09:18:53 AM
This reactor is a total failure and there are no plans for a fusion reactor that is efficient because none exist.  Again the chinese reactor used more energy than it produced

People said that about the airplane too. So if it is a total failure, why are the two largest nations going after it? Maybe they have not read your comments. 

Quote from: Possum on January 01, 2021, 09:24:01 AM
People said that about the airplane too. So if it is a total failure, why are the two largest nations going after it? Maybe they have not read your comments. 

Again this chinese reactor failed as it produced ZERO energy, as it output less energy than was put in to run the machine.  Fusion energy is a concept not a reality

Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 09:27:35 AM
Again this chinese reactor failed as it produced ZERO energy, as it output less energy than was put in to run the machine.  Fusion energy is a concept not a reality

this is still in it's infant stage, the trial run was to how how it was functioning not to sell electricity. Estimates are still saying a running plant to produce electricity could still be decades away, but if achieved the amount of power would be far greater than anything we now have.

Quote from: Possum on January 01, 2021, 09:45:56 AM
this is still in it's infant stage, the trial run was to how how it was functioning not to sell electricity. Estimates are still saying a running plant to produce electricity could still be decades away, but if achieved the amount of power would be far greater than anything we now have.

Actually this is just the latest in thousands of failed fusion experiments. Furthermore fusion energy may never be real, but if you want to invest now, be my guest

QuoteHuge parasitic power consumption. In addition to the problems of fueling, fusion reactors face another problem: they consume a good chunk of the very power that they produce, or what those in the electrical generating industry call "parasitic power drain," on a scale unknown to any other source of electrical power. Fusion reactors must accommodate two classes of parasitic power drain: First, a host of essential auxiliary systems external to the reactor must be maintained continuously even when the fusion plasma is dormant (that is, during planned or unplanned outages). Some 75-to-100 MWe (megawatts electric) are consumed continuously by liquid-helium refrigerators; water pumping; vacuum pumping; heating, ventilating and air conditioning for numerous buildings; tritium processing; and so forth, as exemplified by the facilities for the ITER fusion project in France. When the fusion output is interrupted for any reason, this power must be purchased from the regional grid at retail prices.

The second category of parasitic drain is the power needed to control the fusion plasma in magnetic confinement fusion systems (and to ignite fuel capsules in pulsed inertial confinement fusion systems). Magnetic confinement fusion plasmas require injection of significant power in atomic beams or electromagnetic energy to stabilize the fusion burn, while additional power is consumed by magnetic coils helping to control location and stability of the reacting plasma. The total electric power drain for this purpose amounts to at least six percent of the fusion power generated, and the electric power required to pump the blanket coolant is typically two percent of fusion power. The gross electric power output can be 40 percent of the fusion power, so the circulating power amounts to about 20 percent of the electric power output.

In inertial confinement fusion and hybrid inertial/magnetic confinement fusion reactors, after each fusion pulse, electric current must charge energy storage systems such as capacitor banks that power the laser or ion beams or imploding liners. The demands on circulating power are at least comparable with those for magnetic confinement fusion.

The power drains described above are derived from the reactor's electrical power output, and determine lower bounds to reactor size. If the fusion power is 300 megawatts, the entire electric output of 120 MWe barely supplies on-site needs. As the fusion power is raised, the on-site consumption becomes an increasingly smaller proportion of the  electric output, dropping to one-half when the fusion power is 830 megawatts. To have any chance of economic operation that must repay capital and operational costs, the fusion power must be raised to thousands of megawatts so that the total parasitic power drain is relatively small.

In a nutshell, below a certain size (about 1,000 MWe) parasitic power drain makes it uneconomic to run a fusion power plant.

link:https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

Quote from: tac on January 01, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
link:https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

Thank you!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50267017

Quote from: Possum on January 01, 2021, 11:01:29 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50267017

Fusion has already been achieved, however fusion does not exist as a power source and there are no plans to build a reactor that can not exist yet

Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 12:16:00 PM
Fusion has already been achieved, however fusion does not exist as a power source and there are no plans to build a reactor that can not exist yet

China would beg to differ....

Quote from: Owebo on January 01, 2021, 12:21:40 PM
China would beg to differ....

So you believe communist propaganda. 

Whaaaaaaaa

Fusion is not a viable option in the near term as there are still many basic problems in physics and then engineering to solve and overcome. However a more immediate energy solution for the near term is nuclear fission but not uranium fueled light water reactors that have been in use till now which have problematic to say the least but much much safer throium fueled breeder type LFTR reactors which are so safe containment isn't necessary. In fact small LFTRs could be used to repace the source of energy in existing fossil fueled plants and make them much cheaper to run. In fact they can even be used to convert nuclear wastes that were stuck with into useable energy and waste products with much much shorter half lives and much less amounts of it.

Quote from: dickfoster on January 01, 2021, 03:50:15 PM
Fusion is not a viable option in the near term as there are still many basic problems in physics and then engineering to solve and overcome. However a more immediate energy solution for the near term is nuclear fission but not uranium fueled light water reactors that have been in use till now which have problematic to say the least but much much safer throium fueled breeder type LFTR reactors which are so safe containment isn't necessary. In fact small LFTRs could be used to repace the source of energy in existing fossil fueled plants and make them much cheaper to run. In fact they can even be used to convert nuclear wastes that were stuck with into useable energy and waste products with much much shorter half lives and much less amounts of it.

These reactors will be just as dangerous as conventional ones, if not they would already be in service instead of the reactors going off line now.