/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9540015
Government will just kill nuclear again because there is so much money in oil.
Never forget thorium nuclear energy and what they did to that.
#NutForNuclear2018

>>9540039
Everything about this post is cringe. Kill yourself.

>>9540039
>Government will just kill nuclear again because there is so much money in oil.
kind of like the entire environmentalist movement right now?
how they totally killed and silenced that?
and blocked the paris agreement totally?

Holy shit that REBCO stuff is incredible

>MFW 1000A through a 1 micron cable

Alrighty, I'm in. But it still doesn't solve the problem of how you extract the energy from the plasma and transform it into electrical energy to be put into the grid ? (I haven't see the whole vid yet, thus the question mark)

>>9540969
In the Q&A he answers your question.

>>9540015
Making reactors smaller and more efficient is the only hope for fusion having the slightest chance of being viable for energy production... all this shit with projects like ITER - bigger, badder, more expensive reactors is fucking retarded. The damn thing's probably going to hit $50 billion before first plasma, let alone before it hits its absurdly optimistic 500 MW goal.

I don't care how efficient and clean fusion is - there's no way you can make it a viable replacement for other forms of power generation at that scale - not when you can build a modern uranium fission reactor at a twentieth or less of the dollar-per-watt price tag.

Fusion needs to go back to the drawing board - researchers need to work on more novel ways to make smaller scale reactors more efficient, look at applying new materials in construction, alternative geometries, etc.

Thats a big current

>>9541149
The one proposed in the video is 10 times smaller than arc, and the SPARC prototype they plan on building has a radius of 1.5 meters while also costing a quarter of a billion dollars.

Even ITER does fail I feel like that is a bad reason to put hate on the fusion reactors idea. I would think the first nuclear reactor was very sketchy sounding when it was being thought up. Just a guess though. Losing all those resources does suck but the bigger picture is worth it.

>>9541149
>alternative geometries
This is the big one. Stop trying to make donut shaped stars ffs.

>>9540015
>doesn't require temperatures close to 0 kelvin
This hasnt been the case for most superconductors for many years now. YBCO has been around for like 20 years and can achieve superconductivity when cooled by cheap plentiful liquid nitrogen. Superconductors are not the issue for fusion. Get your pop sci reading faggoty face out of /sci/.

>>9540015
I'll believe it when I see them power a lightbulb with one.

I feel like fusion is like flying cars.

We'll keep hearing about them being available in 10 years for 100 years until people stop giving a shit entirely and then in some half assed form they become available.

>>9541454
It's a self-fullfilling prophecy, people stop believing in it therefore stop funding flying car research. I have a hard time getting funding for my flying car designs because it's seen as /x/

>>9541477
I think the actual reason is that the technology isn't quite there yet.

Nobody thinks of them as magic, but until they are as practical as actual passenger cars of today there will simply be shit for interest.

>>9541489
No I have breakthrough flying car technology it can be done today if it was funded
>inb4 how can a neckbeard make breakthrough tech
As I said simply nobody is bothering to research it, not that it is particularly difficult.

>>9540015

Nuclear fusion probably already exists. Look at Lockmart's concept reactor, which was supposed to fit on a truck originally but was quietly respec'ed to have the exact same dimensions as a submarine reactor.

It is highly likely the USN already has the technology, or is planning to have it day one in their new Columbia Class submarines which begin operations in 2021. Likewise these new submarines will use reactors made by a new entrant into the maritime reactor business, Bechtel. The same company who helps operate the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pantex Plant where nuclear weapons are made.

For some context the US Navy built the world's first nuclear-powered submarine (the USS Nautilus) in 1951, three years before the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in Russia opened and six years before the Shippingport Atomic Power Station opened in America. This happened despite the added complexity, compactness and durability maritime reactors have to be compared to stationary ones.

>>9541489
Also contrary to popular belief the main problem isn't power it's control. Moller's failed flying car had enough power to get off the ground it was just uncontrollable. Computers are advanced now....

>>9541454

Fusion is a bit different than flying cars, at least in a "government money pit" sense. Because fusors can simulate atomic weapons blasts very realistically, they are necessary for testing of nuclear weapon components. Notably Obama began an upgrade of America's nuclear weapons in 2011, so there's a lot of research happening here and everyone is figuring out the limits of existing fusors, which is driving demand for newer and more efficient ones domestically.

Keep an eye out on politics as well. If the "russian meddling" narrative is still here in 2021, New Start will expire and cause the cap on nuclear warheads to be lifted, thereby creating demand for more nuclear bombs and better bombs. Which of course drives demand for bigger and better fusors, eventually resulting in commercially viable fusion.

>>9541518
>>9541525

Who knows, so far every version has been a shitty dressed up quad copter.

Unless someone invents some antigravity tier propulsion they will never be truly practical.

>>9541530
There's fusion for military research and there is fusion for the people.

These are 2 very different things.

>>9541540

>These are 2 very different things.

Functionally, not really. The military has a desire to create the longest and hottest fusions plausible, in doing this special parts have to be engineered to contain and sustain the reaction. Civilian fusor use is the same angle.

>>9541540
>hurr durr it isn't really a flying car unless it looks like Back To The Future
I hate people like this, Is BFR not a spaceship because "hurr durr no warp drive"?
>they will never be truly practical
I hate people like this also, same pessimists who said going to Mars with chemical rockets wasn't possible until Musk revealed the BFR design.

The recent successes of SpaceX shows that pessimism holds back innovation more than technology. If he had brought his reuseable rockets to NASA he would have been told it was a dumb idea so he had to spend his own money to prove it feasible. Same with all new inventions pretty much.

>>9541569
>make giant quadcopter that can carry humans
>no longer have a flying car but instead a shitty helicopter that makes cancerous noise and thus will never become a thing because so many reasons

I'm not a pessimist, I want these things as much as you do and I know we will one day achieve them. I'm just simply stating that we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle yet.

They will all fall into place once it's time. The technologies that are required for it are better developed in other areas where they can serve an actual purpose now.

>>9540015
Aneutronic fusion is the only thing worth pursuing, that's where the literal >clean energy is at.

>>9541583
Thrust = noise deal with it.
>drone = helicopter
I've been over this so many times, if you want to be pedantic yes it's a form of helicopter however they are distinct to and have a number of advantages over the "traditional" helicopter so for all intents and purposes they are different. It's like saying a motorcycle is an automobile

>>9541604
Point is a quad copter would come with all the same reasons that prevent normal people from just parking a helicopter in their backyard.

Obviously they both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the ones that truly matter are the same.

>>9541607
Nope. Quad blades have a fraction of the kinetic energy and can be shrouded - safe for use in urban areas, also quieter for this reason. Easier to automate as well, nobody is going to allow flying a flying car yourself. I've argued this before, contrarians argue that helicopters are good enough yet they are not widespread among the general public indicating otherwise. You get the same stubborness in the RC field, they scream that RC helis are good enough for everyone yet until drones showed up it was a tiny niche hobby for nerds. I think the problem is that people who are in the technical fields can't seem to grasp the concept of marketability is distinct from efficiency.

>>9541569
which fucking brainlet said mars was impossible

>>9541454
You mean planes?

>>9541405

The first nuclear reactor was a pile of fuel surrounded by graphite blocks. It was very simple and a good proof of concept. ITER is a joke without a punchline - The Aristocrats of fusion research.

>>9541422
But no one has used this kind of superconductor before, it has all been shitty copper ones. If this performs as claimed, and I don't see why not if it is off the shelf available, then it really is a game changer for fusion because of B4 scaling. Their proposal resolves both the field strength issue with these superconductors and the blanket issue by using the whole molten salt cooling gig, which is used to then heat water and power turbines. Am I missing something here? Why would this not work?

>>9540059
?
The number one issue for nuclear is that the NRC exists to stop it

>>9541626
>yet they are not widespread among the general public indicating otherwise.
Because its illegal for you fly over populated areas, meaning you cannot make any practical use of your personal flying vehicle

Stuff like paramotors for personal flight have been super practical for years, but until you can buy one to commute to work with it, its not going to be common.

>>9541767
Paramotors can't hover or be automated. The big parachute also risks being tangled up on wires in urban areas.
Even in bumfuck nowhere where it's legal to fly choppers still aren't common. And a fully autonomous drone has a chance of being legal in urban areas unlike a manually piloted helicopter

>>9540059
the paris accord is literally doing nothing
the entire environmentalist movement is shilling for technology that is inefficient and will not be viable which is why they don't kill and silence it after all what danger is there about random retards crying for solar power when it's unviable.
They are killing nuclear power because it is the as it stands safest cleanest and most viable way to generate power but it would fuck up everything else if allowed to develop properly

>>9541803
>Paramotors can't hover
Why would you hover?

>The big parachute
Don't run into power lines then, they could easily put red flashing lights on top of them, and tell everyone to fly over 200 feet

Choppers cost hundreds of thousands
A paramotor costs less than 10 grand.

You talk about RISKS, imagine if you took these sorts of cowardly RISK views towards cars, "NO DRIVING A CAR NEAR PEDESTRIANS, OR NEAR OTHER CARS, OR IN AN URBAN AREA..." etc Essentially banning the productive use of cars

Of course noone would buy cars, since they would be for limited recreational use only

If I could take off from the street outside my house, and land on the street in front of my work/store/etc, then TONS of people would buy paramotors or gyrocopters

>>9541840
its not just environmentalists who killed nuclear
I highly doubt the government bureaucracies and judges who prevent nuclear power are filled with these green crazies either, though there are probably quite a few of em

>>9541149
ITER will teach us a lot about how to handle such high temperatures, and with this new knowledge we can start to try and make them more compact. The "clever" designs are a pure shot in the dark without getting these kind of knowledge first.

>>9541977
In addition, the one thing that sucks about ITER is the international organisation, that is the reason why it is getting so ridiculously expensive and is getting delayed again and again. Its incredibely inefficient. I bet if the US government decided to build its own ITER it would have Plasma while ITER is still fighting about which country gets to produce which part of the reactor.

>>9541950
you misunderstood me i specifically said that the government keeps nuclear down because they don't want to let go of what they have right now. With the environmentalists i was referring to his question why they are left to demonstrate for their shit and not just silenced

>>9540039
Solar is going through the roof right now

>This thread

Why is no one talking about the video content? This is serious shit, I know the meme about "20 years away", but these kind of things are the final breakthroughs needed to actually accomplish it. This design eliminates the issue of neutron wear and serviceability by using existing technology (FLiBe) and actually thinking about how to put the thing together properly. It also ramps up the power of the field hugely using this new material which was always the other main problem. Those theories they presented hold up fine and there is no reason why it couldn't work, it is just an engineering question now.

>>9541149
>Making reactors smaller and more efficient is the only hope for fusion having the slightest chance of being viable for energy production... all this shit with projects like ITER - bigger, badder, more expensive reactors is fucking retarded. The damn thing's probably going to hit $50 billion before first plasma, let alone before it hits its absurdly optimistic 500 MW goal.

A lot of this applies to particle colliders too.
When people run out of new ideas they just try to smack the old ones harder against the wall until they stick.

>>9542142
>science
>on /sci/
you must be new here

>>9541926
>Why would you hover?

So you can
>take off from the street outside my house, and land on the street in front of my work/store/etc

>>9542304
?
What is a road other than a "runway" ?
Why do you think you need to be able to hover to take off from a runway?

>>9542396
Gas the cars, transport war now!

>>9541761
NRC exists to keep it from becoming fukushima
and they do a very good job of it
probably too good a job

>we're almost there guys
I mean eventually we will actually be there but fusion is such a fucking meme.

>not even a wikipedia page on this superconductor
fucking russians

>>9541149
The easiest way to develop those advancements is to design larger reactors and figure out how to do that shit on the way.

>>9542685
?
Not if all funding has been consumed by one shit project that never produces anything, all run b y some incompetent "international" team

>>9542533
Bullshit
The NRC refuses to approve new refuses, for decades now, and they drag out construction for years and years.

Fukushima happened because its backup power plants were in a flood zone, that would likely only take a week for a bureaucrat to figure out.

>>9542679
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium_barium_copper_oxide

>>9540015
>shills climate change
jesus christ really, that's why fusion is important, fucking climate change

>>9542716
Gotta get dat grant money bro.

>>9542716
this
>>9542747
shit costs money, so they gotta do something to get investors interested
conveniently the big political thing nowadays is climate change. being able to hold up an energy source that both generates ludicrous amounts of energy, and is perfectly clean is a really good way of getting interest.

>>9542799
Fusion was and is interesting on its own for being relatively clean and theoretically quite compact. A good way to get funds is to demonstrate its feasibility. This video didn't even bother to do anything to estimate how close they would be to breaking even on net energy.

>250MW estimated production
How much of that is spent cooling nitrogen and pumping liquids around? I mean even if the conversion of heat to electricity were 100% efficient, moving around that much heat isn't cheap on energy already. What's the projected lifetime of the coils? How much will they cost to produce and therefore how much would you have to sell the electricity for at this point?

Obviously the first units will present a net loss in terms of investment but this can be quite easily justified. $5 billion is unfortunately way too large of a price tag for something like this. A proof of concept simply has to be cheaper.

Looks like we're ten years off still.

>>9542825
The 5 Billion tag was for their big model, they said they only needed 250-350 million to fund a small scale prototype which I don't think is unreasonable.

Compared to the MWs that go into powering the thing, the liquid pumping and nitrogen cooling are a pretty small percent, If that reactor is designed the way I think it is then it looks like the FLiBe liquid salt should flow naturally with a convection current, presumably through some sort of radiator fins or manifold to boil steam, remember that shit is 1600 degrees molten, it's fucking hot. I think they said they had a projected 10 year average lifespan on the coils, but yeah no real idea of costings on those, but at least the thing is fucking simple to maintain. Can't believe it has taken this long for someone to think

>Well durr how about we just take the top off?

>>9542833
I forgot the small version they mentioned, thanks for reminding me. $250mill is reasonable for say DOD to fund it. Something that small could run an aircraft carrier when the tech matures. That's who they should be shopping for instead of fucking climate change faggots. If climate change fags cared we'd already have switched to fission plants.

>>9542837
why not both?
they're probably chatting with the DOD right now about getting a contract

>>9542837
>If climate change fags cared we'd already have switched to fission plants

This, holy fuck all my rage. Fusion is cool and I want Fusion, but until then fuck, I'll happily settle for some properly designed LFTR reactors rather than the clusterfuck of dinofuel and renewable shit we have now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
This video has an interesting Q & A section on the progress of the project.

>>9541926
>why would you hover
There are no runways in a city
>lol just dont run into power lines xD
Or you could avoid the risk entirely by not having a bigass parachute
>If I could take off from the street outside my house, and land on the street in front of my work/store/etc, then TONS of people would buy paramotors or gyrocopters
Nope because they look dangerous
>inb4 they arent
Marketing my friend, marketing. They kind of are anyway because they can't be made autonomous like a drone.
>>9542396
You can't use a busy main street as a runway.

>>9541540
>mfw people don't think we have flying cars
We have jet hoverboards you keks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAY2kYvkpQ

>>9543503
>There are no runways in a city
ROADS? Ever heard of them? They run everywhere
This idea that you need dedicated runways, special air traffic control, empty skies, nothing that "looks dangerous" to busy body bureaucrats is what prevents useful personal flight.

>Or you could avoid the risk entirely by not having a bigass parachute
Physics remains physics, you want to to have giant rotating props and thousands of horsepower instead, that is both dangerous & cost money

vs already existing practical vehicles that could be flown by tens of thousands of people around any urban area

> because they can't be made autonomous like a drone.
I dnno why you think autonomous means "quad rotor drone"

>>9543769
Are you fucking retarded, you can't use a public road as a runway without closing it
>Physics remains physics, you want to to have giant rotating props and thousands of horsepower instead
t. done no maths, you need about 30 hp to lift a person.
>I dnno why you think autonomous means "quad rotor drone"
It doesn't but it is by far the easiest to automate.
>>9543700
I think every kid into tech dreamed of having a hoverboard, the problem with /sci/ is that they were too unimaginative to come up with a viable design so declared it impossible and now shit on anyone else who tries

>>9543972

Fusion has taken so long that it gave time for solar to develop making the whole prospect of fusion power plants even less likely. Why build a fusion power plant when I can throw solar panels on my roof?

Maybe fusion will be good for a Mars colony or other niche use case, but for now and the near future solar battery systems have won.

>>9544100
>Why build a fusion power plant when I can throw solar panels on my roof?
because solar is still pretty much garbage in terms of energy return versus energy investment

>>9544104
Fusion is even worse ;)

>>9544114
no one is saying you have to put fusion reactors on your roof to save the planet

>>9543502
you forgot to mention the Q&A starts at
https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk?t=3344

>>9544139
They have been saying Fusion will save us for far longer than solar.

>>9544240
because it will save us, due to how much energy the process produces
it's just monumental pain in the ass to get working
we know it's possible to create net positive, if it wasn't, stars would not be able to function

>>9540015
Question at 1:31:35 hits the nail on the head.
Speaker claims "engineering problem" to explain away issues.
Audience guy points out, you haven't even ever observed the necessary physics and don't even know if you ever will.

>>9544358
ITER will deliever that, too bad they made it international though, we will have to wait for at least another decade until they produce something.

>>9544409
most of ITER is outdated garbage, and is being pushed back perpetually
and as a bonus, once it finally comes online, we'd still need to wait decades after to get anything of actual fucking value out of it

Government projects are worthless, you can't have scientific development with infinite budgets, infinite time, and no punishment for blatant embezzlement through procrastination

>>9544431
It will teach us a lot about plasma physics, so it will be really valueable. They should have made it only euro-wide, worked fine for CERN. Global is just too much, even India is involved in ITER, and all these countries are constantly fighting for who gets to produce what. But it is making progress, and once it delievers, it will bring new scientific basics to nuclear fusion.

>>9544523
I doubt it will play out this way. My guess is someone will have made progress independent of this, similar to OP's video. ITER will end up a toy for bureaucrats and """experts""" to masturbate over.

>>9544409
you're probably right that world-wide collaboration slows things down considerably.
i'm not even so sure ITER will produce a burning plasma. much smarter people than me say that it will, but some of them also say radiation losses in magnetic confinement make D-T the only fuel that can possibly achieve ignition. it's not a stretch to say ITER will come close but still fail in its primary goal because of unforeseen scaling problems.

>>9540015
/sci/ getting BTFO
>https://thebulletin.org/iter-showcase-drawbacks-fusion-energy11512

>>9541522
Sub reactors are actually easy as fuck because you have a whole ocean of coolant around you to work with.

>>9544341
Stars cheat by using their extreme mass to create a gravity field that does all the work for them.

>>9541477
There is already a flying car. Cheap? No. Practical? Not quite. But it works pretty well.

We just had this thread last month and I blackpilled everyone that it was all a waste for nothing

>>9546003
Cost of demonstrator SPARC is marginal, like launch of Delta IV Heavy. They only need to get funding from Trump.

>>9541518
People can't even drive on roads. Imagine them trying to fly

>>9546013
>They only need to get funding from Trump.
The President does not dictate funding, that is Congress.

>>9545451
also worth noting, stars burn fuel very very very slowly. the heat output per volume ends up being tiny. our star only looks impressive because if consists of 99% of all mass in the solar system. quite the opposite is required for fusion power--very rapid reactions, very large output per volume, and huge amounts of energy in order to contain it.
granted there is a difference in fuels.. naturally occurring H-H vs highly processed D-T, but it also means energy is spent making and concentrating fuel too.

>>9545314

yes but they also have to survive being inverted, g-forces from acceleration, and impact tests in the event of a hull failure. This all makes the design more complicated than it otherwise would be.

>>9546003
Would be interested to see you dispute their proposal and what is wrong with it, holds up pretty well as far as I can see.

>>9545897
That's a roadable aircraft.
>>9546052
Jesus christ I just spent the entire thread talking about autonomous flight and you pull out the ultra retarded "hurr people will crash the car"

>>9542533
Fukushima literally happened because Naoto Kan refused to vent the reactors.

Same cunt later claimed he was anti-nucler and saved tokyo

This thing is engineering kino holy shit look at it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efOlmF3wjJE

>>9540015
When scienctist stop learning about science and figure out who they are as a person understand themselves and understand that the universe works when the way our body works you'll find yourself within yourself... Ever wonder why Hubble's pictures look like the way what we look like down to the atom

>fusion reactors are reality
>nobody bothers with energy efficiency anymore
>someone figures out energy can be used to make gasoline so no need to throw away cars and planes it all works!
>pollution skyrockets because of the above and "we can fix it later with more energy lulz!"
>heat and co2 accelerate the greenhouse effect drastically
>"we'll just irrigate using more energy haha!"

We are not ready. The ones who are developing this should be lynched. If the first plant opens and is not disabled by national and global protests then humanity is deserves all it will get.

>>9548048
there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect' on a planet

>>9547834
>not general fusions hammers
Absolutely disgusting

>>9548048
To make gasoline you need a carbon source; with really cheap energy CO2 from the atmosphere could be used, thus making gasoline a carbon neutral fuel. And for that matter, cheap enough energy could be used to pull excess carbon out of the atmosphere, and either mixed into soil (look up terra preta to see why that is a good thing ) or dumped into old mines.

>>9548177
in developed nations, carbon neutral may be the ultimate end goal. it's not realistic to outlaw hydrocarbons, but the economics of petroleum and natural gas may eventually catch up with technology. we can put renewable up all over the place and divert the excess into some large scale hydrocarbon production. most cars would move to electric and so the primary purpose for neutral carbon would be to regulate supply in the power grid or feed natural gas infrastructure.
as a bonus, the process is extremely modular. capacity can be installed and upgraded anywhere electricity is available.

>>9548308
nation is not a synonym for country
And carbon is fertilizer for the air

>>9548048
China, India and Europe already want to ban combustion engine cars by 2030.

>>9548308
What's the actual real world benefit to the environment of driving an electric car? I'm under the impression that people seem to underestimate the carbon footprint of mining, processing, transporting shitloads of lithium.
Just the production of an electric car already creates such an environmental impact that it's questionable that it will ever been driven enough to make good on that through it's lower emissions.
Basically, I'm doing the world a favor by continuing to drive my shitbox rather than buying a new car.

>>9548444
well obviously asset destruction makes no sense. the idea that everyone will suddenly switch over to electric is wrong too. it's more a question of what ultimately happens to driving over many decades. eventually the macro- and microeconomics should shift mostly toward electric. it's just a question of how steep the curve will be.

>>9541454
Not really. The problem with flying cars is one of practicality.
Do you really want the mouth breathing retards you're stuck in traffic with dealing with a whole new dimension and tons of metal careening through the air?
I don't.
I don't even want half those assholes operating a regular motor vehicle if it can be helped.

>>9548497
fuck sake the whole point of drone cars is autonomy why do mouthbreathers keep giving people crashing as an argument?

>>9541926
>Choppers cost hundreds of thousands
The back of your Pop Sci/Mechanic has multiple DIY helicopter kits. The most expensive thing is probably the two stroke lawnmower engine.

>>9541950
NIMBYs are the big thing that holds back nuclear in the US, and I get it, the human race spent a half a century worrying about imminent nuclear annihilation in the guise of a full thermonuclear exchange between super powers.
Also the metric fuckton of red tape required before you can even start planning to build one. It takes so long to get permits on these things a lot of the projects just die off on their own for lack of momentum.

>>9548507
Because understimating human stupidity is always the wrong bet to take.

>>9548497
>The problem with flying cars is one of practicality.

He says, while it is ENTIRELY BANNED BY THE FAA
Fucking retards

>>9548475
What happens when people die in firey crashes caused by the super flammable batteries
Electric cars are a meme for hippies

>>9548519
NIMBY lawsuits has nothing to do with the NRC dragging their feet

>>9548521
Humans are out of the equation it's not an argument
>>9548524
Fuck the FAA if it's profitable big companies will lobby for it.

>>9548524
>What happens when people die in firey crashes caused by the super flammable batteries
That's the price of progress, their sacrifice will be remembered

>>9548308
Renewables (solar/wind) are very far from being reasonable compared to fossil fuels in terms of energy return on energy investment and storage is still a huge problem. There's really not a better storage mechanism than hydrocarbons in terms of relative safety and energy density, batteries are filthy and not as dense anyway, and there's really no signs of this changing in a radical way (though usually such changes aren't foreseen anyway so perhaps it's a moot point).

Renewables for a nation's power is a huge fucking meme wasting everyone's time and money. Better to spend it on fusion research and even though I will be the first to shit on fusion being TEN YEARS AWAY it's definitely a realistic option for research without magic. It's basically an engineering problem rather than a "we need a miracle storage technology" problem. Fusion can be solved by throwing more money at it.

>>9541454
You can buy a flying car right now.

>>9548524
>NIMBY lawsuits has nothing to do with the NRC dragging their feet

They inspire it. They created the atmosphere in which regulators see their job as obstructing anything that almost happens.

>>9541601
Tae and lpp have a ways to go. My money is on gf to get fusion working first, their idea craftily avoids many issues like plasma duratio, tritium scarcity and neutron damage

>>9548581
>There's really not a better storage mechanism than hydrocarbons in terms of relative safety and energy density, batteries are filthy and not as dense anyway, and there's really no signs of this changing in a radical way
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
yeah, that's the whole point. we have the technology, actually being used commercially right now.

>It's basically an engineering problem
You've been lied to.

>Fusion can be solved by throwing more money at it.
How much is ITER now? $25 billion? And that's only to do experiments, because we still have no clue how to make fusion power work. After that, deus ex machina, maybe another $25 billion in DEMO to see if the experiments can even be made practical. After that, deus ex machina, maybe some European country (but certainly not the rest of the world) will be dumb enough to take on a hugely complicated, multi reactor, risky and expensive plant for commercial use. All this based on physics, technologies, and logistics that do not exist but will almost certainly be more impractical than anything else if they are miraculously viable at all.

>>9548694
Did you even watch the video in the OP? It is pretty clearly laid out that they have resolved the last barriers to net fusion, 20x gain in electricity I might add, they just need to get someone to fund the thing, which is a fraction of the cost of ITER. Even their scale model will prove net gain and it's probably cheaper than the welfare budget for your local city.

>>9548694
I think it is pretty reasonable to fund multiples projects that show different aproaches while being based on physics models, such as general fusion or ARC/SPARC, instead of a gigantic multinational bureaucratic mess that by the time its finished will have outdated technology and be behind projects with 1/50 of it's total budget.

>>9548727
>by the time it is finished
hell it was outdated by the time it started, what a fucking sinecure scam

>>9548630
To be quite honest, I'd be happy with anything over fission, even if it's fucking Iter, but I'm still hoping for some kinda miracle I suppose.

>>9548718
>Even their scale model will prove net gain and it's probably cheaper than the welfare budget for your local city.
so it hasn't actually been built yet...

>>9548581
>Renewables for a nation's power is a huge fucking meme wasting everyone's time and money.

There are already several nations that are on 100% renewables (Norway, Uruguay, Iceland, Costa Rica, etc.).

>It's basically an engineering problem rather than a "we need a miracle storage technology" problem

So you believe nuclear fusion is easier to achieve, than better batteries?

>>9549074
No, but it is using the exact same principles as the ones they have already made and now the energy can be scaled up and the reaction and neutrons contained properly. Once again, did you actually watch the presentation? It is very clearly laid out and no one has actually been able to say shit about why it won't work, because it will.

>>9549090
and how much of that is the meme-tier wind and solar like I said

>>9549128
For Scotland for example, it's 50% wind right now and is going to be 100% in a couple of years.

>>9549175
that's interesting because I looked up your claim and basically everyone was 90+% hydro except maybe two

hydro is obviously not a meme but it can't just magically be used everywhere

>>9549183
You could put down a stupidly large generating capacity if you have the appropriate geography and then sell the excess power like Paraguay, exporting over 80% of its generated power. God knows hydro is competitive as fuck, and a nice deal for countries that don't want to import fossils

>>9549191
>You could put down a stupidly large generating capacity if you have the appropriate geography
Yes. But there aren't enough places to generate what we need today, nevermind in the next 50 years, and this doesn't address the extremely similar problem that wind and solar has.

>>9549183
China is going to produce 1.000GW of wind energy until 2050. They are at 150 at the moment. Solar is still kind of a meme, but wind definetely isn't. It's almost as cheap as coal now. Solar could well reach similar prices within a couple of years.

>>9549183
US has a pretty good mix, though they are at a lowly 14% renewable.

Hydro: 271,129
Wind: 192,992
Biomass: 61,417
Solar: 35,635
Geo: 18,727

No doubt hydro is the best of all options, but a mixed strategy makes more and more sense as non-hydro options get cheaper and more manageable. Perhaps most critically, natural gas plants are popping up to compliment renewables, so that supply can be spun up or down as needed.

>>9549233
why are some countries like France so fond of nuclear, but other countries with similarly developed and strong economies and the same interest on keeping nukes in check and secure don't?

>>9549257
France doesn't have coal. They wanted to be energy independent and thus built lots of nuclear reactors. They are closing them now and are replacing them with hydro, wind and solar.

>>9541416
>Stop trying to make donut shaped stars
They need containment. Stars are naturally contained by gravity, and are therefore spherical. What should we use to besides magnetic coils to make your "star in a jar"?

>>9549257
I think it's mostly because of alarmism after nuclear power incidents. Esp in the US, after 3-mile Island, new projects weren't really considered. Today the alarmism is gone, but the desire to invest in such large projects is not very high. Maybe France didn't have the same issues.

>more people using nation as a synonym for country

There are no NATIONS left in the west, idiots, stop using the word wrong.

>>9549305
Nuclear power is not a large project, gas/coal fired plants cost plenty too, they just don't have the same amount of insane regulations + hostile regulators to deal with.

>>9549713
Nuclear power plants are more expensive. Even if it isn't by much, companies don't care about that. They want the cheapest option, and that isn't new nuclear plants. Even in the absence of regulation it wouldn't be the cheapest. Nuclear reactors are simply more complex pieces of technology than fossil fuels.

>>9549736
>put a bunch of radioactive stufd together in a pool of water
>use resulting steam to turn turbines
violá

>>9549741
> burn coal to heat water
> use resulting steam to turn turbines
Still cheaper, and your bare bones nuclear power plant has no safeties and will melt down almost immediately.

>>9549765
I was just kidding, the steam would be radioactive

>>9549736
LOTS of companies want Nuclear as Nuclear SHOULD be the most profitable power plants. However no company will spend thier own money to deal with kike regulators that exist to destroy that industry.

There is no reason why Nuclear needs to cost much more, other than ridiculous regulation + mandatory pointless safety "features" that ultimately do nothing.

>>9549736
>Even if it isn't by much
They are significantly more expensive in construction alone and historically have had large delays and cost overruns. The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant is good example. It also turns out that the construction cost per MW for nuclear is equal to or higher than other options. So because the output will be so high, initial investment will be much higher than any other option.

>>9549853
> They are significantly more expensive in construction alone and historically have had large delays and cost overruns.
Only because of pointless regulation that environazis have put on it.

>>9549794
The fact that people like you exist is the primary reason we can’t have Nuclear.

>>9549853
>The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant is good example

An example of what? Regulators dragging their feet delaying construction for 20 fucking years? This is the real problem, goddamn bureaucrats

They didn't give them a permit to operate their reactor till 1995
These people should be hung from the nearest lamppost

>>9548694
>methane
>hydrogen
Enjoy your cryogenic fuel tank. Propane is the way to go.

>>9542873
This.

>>9549853
in America

>>9540039
>thorium
just imagine I uploaded a stale bait.jpeg meme, I honestly can't be fucked to find one