Nuclear fusion reactor could be here as soon as 2025

Oct 7, 2020
1
0
10
Unlikely. Scientists have been saying that for decades. As the old trite expression goes “ Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be”
 
Sep 21, 2020
12
2
15
Unlikely. Scientists have been saying that for decades. As the old trite expression goes “ Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be”
That is indeed a trite expression. Do you have any specific criticms of the seven open access, peer reviewed, articles from the SPARC team that back up their assertion that a fusion reactor could be running by 2025? I personally don't have the background necessary to evalaute their merits.
 
Jan 2, 2020
12
5
15
Not only trite but very silly. We first achieved sustained fusion in JET around 1991. Getting power over unity is only a matter of time and work now and should be achieved by ITER..
 
Jan 2, 2020
12
5
15
Fusion for space propulsion is a quite different problem to power generation.

On the positive.
- A space thruster reactor only has to run for maybe 500 seconds at a time. Rockets generally only run in short pulses. If longer accelerations are needed multiple pulses can be chained together.

On the negative.
- Weight is an ENORMOUS problem. In the early 1970's a fission rocket reactor achieved 500 Megawatts in a 10 ton design. ITER might do about the same but would currently weight some 40,000 tons. (that figure is a few years old and not 100% reliable)
- Fusion reactors require enormous power for a sustained time to start.
- To maximise efficiency the reactor and thruster system ideally need to be combined as closely together as possible. Each energy conversion stage wastes energy so the system needs as few conversion stages as possible.
- Heat dissipation is another big potential problem. In space heat is hard to get rid of without wasting reaction mass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: serhiy1635
Mar 5, 2020
345
47
210


Mr. Fusion based on the fusion technology discovered in 1989.

The Empire’s media took 40 days from the first paper to getting Nature Magazine to call “Cold Fusion” pathological science. If it wasn’t true why would the Empire care at all if people wasted their time and money researching it? This was a campaign (a war) against cold fusion coming from the very top of the American and English scientific orthodoxy.

The Empire could not let science independently decide if “Cold Fusion” was science. I am not arguing if “Cold Fusion” was science. I am arguing that the Empire considered it a threat and revealed the extents of their power over the scientific media during this campaign.

The Empire conspired to destroy “Cold Fusion” is a factual statement. The science behind “Cold Fusion” is irrelevant to this statement.
 
Mar 5, 2020
345
47
210
Unlikely. Scientists have been saying that for decades. As the old trite expression goes “ Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be”
The Oil Companies (seven sisters) are a key faction of the Empire. ITER and other fusion projects are just look busy projects to suck up any money related to large scale energy production not involving oil.

If that same amount of money (spent on high temperature fusion) had been spent on green technologies, how much carbon dioxide would have never been produced?
 
Mar 5, 2020
345
47
210
When Einstein wrote his famous letter to President Roosevelt, the President’s scientific advisors had already been briefed by the Empire to expect the letter and its contents. Imperial science saw the Atom Bomb as an opportunity.

In 1989 Pons and Fleischman discovered a new phenomenon that might be related to fusion. The Imperial executives of American Science did not view this new phenomenon as an opportunity. Instead they systematically destroyed it.

One opportunity slaughtered Hiroshima and Nagasaki and gave the Empire a terror weapon while “Cold Fusion” was viewed as a threat to oil company profits and stamped out.

Hot fusion was US Government financed (since the 1950’s) while all attempts to produce green or renewable energy were sabotaged (on oil company orders) or never funded. The oil companies never viewed hot fusion as a threat, and 70 years later, it is still not a threat to their profits.

And no, criminal activities masquerading as science are not a discussion of politics.
 
Dec 3, 2019
8
1
15
Fusion for space propulsion is a quite different problem to power generation.

On the positive.
- A space thruster reactor only has to run for maybe 500 seconds at a time. Rockets generally only run in short pulses. If longer accelerations are needed multiple pulses can be chained together.

On the negative.
- Weight is an ENORMOUS problem. In the early 1970's a fission rocket reactor achieved 500 Megawatts in a 10 ton design. ITER might do about the same but would currently weight some 40,000 tons. (that figure is a few years old and not 100% reliable)
- Fusion reactors require enormous power for a sustained time to start.
- To maximise efficiency the reactor and thruster system ideally need to be combined as closely together as possible. Each energy conversion stage wastes energy so the system needs as few conversion stages as possible.
- Heat dissipation is another big potential problem. In space heat is hard to get rid of without wasting reaction mass.
Actually - you may be interested to see what Pulsar Fusion in the UK (https://www.pulsarfusion.com) sre doing at the moment to develop a nuclear fusion "rocket" at the moment. They reckon that they will have a viable system available by 2025.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Lucien Howe
Oct 28, 2020
1
0
10
Pulsotron-3 fusion reactor collects 88% of the injected energy. Now Pulsotron-4 is working to improve that
 
Oct 23, 2020
88
20
35
Fusion for space propulsion is a quite different problem to power generation.

On the positive.
- A space thruster reactor only has to run for maybe 500 seconds at a time. Rockets generally only run in short pulses. If longer accelerations are needed multiple pulses can be chained together.

On the negative.
- Weight is an ENORMOUS problem. In the early 1970's a fission rocket reactor achieved 500 Megawatts in a 10 ton design. ITER might do about the same but would currently weight some 40,000 tons. (that figure is a few years old and not 100% reliable)
- Fusion reactors require enormous power for a sustained time to start.
- To maximise efficiency the reactor and thruster system ideally need to be combined as closely together as possible. Each energy conversion stage wastes energy so the system needs as few conversion stages as possible.
- Heat dissipation is another big potential problem. In space heat is hard to get rid of without wasting reaction mass.
Having read all your comments guys , I have got very interested in this topic and found this information.
If NASA begins now with a fusion propulsion program, the following questions should be asked: 1. What has already been done? 2. What missions can be accomplished with fusion? 3. What is an appropriate plan for a development program? Perhaps the most important answer to question 1 is that there was a 20 year program at NASA-Lewis on fusion energy for space power and propulsion from 1958 to 1978(Maslen 1959; Schulze 1991). Some of the fusion-related accomplishments and program areas covered included (Schulze and Roth 1991) basic research on MFE fusion confinement, the first superconducting magnet facility to be used in fusion, steady state neutron production, studies of direct conversion of plasma enthalpy to thrust for a fusion rocket, power and propulsion system studies, high-field superconducting and cryogenic magnet technology, and mission analysis and system studies of fusion propulsion systems for interplanetary missions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Lucien Howe
Oct 23, 2020
88
20
35
A viable nuclear fusion reactor — one that spits out more energy than it consumes — could be here as soon as 2025.

Nuclear fusion reactor could be here as soon as 2025 : Read more
For my point of view fusion power is a bright future for humanity.
A lot of advantages were described in that article but I found even more.
To say more accurate fusion power would provide more energy for a given weight of fuel than any fuel-consuming source currently in use. Just imagine how it will reduce fuel consumption and exhaust fumes. By using fusion power we will reduce air pollution. In addition to it fusion power may seem low proportional (about 0.015%) because nuclear fusion reactions are much energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, fusion could potentially supply the world`s energy needs for millions of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Lucien Howe

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts