Nuclear Fusion

[Irace86.2.0]

Not fusion, but nuclear news...

Saw this pop up in the news. I was kind of bummed two cities pulled out. I hope more don't pull out. I think we need to push nuclear more, and this looks promising, and if it pans out, it could revive positive perception and interest in nuclear.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ar-revolution/

Two Cities Just Pulled Out of the Tiny Reactor Nuclear Revolution

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technol...ology-overview

[Irace86.2.0]

It is always five to ten years away, but here is something promising. Who would have thought that magnet technology could help improve things so much, along with other changes, but the simulations seem promising, and cheaper is always better.

https://www.livescience.com/nuclear-...parc-2025.html

A viable nuclear fusion reactor — one that spits out more energy than it consumes — could be here as soon as 2025.

That's the takeaway of seven new studies, published Sept. 29 in the Journal of Plasma Physics.

If a fusion reactor reaches that milestone, it could pave the way for massive generation of clean energy.

During fusion, atomic nuclei are forced together to form heavier atoms. When the mass of the resulting atoms is less than the mass of the atoms that went into their creation, the excess mass is converted to energy, liberating an extraordinary amount of light and heat. Fusion powers the sun and stars, as the mighty gravity at their hearts fuse hydrogen to create helium.

But an enormous amount of energy is needed to force atoms to fuse together, which occurs at temperatures of at least 180 million degrees Fahrenheit (100 million degrees Celsius). However, such reactions can generate far more energy than they require. At the same time, fusion doesn't produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which drive global warming, nor does it generate other pollutants. And the fuel for fusion — such as the element hydrogen — is plentiful enough on Earth to meet all of humanity's energy needs for millions of years.

"Virtually all of us got into this research because we're trying to solve a really serious global problem," said study author Martin Greenwald, a plasma physicist at MIT and one of the lead scientists developing the new reactor. "We want to have an impact on society. We need a solution for global warming — otherwise, civilization is in trouble. This looks like it might help fix that."

Most experimental fusion reactors employ a donut-shaped Russian design called a tokamak. These designs use powerful magnetic fields to confine a cloud of plasma, or ionized gas, at extreme temperatures, high enough for atoms to fuse together. The new experimental device, called the SPARC (Soonest/Smallest Private-Funded Affordable Robust Compact) reactor, is being developed by scientists at MIT and a spinoff company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems.

If it succeeds, SPARC would be the first device to ever achieve a "burning plasma," in which the heat from all the fusion reactions keeps fusion going without the need to pump in extra energy. But no one has ever been able to harness the power of burning plasma in a controlled reaction here on Earth, and more research is needed before SPARC can do so. The SPARC project, which launched in 2018, is scheduled to begin construction next June, with the reactor starting operations in 2025. This is far faster than the world's largest fusion power project, known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which was conceived in 1985 but not launched until 2007; and although construction began in 2013, the project is not expected to generate a fusion reaction until 2035.

One advantage that SPARC may have over ITER is that SPARC's magnets are designed to confine its plasma. SPARC will use so-called high-temperature superconducting magnets that only became commercially available in the past three to five years, long after ITER was first designed. These new magnets can produce far more powerful magnetic fields than ITER's — a maximum of 21 teslas, compared with ITER's maximum of 12 teslas. (In comparison, Earth's magnetic field ranges in strength from 30 millionths to 60 millionths of a tesla.)

These powerful magnets suggest the core of SPARC can be about three times smaller in diameter, and 60 to 70 times smaller in volume than the heart of ITER, which is slated to be 6 meters wide. "That dramatic reduction in size is accompanied by a reduction in weight and cost," Greenwald , told LiveScience. "That's really the game-changer."

In seven new studies, researchers outlined the calculations and supercomputer simulations underlying SPARC's design. SPARC is expected to generate at least twice as much as 10 times more energy as is pumped in, the studies found.

The heat from a fusion reactor would generate steam. This steam would then drive a turbine and electrical generator, the same way most electricity is produced nowadays.

"Fusion power plants could be one-to-one replacements for fossil fuel plants, and you wouldn't have to restructure electrical grids for them," Greenwald said. In contrast, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind "are not accommodated well by the current design of electric grids."

The researchers ultimately hope SPARC-inspired fusion power plants would generate between 250 to 1,000 megawatts of electricity. "In the current power market of the United States, power plants typically generate between 100 to 500 megawatts," Greenwald said.

SPARC would only produce heat, not electricity. Once researchers have built and tested SPARC, they plan to construct the ARC (Affordable Robust Compact) reactor, which would generate electricity from that heat by 2035.

"That's very ambitious, but that's the target we're working toward," Greenwald said. "I think it's really plausible."

[Irace86.2.0]

Double post:

[JD001]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Brings to mind a back-in-the-day story about a nuclear reactor and a garage (basement in this case).

I worked for a bit over a year at IITRI (Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute) in Chicago.

My office was located in the basement of the same building as the first industrial nuclear reactor. I used to go over and look at where it was. Yep, a few of the lead bricks that lined the housing of the reactor (that were't too hot) were still scattered around the campus.

Now, ya all know why I am the way I am - and here all along you thought it was because of my 20 years researching experimental pesticides -


humfrz

I'm wondering whether you glow in the dark...

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by JD001

I'm wondering whether you glow in the dark...

Well, I used to - but, now my glow stick is all shriveled up and limp -

[JD001]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Well, I used to - but, now my glow stick is all shriveled up and limp -

Here's an idea, invest in some glow sticks.. under the cover of darkness you can "shine".. just be sure that your window curtains are sufficient in weight to stop the light sabre grinning through.. your neighbours may think that you have acquired a taste for the "dark side".

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by JD001

Here's an idea, invest in some glow sticks.. under the cover of darkness you can "shine".. just be sure that your window curtains are sufficient in weight to stop the light sabre grinning through.. your neighbours may think that you have acquired a taste for the "dark side".

Oh, I already tried that ........

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Oh, I already tried that ........

What we really need to know is if you quit smoking yet.

[NWFRS]

I used to think that I understood radiation, but my wife always ends up laughing at me. She’s a nuclear medicine technologist, often asks me, “Why would you think that?!” and I really have no answer. I guess I’ve just seen all the wrong films.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Spuds

What we really need to know is if you quit smoking yet.

- lemmie alone -

[thomasmryan]

...being outside the box, one needs to look at the sacred geometry instead of boiling water.

imho, the nuclear model is not protons, neutrons and electrons but varying states of magnetism, electrical pluses and ether. frequency and vibration of the numbers 3 and 6.



the earth is a motor yet we make magnets. where are magnets in nature?



there is a constant potential to the ionosphere. this is the field we should be tapping into although it varies with the solar flares

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by thomasmryan

.the earth is a motor yet we make magnets. where are magnets in nature?

You mean lodestones?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by thomasmryan

...being outside the box, one needs to look at the sacred geometry instead of boiling water.

imho, the nuclear model is not protons, neutrons and electrons but varying states of magnetism, electrical pluses and ether. frequency and vibration of the numbers 3 and 6.

the earth is a motor yet we make magnets. where are magnets in nature?

there is a constant potential to the ionosphere. this is the field we should be tapping into although it varies with the solar flares

Gibberish.

[Irace86.2.0]

More fission news: