Lasers zap fusion doubts at NIF - physicsworld.com Anyone seen this?

 

Not the article, but aware of their progress.

 

Another report on this event


NIF Moves 5.9 Million Degrees Closer To Fusion Power | Popular Science

 

Very cool........er, hot!
I hope sustainable fusion is reached and developed into usable energy in my lifetime.
The sad thing is that then everyone would have to find something other than oil to fight over.

 

Pretty cool that it`s in my backyard and Kal, I like your post,rep sent

 

I'm excited by the potential.

If I understand the process correctly, there would be no scrambling over scarce resources. Now the TECHNOLOGY would be scarce, but I THINK that they use plain old seawater for most of the mass......OR......They extract the deuterium from seawater.....I forget which. I'm not a scientist....and I don't play one on TV......

This has exciting prospects for not only virtually inexhaustible energy, but also interplanetary; and even interstellar travel.

Waste left over from the process? Nil. The waste is immolated in the fusion process. No waste products to transport. Runaway reactions? None. Technically (keep in mind, there are now a zillion safety feature built into nuclear power plants), a runaway reaction could occur if enough accidental or purposeful damage is done to a power plant.......With a fusion reactor....You could set off a bunch of explosives with total system failure and what would happen would be------------for the fusion reaction to just shut off. Total burp and fizzle...........

This is probably a bad analogy, but think of the difference between a tightly-sealed wood stove with flues and dampers versus an open-faced masonry hearth..........The fusion reactor is the stove, and while not too sexy......The product inside the stove runs at a controlled slow burn putting out much more efficient energy.....and the ash product is mostly immolated with the wood product............The open-faced hearth (fission reactor) gives you a big, beautiful flame with most of the energy shooting out the chimney with a much less efficient burn.....and a big, nasty pile of ashes dropping between the grates that you have to dispose of.........

I'm not too good with this scientific analogy thing....

When fusion is conquered.....Next stop, anti-matter.

The sky's the limit with man's potential to work out 'impossible' problems. I like the pointy heads working in lab coats in some basement somewhere...I'm a big fan.

 

Reminds me of a conversation on Babylon 5 ... They were discussing if mankind should be in outer space ... The answer was yes ... Sooner or later the sun is going to die ... And then we will not just lose the human race ... We will lose all the effort and good that people have done ... It will have been all for naught ...

We gotta get back out there ... And this time stay ...

 

The old 'not keeping all your eggs in 1 basket' argument mentioned by sci-fi writers like Robert A. Heinlein (RIP), et al.........

I'm a believer in that too.......

 

OK. does anybody besides me not a have a freakin clue what this is all about? Hohlraums and deuterium and then something about isotoner (aren't those gloves?). I work in a coal fired powerplant. Coal and air make big fire. Water in, steam out. Some sparks and stuff, lights stay on. Lol

 

Basically scientists are re-creating a tiny sun in their labs and are trying out how to harness it to use as energy.......

In case you're wondering, the sun is basically a gigantic fusion reactor---although it uses mainly helium instead of the hydrogen that we would use (from seawater).......

The sun doesn't burn out, does it? 12-billion years later (and about 5-billion more to go........WE HOPE!)......That's fusion reaction........It just feeds on itself........

 

Good man. The U.S. has hundreds of years worth of coal reserves so is the sensible way to go. Unfortunately the eco-***** don`t like coal.

 

Thanks for dumming it down for me. Working in the industry, I do understand the need for alternative energy sources. I am also well aware of the environmental impact fossil fuels have on our planet. But coal is plentiful and its dirt cheap. Thats why we use it. And by the way my employer just spent around 600 million dollars on a project that removes 99% of our SO2 emissions.

 

Well then maybe you can dumb it up for me because I`m unaware of any significant environmental impact of fossil fuels.

 

BP Says Unconventional Gas Is a U.S. ?Game-Changer? (Update1) - Bloomberg.com You have got to see this as well.

 

Coal plants emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, arsenic, and much more. Some plants run on oil which is also a big polluter, but not as bad as coal. Natural gas is probably the cleanest of the fossil fuels.