Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on June 24, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Fusion Breakthrough: A Half-Century-Old Puzzle Comes Together

Fusion Breakthrough: A Half-Century-Old Puzzle Comes Together thumbnail

The secret is in regulating the speed of runaway electrons.

In light of the monumental crisis we’re facing, we’re referring to global warming and climate change, of course, we’ve never had to find a new source of energy as badly as we do right now. And it’s not just any alternative source of energy. What we need is a clean source, something that won’t contribute further to the degradation of our atmosphere.

We already have solar power, wind power and hydroelectric power. But the kind of power that will top all those and which scientists have been aiming for so long to achieve has remained elusive so far. We’re talking about nuclear fusion — the same kind of power that fuels our Sun and all other stars.

Nuclear fusion involves hydrogen atoms fusing together to form helium atoms and releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process. But it’s far from being as simple as it sounds.

To begin with, hydrogen atoms can’t be coaxed to bond unless there’s ultra-high pressure and temperatures of about 150 million degrees. Putting that figure in perspective — it’s hotter than temperatures in the Sun’s core. That in itself is difficult enough to achieve. But then there’s also the matter of runaway electrons behaving unpredictably, sometimes accelerating to the point of damaging reactors without any warning whatsoever.

Based on research that recently got published in the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists from the Chalmers University of Technology may have figured out a way to bring us closer to realizing the dream of achieving nuclear fusion power. And it’s through those runaway electrons.

The team’s take on the matter is this: if runaway electrons can be identified and decelerated, nuclear fusion can take place continuously, without the threat of destroying the reactor. Specifically, the tandem of doctoral students Linnea Hesslow and Ola Embréus, together with their advisor, Professor Tünde Fülöp, have been able to demonstrate that by applying some kind of ‘braking system’, it is possible to slow down the speed of runaway electrons.

In their case, brakes will be applied by injecting pellets or gaseous forms of heavy ions like argon or neon. As the electrons collide with the heavy ions, there’s increased resistance and decrease in energy which tend to make the electrons slow down. With these many collisions, the speed of electrons become controllable, thus facilitating the nuclear fusion process, enabling it to continue without interruption.

As explained by Hesslow in a press release: “When we can effectively decelerate runaway electrons, we are one step closer to a functional fusion reactor. Considering there are so few options for solving the world’s growing energy needs in a sustainable way, fusion energy is incredibly exciting since it takes its fuel from ordinary seawater.”

Hesslow isn’t even speaking metaphorically. The fuel needed to run a fusion reactor weighs less than a stamp does, and its raw materials literally come from ordinary seawater.

So far, the world’s best bet to achieve nuclear fusion is the ITER reactor in France. And while many believe the reactor will work, it has yet to overcome the challenge of producing more energy than it uses up.

Meanwhile, Hesslow hopes they’ll be given enough resources to go further with their research so they can help “solve the energy issue in time.”

wall st pit



11 Comments on "Fusion Breakthrough: A Half-Century-Old Puzzle Comes Together"

  1. makati1 on Sat, 24th Jun 2017 7:05 pm 

    More bullshit from The Wall Street Casino pimps.

    “… it has yet to overcome the challenge of producing more energy than it uses up.”

    And always will. But send bundles and pallets of cash as we need to make a living also. LMAO

  2. onlooker on Sat, 24th Jun 2017 7:16 pm 

    You got that right Mak, check this:
    Fusion requires temperatures about 100 million Kelvin (approximately six times hotter than the sun’s core). haha, but yeah send the money anyway

  3. makati1 on Sat, 24th Jun 2017 7:27 pm 

    Reminds me of two quotes I just read on another site:

    “Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.” – Thomas Sowell

    “The scientists have given [modern man] the impression that there is nothing he cannot know, and false propagandists have told him that there is nothing he cannot have.” – Richard M. Weaver

  4. dissident on Sat, 24th Jun 2017 8:18 pm 

    Fusion should be viewed as expensive science research and not engineering and commercial product. Magnetically confined plasma fusion is not what occurs in stars. Stars run fusion on gravitational compression. It is impossible to reproduce this in any human scale reactor.

    Magnetically confined plasma has exhibited all sorts of instabilities and effects which undermine the achievement of sustainable fusion. It is not at all clear that it will ever converge to functionality.

  5. Apneaman on Sat, 24th Jun 2017 9:25 pm 

    So what if they did manage it to the point where they could sell electricity. Do y’all think it’ll be like the promises of nuclear – too cheap to meter or they will milk the consumer slaves for every penny they can? The more energy the humans have the more healthy tissue they eat and infect. There was only ever one solution for the humans and they missed the boat on that – keep their population down. There have been many culls throughout history, but they always come well after overshoot has destroyed most everything. More times than not, TPTB of the day simply let the commoners starve. But of course that could never ever happen again now that the humans have evolved to a higher order of being.

  6. dave thompson on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 12:07 am 

    Human animals need habitat, the habitat we need also supports all the rest of creation. If in fact this energy could be harnessed, the habitat issue never goes away until it does go away as we are seeing.

  7. Anonymouse on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 2:08 am 

    This fusion horseshit is a bad as the other fusion horseshit article. Seawater huh? Just stick a straw in the ocean, and presto, free fuel forever, right?

    Umm, no. Separating deuterium form seawater has never been demonstrated , except on paper. There is no known method, or engineering that exists to achiever this. That process ALONE, would be expensive, time-consuming, difficult in its own right, and would likely be environmentally in itself.

    But like all the OTHER fusion falsehoods, the suck-fuel-directly-from-the-ocean meme is so well established as clean-unlimited energy forever is, it is just accepted as a self-evident (fusion) fact.

    Maybe the retard that wrote this meant this?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girdler_sulfide_process

    The method is an isotopic exchange process between H2S and H2O (“light” water), that produces heavy water over several steps. It is a highly energy intensive process.[3] Seawater contains 180 parts per million of D2O.

    Until its closure in 1997, the Bruce Heavy Water Plant in Ontario (close to the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station) was the world’s largest heavy water production plant, with a capacity of 700 tonnes per year. It used the Girdler sulfide process to produce heavy water, and required 340,000 tonnes (370,000 short tons) of feed water to produce 1 tonne (1.1 short tons) of heavy water.[4]

    I guess the stick a plastic cup in the ocean, and scoop up all that free fusion fuel forever is a much easier idea fusion fan-boyz to grasp than, you know, reality….

  8. Anonymouse on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 2:10 am 

    I meant to note, the method above is NOT used, or intended to provide fuel for non-existent fusion reactors. I believe more processing than discussed in the article would be necessary for a ‘working’ fusion reactor.

  9. Davy on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 5:46 am 

    Fusion is a matter of perfection, scale and time. Scaling is not good for the technology. The expense and the size of the technology is not cost effective nor all inclusive. Even if the technology becomes effective, a big if, then a widespread application will be needed and the cost of doing this is prohibitive. IOW, the scale is enormous. What good is just a few of these plants to our overall problem of energy and its depletion and its pollution? The timing is not good either. We need this technology to be in widespread production now and very quickly replacing dirty carbon based energy and aging dirty NUK energy. We are running out of time. It would take 20 plus years to even make a dent in an energy transition with fusion.

    Many here discount the economy. They treat the economy as maybe not good but in a steady average rise in growth. Innovation and efficiency will keep growth growing. I feel these feelings are habituation from a century of steady growth. The economy is showing signs of near a break to a much lower level of global productivity. When and if this happens all new forms of energy, including alternatives, are not going to be needed or be affordable for an energy transition. If your demand side drops by 50% then our current power generation mix will be way into surplus. How can you justify new build outs when you have redundant power everywhere? How can you afford expensive new generation when you are 50% less wealthy? You don’t and you can’t.

    No one knows the full story on scale, time, and the economy but I feel they are issues that are at play here with fusion and alternatives. These problematic variables show every sign of going in the wrong direction instead of an optimistic direction. We are living in a world of happy endings that may not happen but we still hope. This hope hinders our efforts at mitigation and adaptations. The biggest efforts would be behavioral and with lifestyles. You live differently if you have the realization you are bankrupt without a future.

  10. Jerry McManus on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 8:57 am 

    “Considering there are so few options for solving the world’s growing energy needs in a sustainable way…”

    Well, I suppose the world could consider NOT growing its energy needs. Problem solved!

    Oh, I guess that’s not one of the few “sustainable” options…

  11. onlooker on Sun, 25th Jun 2017 9:11 am 

    Well, I suppose the world could consider NOT growing its energy needs. Problem solved!—
    That is tough considering the worlds population continues to grow thus the needs but the energy will be decreasing as FF slowly but surely exit the scene. Just part of the totally unsustainable opposing trend lines of more people less resources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *