Fusion: Difference between revisions

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Category=Energy}}
{{Category=Energy}}
Re Dr. Robert Bussard's Fusion Research: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606#
{{Hint| OSE's stand on fusion energy: There is no such thing as radioactivity-free fusion. Even so-called a-neutronic reactions have neutrons associated with them, if not direclty, but by side reactions. Energetic neutrons have the property of breaking apart other neutrons. So there is no known way to harness fusion energy safely, unless we discover new laws of physics. So unless we accept nuclear radiation hazard as part of life, fusion is out of the question - just like fission. I don't think a case can be made that fusion or fission is appropriate technology, given that we have solar energy and hydrogen. Addendum: history happened around 2018, when the cost of solar dropped below coal and gas in most countries. Time to eradicate artificial scarcity is now. -MJ}}


Marcin Jakubowski responds: I am a fusion renegade. I got my Ph.D. in fusion energy from U. Wisconsin, Madison, in 2003. See [[Marcin Biography]]. Since I have excused myself from the fusion world, I've been working on appropriate technology (see insightful comments on appropriate technology in [http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2117 this blog post]). Here are my comments on the fusion question, which comes up frequently in discussions on a better world. I am asking any fusion scientists reading this to check for factual accuracy.
==Overview==
Fusion is the process of combining nuclei, thus creating energy. Sustained fusion has been achieved many times by many different groups and people, but a fully functioning reactor that generates more '''useful''' power than is consumed has yet to be produced. We do have hydrogen bombs, but these are not so useful for practical power production.


Regarding the Google Talk above:
==Open Source Community==


Should Google go Nuclear?
Simple fusors that create the radiation which power can be extracted from have existed for year, and there exists a growing community dedicated to making them. Most of these focus on creating a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor. Recently, several people have started making home-made polywells, taking advantage of new 3D printing techniques.


My answer is yes.
[http://www.coultersmithing.com/?fbclid=IwAR1tzqlWGh1-I5j-wG59yCe4LrBZ22m_u8D18Upkd4sT6UuIZ8j4SUU2x8Y Coulter's Smithing] is a project focusing on open sourcing a nuclear fusion reactor.  


With solar concentrator electric harnessing of fusion energy from 93 million miles away.
==See Also==
[http://www.fusor.net/ Fusor community]


Sorry to break bubbles, but fusion is 10 years into the future. It always was and it always will be, as the running joke in the community goes.
[http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ Prometheus open source polywell project]


In an ideal world, what Dr. Bussard says is true. In fact, fusion is not difficult. Over unity can be achieved rather easily.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-QhRCXWRjE Lift Conference on an open source polywell]


However, the part that is hidden under the rug is that there is no humanly known or predicted way that the energy can be harnessed successfully without running into radioactivity issues.
=MJ Review=


Think about a hydrogen bomb. It explodes, and it would be very difficult to utilize its energy for producing electricity. It's an extreme reaction.
MJ Note: Take any article on the promise of fusion. Ask me what I think about it. My answer is likely to go something like this:


The fusion reactor, while built with the aim of addressing the 'taming of that energy to useful purposes,' suffers from the similar issue. Yes, the reaction can be sustained. However, when it comes time to harness the energy, the particles created in the reaction, when interacting with matter, tend to break apart that matter, and make it radioactive. If you have matter interacting with the fusion products, you get radioactivity. The only way that you can capture the energy is when the fusion products react with matter - such as a jacket around the reactor that captures the energy, and in one route, heats water to make steam to run turbines.
'''If there is any evidence that this could solve more problems than it creates, I'd be glad to add fusion to the [[GVCS]].


Thus, when you try to capture fusion energy, you get radioactivity. Period.
Sorry, but that article is all far out hype. Worse than University science press releases. Maybe we can do it some day, but my opinion is that putting energy into fusion at this time is bad priorities, when there are much larger and more important issues to solve.


Idealists point to aneutronic fusion reactions as a possible solution to the radioactivity issue. However, that's an idealization. In reality, you will always have some side reactions that produce neutrons. Neutrons are responsible for the radioactivity that is created.
You have to appreciate first that in order to extract the energy from successful fusion (fusion can be done, that's not the hard part), one has to use some kind of 'pipe' to carry and heat water, to spin a steam engine (turbine). There are currently no known ways to build such a 'pipe' because the energetic neutrons (even in so-called 'aneutronic fusion') will destroy whatever 'pipe' you use. This is the brutal fact that articles of this nature all tend to ignore. The result is, one has to deal with a continuous stream of radioactive waste, so the concept of 'clean fusion' is a pipe dream, no pun intended. This is why I say that fusion is a bad priority because it will not likely be as clean as we like, and there are easier ways to achieve unlimited energy, or at least 100x nore than we use today. Ethically speaking, I would not want to work at a fusion reactor or make others do so. Fusion is just an artifact of a society that does not collaborate. Solving for true collaboration is our current work.
 
Thus, natural law and basic science indicated to me: why are we messing around with the possibility of a complex solution, which is likely to involve centralization of this technology, when we could already use fusion, economically, in the form of capturing solar thermal energy with concentrators to make electricity? Furthermore, if we open-source the solar concentrator technology, we will bring down the cost a factor of 2-10 times, which means that it will be ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE WORLD. That is our approach. It's once again the question of appropriate technology. I have a hard time imagining that fusion can become an appropriate technology, given basic physics.
 
I think the question of fusion boils down to values. I challenge the masterminds behind fusion to be the on-the-ground workers who will be dealing with the radioactive waste. I can guarantee you that if fusion ever comes about, those two groups will not be the same people.
 
In summary, Google Talks should invite [[OSE]] for a presentation on a different approach to energy abundance - one which will not please most people because of its simplicity and contrarian nature. We are ready, however, to substantiate our claims based on the cost-reduction results that we have proven repeatedly within the scope of our work.

Latest revision as of 02:03, 27 July 2023

Main > Energy


HintLightbulb.png Hint: OSE's stand on fusion energy: There is no such thing as radioactivity-free fusion. Even so-called a-neutronic reactions have neutrons associated with them, if not direclty, but by side reactions. Energetic neutrons have the property of breaking apart other neutrons. So there is no known way to harness fusion energy safely, unless we discover new laws of physics. So unless we accept nuclear radiation hazard as part of life, fusion is out of the question - just like fission. I don't think a case can be made that fusion or fission is appropriate technology, given that we have solar energy and hydrogen. Addendum: history happened around 2018, when the cost of solar dropped below coal and gas in most countries. Time to eradicate artificial scarcity is now. -MJ

Overview

Fusion is the process of combining nuclei, thus creating energy. Sustained fusion has been achieved many times by many different groups and people, but a fully functioning reactor that generates more useful power than is consumed has yet to be produced. We do have hydrogen bombs, but these are not so useful for practical power production.

Open Source Community

Simple fusors that create the radiation which power can be extracted from have existed for year, and there exists a growing community dedicated to making them. Most of these focus on creating a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor. Recently, several people have started making home-made polywells, taking advantage of new 3D printing techniques.

Coulter's Smithing is a project focusing on open sourcing a nuclear fusion reactor.

See Also

Fusor community

Prometheus open source polywell project

Lift Conference on an open source polywell

MJ Review

MJ Note: Take any article on the promise of fusion. Ask me what I think about it. My answer is likely to go something like this:

If there is any evidence that this could solve more problems than it creates, I'd be glad to add fusion to the GVCS.

Sorry, but that article is all far out hype. Worse than University science press releases. Maybe we can do it some day, but my opinion is that putting energy into fusion at this time is bad priorities, when there are much larger and more important issues to solve.

You have to appreciate first that in order to extract the energy from successful fusion (fusion can be done, that's not the hard part), one has to use some kind of 'pipe' to carry and heat water, to spin a steam engine (turbine). There are currently no known ways to build such a 'pipe' because the energetic neutrons (even in so-called 'aneutronic fusion') will destroy whatever 'pipe' you use. This is the brutal fact that articles of this nature all tend to ignore. The result is, one has to deal with a continuous stream of radioactive waste, so the concept of 'clean fusion' is a pipe dream, no pun intended. This is why I say that fusion is a bad priority because it will not likely be as clean as we like, and there are easier ways to achieve unlimited energy, or at least 100x nore than we use today. Ethically speaking, I would not want to work at a fusion reactor or make others do so. Fusion is just an artifact of a society that does not collaborate. Solving for true collaboration is our current work.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Fusion&oldid=286230"