Science is still trying to create the "perfect society" that uses the "perfect energy source" which would be used by the "perfect human being". LOL!
I see that the 2 alarmist brainiacs here (Trevor and pegminer) are debating the energy conservation aspects of these experiments. I wonder how much energy was lost at their conception (The Big Bang between their parents)?
Although the article doesn't state it, I think they are doing some dubious accounting with the energy. They are probably only comparing the energy that actually went into heating the pellet with the energy coming out of it. I'd be willing to bet that the total energy produced by fusion was less than what it took to run the entire experiment.
There are nuclear waste issues associated with fusion that always seem to get glossed over. Reactions involving tritium (like this one) mean that there are neutrons flying around. In a true power reactor, those neutrons, over time, would make the reactor vessel radioactive and weaken it structurally. The vessel would periodically need to be replaced and there would be radioactive waste to be disposed of. It would be lower level waste than fission reactors, but it would be a problem nonetheless. Whenever people are pushing fusion as "clean" they neglect to mention that.
I don't think that's a game-stopper, though, and it would be great if fusion could be brought online as a power source. The problem is that it always seems to be the energy of the future.
EDIT for Zippi62: I don't think either of us is debating energy conservation--I'm quite sure that it holds in these experiments and I'm quite sure that Trevor agrees with that too. The question I brought up is just what's being taken into account. I think the description of this experiment is like someone that owns a shop, where for a particular month what people pay for the items they sell is more than what they paid for them wholesale. They claim to have made money, but they're not taking into account the rent, what the electricity cost, insurance, etc.
Experimentally they have now taken the next step forward in the long journey toward the ultimate goal of large-scale and useable nuclear fusion. There is still a long way to go and the next step is to refine the ignition process whilst still maintaining the dimensional integrity of the fuel source, something that is critical to the reaction.
The achievement shows that this particular hurdle can be overcome and has shown that this method works, not that anyone ever really doubted it.
Don’t go getting too excited just yet, there is still a great deal to be done and more obstacles to overcome. The good news is that progress toward nuclear fusion has been going well in recent years but it’s still going to be a few decades before it becomes a large-scale and viable energy source.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO PEGMINER
You’re quite correct there. I was reading about this just the other day and the energy coming from the pellet does indeed exceed the energy input, but taken as a whole there is a net loss of energy. I guess this would be the next thing they need to overcome.
If you have a moment can you elaborate further on the redundant neutrons and associated radioactivity, a link to a decent paper or website will be fine.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO ZIPPI
Like Pegminer, I’m not referencing conservation of energy, which is something different altogether. C of E means that the energy within a system remains unchanged – there’s no energy in, no energy out, it’s not destroyed but it can change forms.
This is more like economics, getting a return on an investment. When the system works X units of energy are put in and X + Y units come out. At the moment, in respect of only the reaction itself, X is going in and X is coming out, there’s no net gain. What Pegminer is saying is that there is an additional component associated with the experiment, the energy that’s used in addition to that needed for the reaction, in essence then, X + Z are going in and only X is coming out.
Liken it to a bank account – you pay in $1,000 a month (energy in) and withdraw the same amount (energy out), everything balances. What you really want is an account that pays dividends – pay in $1,000 and get back $1,000 + $20 each month (return on investment) – it works. But if your bank charges you $50 a month for the service (extra input) then there’s a shortfall.
It will be a bust, as it does not comport with the green religion of using less energy.
So even if successful, roadblocks will be thrown in its way.
This was perhaps best exhibited by an episode of The Lone Gunman, where they discover someone's invention of a car that gets 200MPG. They end up destroying it because it would mean suburban sprawl.
Interesting, and a real question or questions lurks beneath. Miracle of Miracles. The comments to the linked article are also interesting. After 60 years the tomahawk was beat; now they have net energy. That leaves containability, scaleability, and a massive waste problem if fusion power were to somehow be used widely.
This guy http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_17... who is pro-Nuke, says:
"It is reckless to assume that the fusion problem will be cracked," but 60 years from now, que sera?
Unfortunately, fusion power has been 50 years away for each of the last 50 years.
But yes, any time a theory can be translated into engineering and actual measurable, repeatable results you are on your way.......
What? 'Government' tax money going to research? If this was commercially viable then private industry would do it. This is just a government grab for more power and control of our lives. (Or does the above only apply to solar and wind power?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-lasers-fuelling-hopes-of-unlimited-clean-nuclear-energy-9124237.html
