|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Germany doesn't get to decide this unilaterally. But they are trying to, by trying to ensure Nuclear isn't included in the EU Green Energy mandate. At this point, Germany has done everything possible to keep their coal and gas going, even if they pretend its about getting rid of them.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
After decades of cuts, German nuclear power has been slashed from 150 TWh to 60 TWh, yet it still constitutes 28% of Germany's clean power. Shuttering those plants continues to be a deeply anti-environmental action, and the silence on the part of Green Parties throughout Europe about it has been pretty damning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Germany doesn't get to decide this unilaterally. How do you figure it doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
quote:Japan's Fukushima reactor meltdown in 2011 when an earthquake and tsunami destroyed the coastal plant in the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl 25 years earlier. This statement is doing some heavy loving lifting, justifying replacing existing nuclear power with coal and Russian NG. loving journalists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And they are burning more coal and gas to make up the difference. And will likely miss their climate goals for the next few years. Also making energy prices in europe higher than ever. People have returned to burning fuel oil in places, I hear pellet heater sales are doing really well in germany too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Also making energy prices in europe higher than ever. People have returned to burning fuel oil in places, I hear pellet heater sales are doing really well in germany too. Germany considers pellet heaters to be green.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
Theory: Germans, who constitute one of the oldest populations by age ratio on earth, are still traumatized by the events of the Cold War, their fates left on a thread connecting the DC-Moscow hotline, punctuated by the war scare of 1986 and the chernobyl accident of 1986 - would not be caught dead supporting nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 10:19
|
|
|
Openly supporting the Petroleum and Coal industry who have far more pollution and bodycount than Nuclear because of Chernobyl is certainly a theory. Granted, the Oil/Gas/Coal industry have worked hard to hide those impacts versus the nuclear industry.
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever before considered what the average German thought when they heard the news of the atomic bombs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
Is this...much quicker progress than usual? China's 'artificial sun' smashes 1000-second fusion world record quote:China's 'artificial sun' set a new world record on Thursday by running for 1,056 seconds at high plasma temperature, the longest duration for an experimental advanced superconducting tokamak (EAST) fusion energy reactor, Xinhua News Agency reported. EAST already scored a previous record in May, running for 101 seconds at a temperature of 120 million degrees Celsius. The latest one came after it was announced last week that a new round of testing would be conducted by the Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (ASIPP).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Is this...much quicker progress than usual?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
I hope it's real, but I don't think it's high chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
china puts out a lot of scientific papers. if there’s something to this it’ll out. sure there could be fraud there but people are getting increasingly good at picking things like this apart
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Currently all the articles I can find about it refer directly back to Xinhua, so it seems at the moment the best thing to do would be to wait for more information or confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah treat any fusion news with a healthy amount of skepticism. Either way, China is still betting heavily on Fission right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
I think its probably legitimate but like a lot of reporting on nuclear fusion research I think it glosses over the caveats as to whether this will successfully result in a design that produces more energy than it consumes; my assumption is having an ongoing fusion reaction doesn't mean that the magnets don't end up using more power than it produces etc. Assuming I'm correct, its good news and progress but it isn't like they cracked open the holy grail yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Anyone know why the temperature of the fusion reactions is 100 million C and the temperature at the core of the sun is 15 million K (close enough to C at those temps)? I assume that without the massive density of the stellar core you need to ramp the temps up for fusion to occur?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Anyone know why the temperature of the fusion reactions is 100 million C and the temperature at the core of the sun is 15 million K (close enough to C at those temps)? PV = nRT You are correct. The plasma in the reactor is much lower density than the core of the sun where fusion occurs. Thus the temperature must be much higher in the reactor to reach the minimum energy required to begin fusion. They're essentially forcing high pressure with high temperature. If you could figure out how to increase plasma density with better confinement, you need lower temperatures to start fusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think its probably legitimate but like a lot of reporting on nuclear fusion research I think it glosses over the caveats as to whether this will successfully result in a design that produces more energy than it consumes; my assumption is having an ongoing fusion reaction doesn't mean that the magnets don't end up using more power than it produces etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:PV = nRT
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think its probably legitimate but like a lot of reporting on nuclear fusion research I think it glosses over the caveats as to whether this will successfully result in a design that produces more energy than it consumes; my assumption is having an ongoing fusion reaction doesn't mean that the magnets don't end up using more power than it produces etc. I was talking with an influenza virologist this morning who was explaining, "yeah, we're right around the corner from a holy grail universal flu vaccine" on a geologic timescale, as in we'll probably crack it by the end of the century
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I was talking with an influenza virologist this morning who was explaining, "yeah, we're right around the corner from a holy grail universal flu vaccine" on a geologic timescale, as in we'll probably crack it by the end of the century i’m def no virologist though i have a micro background, imo it is absolutely not going to take 80 years. it’ll be glorious when it happens tho anyway about fusion and pressure this is why my favourite attempt are the canadians who are just shoving in pistons to compress it lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:This is exciting, but I'm sad that I feel like it needs to be taken with a grain of salt since, you know, Chinese state media. At a 1000s duration and those temperatures, that sounds like they're successfully doing steady state fusion, unless the neutrons are destroying the vessel in the process. Nothing about this means they were successfully doing any fusion at all. They could simply be heating a plasma to that temperature via RF oscillation, keeping it going for longer than anyone else has cared to, and said "Hey we set a record!" In the absence of numbers like "fusion power generated" and "energy input," it means just this side of nothing. Capt.Whorebags posted:Anyone know why the temperature of the fusion reactions is 100 million C and the temperature at the core of the sun is 15 million K (close enough to C at those temps)? The sun is *amazingly* inefficient at fusion, and produces fusion by an entirely different process. What's going on in the sun is a direct proton-proton fusion, which means that you've got mutual electrostatic repulsion of two positive charges that really do not want to be near each other, and only two proton's worth of mass to provide towards the kinetic energy to overcome that repulsion. At "only" 15 million K this reaction *almost never happens*; a given proton in the core will hang around for *billions* of years before it manages to fuse with another proton. So yes, that's basically it: if you want the procedure to happen on any reasonable time scale, you can either increase the density to a few orders of magnitude denser than a stellar core, or crank up the temperature. With D:D and D:T, you have entire extra nucleons that don't contribute to repulsion at all but which double or triple the mass of the reactants, so at any given speed they're much more likely to overcome that Coulomb barrier and get close enough to interact. That's why you can get D:D fusion, or even lithium fusion, inside brown dwarfs that are nowhere massive enough to fuse hydrogen. In terms of energy per mass or energy per volume, the sun doesn't even measure up to a toaster. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jan 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
I thought one of the bigger problems with nuclear fusion wasn't just getting it to work but also getting it to work in a way that doesn't completely scrap the entire reaction vessel since having what is basically a sun sitting a few feet away causes pretty serious structural integrity problems for every material currently known to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:I thought one of the bigger problems with nuclear fusion wasn't just getting it to work but also getting it to work in a way that doesn't completely scrap the entire reaction vessel since having what is basically a sun sitting a few feet away causes pretty serious structural integrity problems for every material currently known to exist. It is one of the bigger issues, and materials science is still ongoing for containment for sustained fusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
i think the thinking on that is that we’ll keep working on the issue and seriously worry about it should it really start to matter
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
It's kinda like there's various bottlenecks and focus/research tends to be towards the bottleneck that's most achieveable in the near future since there isn't manhatten project levels of funding being thrown at it, engineers need to prioritize their research for the most bang for your buck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's kinda like there's various bottlenecks and focus/research tends to be towards the bottleneck that's most achieveable in the near future since there isn't manhatten project levels of funding being thrown at it, The Manhattan Project cost about $23 billion in today-dollars. The US DOE estimates that when it's done ITER will have cost $64 billion. ITER itself double-swears that it will only cost $22 billion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Manhattan Project cost about $23 billion in today-dollars. The Manhattan project produced the desired endpoint. ITER won't even get us to fusion power, just the proof of concept. Fusion is orders of magnitude more challenging and material demanding than fission, so expect it to cost orders of magnitude more as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Manhattan Project cost about $23 billion in today-dollars. The Manhattan Project in this case is just a short hand for "massive industrial project requiring political will and a major pooling of the states resources not just to reach a goal, but to reach it first, to meet an existential crisis head on." It should be a trillion dollars basically; or more, at several fusion projects simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
Comparisons to the manhattan project are also made kind of silly for a lot of other reasons, like that fusion bombs came along not long after by basically duct taping a hydrogen fuel source to a fission bomb, but there's no obvious equivalent for creating a stable fusion reactor
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
I think the Apollo project would be a more apt comparison in that there is a vague idea of how to go about it and will require incremental development that overcomes one challenge after another, with a whole heap of "well that will be difficult to solve when we get to it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:In terms of energy per mass or energy per volume, the sun doesn't even measure up to a toaster. On an energy per mass scale the sun doesn't even measure up to a particularly energetic compost pile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
this is of course good for all of us
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Comparisons to the manhattan project are also made kind of silly for a lot of other reasons, like that fusion bombs came along not long after by basically duct taping a hydrogen fuel source to a fission bomb, but there's no obvious equivalent for creating a stable fusion reactor Hey now. A sufficiently large pressure vessel where you set off hydrogen bombs at regular intervals to create steam is a form of fusion reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 22:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:Hey now. A sufficiently large pressure vessel where you set off hydrogen bombs at regular intervals to create steam is a form of fusion reactor. True, but that engineering challenge is greater than any other type of fusion reactor currently being investigated
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:True, but that engineering challenge is greater than any other type of fusion reactor currently being investigated Comedy option: "Fix" climate change by using a massive nuclear pulse propulsion system to adjust Earth's orbit a bit further from the sun. We'll figure out the calendar changes later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:True, but that engineering challenge is greater than any other type of fusion reactor currently being investigated It's really a good deal simpler!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Comedy option: "Fix" climate change by using a massive nuclear pulse propulsion system to adjust Earth's orbit a bit further from the sun. We'll figure out the calendar changes later. Nah, just build a coolant loop around the equator, dump the heat into a large black rock, fire the rock into space, wait until it radiates the heat away (ideally towards a different planetary body), retrieve the rock. Repeat until planet reaches desired temperature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Comparisons to the manhattan project are also made kind of silly for a lot of other reasons, like that fusion bombs came along not long after by basically duct taping a hydrogen fuel source to a fission bomb, but there's no obvious equivalent for creating a stable fusion reactor Metaphor's aren't literal comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 23:36
|
|