[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Breakthrough In Nuclear Fusion (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 2/15/2014 6:05:45 PM EDT
|
Looks like Fusion reactors might not be all that far away after all. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/12/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-green-energy-source US researchers have achieved a world first in an ambitious experiment that aims to recreate the conditions at the heart of the sun and pave the way for nuclear fusion reactors. The scientists generated more energy from fusion reactions than they put into the nuclear fuel, in a small but crucial step along the road to harnessing fusion power. The ultimate goal – to produce more energy than the whole experiment consumes – remains a long way off, but the feat has nonetheless raised hopes that after decades of setbacks, firm progress is finally being made. |
|
Quoted:
Much more power producing and without the libtard's "scary radiation". 
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup. People bitch and whine about how long controlled fusion has been researched with "no results" not realizing that the gains in run time have been exponential... Much more power producing and without the libtard's "scary radiation".
Fusion produces radiation, depending on what you are fusing. I think the concept of pulsed/diesel fusion warrants more research. Trying to sustain a continuous reaction is more challenging. |
|
Quoted: Fusion produces radiation, depending on what you are fusing. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup. People bitch and whine about how long controlled fusion has been researched with "no results" not realizing that the gains in run time have been exponential... Much more power producing and without the libtard's "scary radiation". Fusion produces radiation, depending on what you are fusing. I'm referring to spent fuel and such. |
|
Quoted:
I'm referring to spent fuel and such. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup. People bitch and whine about how long controlled fusion has been researched with "no results" not realizing that the gains in run time have been exponential... Much more power producing and without the libtard's "scary radiation".
Fusion produces radiation, depending on what you are fusing. I'm referring to spent fuel and such. True enough. But depending on what your fuel is, contamination of equipment, handling requirements, shielding and disposal of incidental/equipment nuclear waste still exists. Especially once prolonged reactor operation becomes possible. The problem with spent fuel in fission power is that, like retards, we don't recycle it. 
|
|
Nuclear fusion wouldn't work out for liberals.
They need the Carbon Exchange to transfer money and redistribute to their buddies. Solar and wind can't generate enough profit on their own so they get their exchange and commissions with redistribution of wealth to boot. Fusion would screw all of that up. |
|
Cool.
We just nearly had a breakthrough in nuclear fission nearby oops |
|
Quoted: Energy is already cheap. What fusion technology means is that the solar system is opened up. Quoted: Quoted: Maybe in my lifetime, I will see cheap energy for all. Energy is already cheap. What fusion technology means is that the solar system is opened up. It'll at least shut up the liberals about using less electricity or turning down the thermostat. Wait. What the fuck am I thinking? They'll find something to hate about it. |
|
Quoted:
Energy is already cheap. What fusion technology means is that the solar system is opened up. Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe in my lifetime, I will see cheap energy for all. Energy is already cheap. What fusion technology means is that the solar system is opened up. If you give me sub-cent per KWH electricity, I can turn soil into plasma and separate out the base elements. Most mining for common elements will be obsolete. I can also de-salinate sea water and make all the deserts bloom. |
|
Though slight, the advance is welcome news for the NIF scientists. In 2012, the project was restructured and given more modest goals after six years of failure to generate more energy than the experiment consumes, known as "ignition". Problem: Experiments are unsuccessful. Solution: Lower the bar on what you define as "success". 
|
|
Quoted: It'll at least shut up the liberals about using less electricity or turning down the thermostat. Wait. What the fuck am I thinking? They'll find something to hate about it. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe in my lifetime, I will see cheap energy for all. Energy is already cheap. What fusion technology means is that the solar system is opened up. It'll at least shut up the liberals about using less electricity or turning down the thermostat. Wait. What the fuck am I thinking? They'll find something to hate about it. |
|
Quoted:
True enough. But depending on what your fuel is, contamination of equipment, handling requirements, shielding and disposal of incidental/equipment nuclear waste still exists. Especially once prolonged reactor operation becomes possible. The problem with spent fuel in fission power is that, like retards, we don't recycle it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup. People bitch and whine about how long controlled fusion has been researched with "no results" not realizing that the gains in run time have been exponential... Much more power producing and without the libtard's "scary radiation".
Fusion produces radiation, depending on what you are fusing. I'm referring to spent fuel and such. True enough. But depending on what your fuel is, contamination of equipment, handling requirements, shielding and disposal of incidental/equipment nuclear waste still exists. Especially once prolonged reactor operation becomes possible. The problem with spent fuel in fission power is that, like retards, we don't recycle it. You can blame Liberal Environmental Wacko's for that.  
|
|
Quoted:
Problem: Experiments are unsuccessful. Solution: Lower the bar on what you define as "success". Quoted:
Though slight, the advance is welcome news for the NIF scientists. In 2012, the project was restructured and given more modest goals after six years of failure to generate more energy than the experiment consumes, known as "ignition". Problem: Experiments are unsuccessful. Solution: Lower the bar on what you define as "success". This is exactly what the article says, for those who take the time to read it. A lot of people got caught up in the headline hype and wishful thinking. AIV, they are far, far away. The headline is a deceiving. Read the article. |
|
Quoted:
The progressive liberals don't want Americans to have access to cheap energy. They use the cost and availability of energy as a choke point to control the people in the same manner that third world dictators utilize the food supply. Too bad they won't have a say in the matter. All it would take is someone giving away free energy like this to stimulate or subsidize the economy with energy. Even if it was for just enough time to defeat the communist. Think about it, most of the cost increase in raw materials and food has been due to the increase in energy costs. Whoever harnesses cheap reliable and safe nuclear energy will upset that system. |
|
Quoted:
This is exactly what the article says, for those who take the time to read it. A lot of people got caught up in the headline hype and wishful thinking. AIV, they are far, far away. The headline is a deceiving. Read the article. Quoted:
Quoted:
Though slight, the advance is welcome news for the NIF scientists. In 2012, the project was restructured and given more modest goals after six years of failure to generate more energy than the experiment consumes, known as "ignition". Problem: Experiments are unsuccessful. Solution: Lower the bar on what you define as "success". This is exactly what the article says, for those who take the time to read it. A lot of people got caught up in the headline hype and wishful thinking. AIV, they are far, far away. The headline is a deceiving. Read the article. Don't you know, reading is for faggots! 
I'm glad I'm not the only key who caught the bit quoted above.
ETA: when this tech becomes successful, I'll gladly quit my job and go back to school for a fourth time to be a part of it.
|
|
Quoted: This is exactly what the article says, for those who take the time to read it. A lot of people got caught up in the headline hype and wishful thinking. AIV, they are far, far away. The headline is a deceiving. Read the article. Quoted: Quoted: Though slight, the advance is welcome news for the NIF scientists. In 2012, the project was restructured and given more modest goals after six years of failure to generate more energy than the experiment consumes, known as "ignition". Problem: Experiments are unsuccessful. Solution: Lower the bar on what you define as "success". This is exactly what the article says, for those who take the time to read it. A lot of people got caught up in the headline hype and wishful thinking. AIV, they are far, far away. The headline is a deceiving. Read the article. One step closer. Futurescape had a pretty neat show where they talked alittle bit about this technology. |
|
Oh good lord no. I spend enough on guns right now. I'm gonna have to get at least two more credit cards if Mechs become readily available. On the flipside, I guess if I had a Mech, my bills would not really be a worry. |
|
Quoted:
The progressive liberals don't want Americans to have access to cheap energy. They use the cost and availability of energy as a choke point to control the people in the same manner that third world dictators utilize the food supply. ...and oil companies? |
|
Quoted:
Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Quoted:
Quoted:
To bad funding will be cut to fund the next round of social entitlements. Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Wow, really. Nice troll, or really ignant, hopefully, youse about to get schooled. |
|
Quoted:
Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Quoted:
Quoted:
To bad funding will be cut to fund the next round of social entitlements. Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Wrong http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart BTW...part of pensions are entitlements... |
|
Quoted:
Wow, really. Nice troll, or really ignant, hopefully, youse about to get schooled. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To bad funding will be cut to fund the next round of social entitlements. Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Wow, really. Nice troll, or really ignant, hopefully, youse about to get schooled. Crap, I looked at a 2010 fed budget pie chart. I was wrong, I honestly thought the numbers were lower |
|
Quoted:
Wrong http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart BTW...part of pensions are entitlements... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To bad funding will be cut to fund the next round of social entitlements. Social entitlements (although annoying) is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending. Wrong http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart BTW...part of pensions are entitlements...  so, if I pay into my pension and into social security that's entitlement?
I don't think so, but welfare is only 2% under military spending. So, I was technically correct but I was not aware the number for welfare was that high. |