emmetb - 11 October 2010 11:43 AM

I don’t mean to be nitpicking here, but i did meet many fusion-skeptics on a sustability congress i attended last week in the Netherlands. They reason more or less as follows, we already have a fusion power plant: the sun. So all we need to do is catch more of its rays.

Yes, but the sun is so inefficient.  Every second, it burns mind boggling amounts of energy up.  So mind boggling, I can’t even conceive of it.  That’s what these stars do.  They sit out there in darkness, burning, burning, burning.  Bathing the satellites around them with too much or too little energy depending on location.  And they’re unstable.  Sometimes they blow up and destroy things for light years around them (OK, that’s also what generates the heavier matter - but we’ll work on that, too). 

Basically, they have inconceivably awesome power, which they use for twinkling. 

I was in Dubai last year, wandered by their indoor skiing facility.  125 degrees outside (F), and they have skiing.  Never mind the waste of energy here to make snow in a desert.  Think of skiing.  Looking at the building from the outside, you suddenly get it.  What do you need to ski?  A mountain and some snow?  No.  You don’t need mountains.  You just need a SLOPE. 

Man made fusion is like that slope.  Star energy without the mass of a star.

Fun post!  But their variation isn’t the source of “twinkling”; that’s just an optical illusion for us down here caused by heat-wave diffraction in the atmosphere, etc. 
When FF gets going, Dubai and other desert-dwellers will be able to afford to make as many enclosed ski-hills as they want! 

Simpler version… emphasize boron.

Boron fusion is more efficient than the fusion that occurs in the Sun and thus is vastly more compact and usable than the solar arrays that would be needed to do the same job as the fusion generators.

Boron fusion is dirt cheap and works 24/7/365 come rain or shine… and does all this without the toxic byproducts of manufacturing solar arrays and without the nuclear waste and weapons pofential of other types of reactors.

... yeah, lot of info implied in any reply re: fusion…

emmetb - 11 October 2010 01:12 PM

So what about this then:
“How Green is it? Hands down the greenest form of energy for high power-density applications: no CO2, no nuclear waste, very small environmental footprint in terms of construction materials needed per MW, no storage and distribution problems, no problem with toxins as found in fotovoltaics, not in competition with land for agriculture and forrests.”

Thanks for the suggestion!

I’m trying to shorten the first page to add more things on it (like news feeds in better position).  So I’ve left your quote off the front.  However, the link “How green is it” goes to a page, and I’ve inserted the quote above as the second paragraph.

Rezwan - 11 October 2010 11:24 PM

emmetb - 11 October 2010 01:12 PM

So what about this then:
“How Green is it? Hands down the greenest form of energy for high power-density applications: no CO2, no nuclear waste, very small environmental footprint in terms of construction materials needed per MW, no storage and distribution problems, no problem with toxins as found in fotovoltaics, not in competition with land for agriculture and forrests.”

Thanks for the suggestion!

I’m trying to shorten the first page to add more things on it (like news feeds in better position).  So I’ve left your quote off the front.  However, the link “How green is it” goes to a page, and I’ve inserted the quote above as the second paragraph.

supergreen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y2ulN7Ti6Q&feature=related

I’d be careful about touting lack of toxins—decaborane is poisonous.  It should be relatively easy to handle such a substance in a standard industrial setup like a running FF reactor, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t toxicity concerns.

Tulse - 12 October 2010 04:50 PM

I’d be careful about touting lack of toxins—decaborane is poisonous.  It should be relatively easy to handle such a substance in a standard industrial setup like a running FF reactor, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t toxicity concerns.

As you say these are concerns, not problems, in contrast for photovoltaics:

During normal operation, photovoltaic (PV) power systems do not emit substances that may
threaten human health or the environment. In fact, through the savings in conventional
electricity production they can lead to significant emission reductions. There are, however,
several indirect environmental impacts related to PV power systems that require further
consideration. The production of present generation PV power systems is relatively energy
intensive, involves the use of large quantities of bulk materials and (smaller) quantities of
substances that are scarce and/or toxic. During operation, damaged modules or a fire may lead
to the release of hazardous substances. Finally, at the end of their useful life time PV power
systems have to be decommissioned, and resulting waste flows have to be managed.
Environmental Aspects of PV Power Systems, IEA PVPS Task 1 Workshop, 1997

There are far reaching ideas around to overcome all of these problems by switching to sophisticated, self-replicating, nanotechnological systems otherwise known as plants

It should be relatively easy to handle such a substance in a standard industrial setup like a running FF reactor

Notwithstanding the fact that decaborane handling may pose a very real challenge for our courageous LPP scientists in this moment

YordanGeorgiev - 08 October 2010 04:52 PM

Focus Fusion success by 2020:

- disruptive (price) pressure to national governments to create a global energy grid

This was a discussion from 2010 which caught me by surprise. We have moved a year and a half closer to the goal, but our ideas may still be anchored without progression towards the future.

The concept of some super energy grid is a very scary idea. This line of thought needs to be expanded in the area of national security and practical economic means. We need to economically approach the building without stalling it out and it is a security risk to our freedom from a centrally controlled energy source. The grid itself could be taken down though nefarious acts of sabotage.

A diversified system with small reactors everywhere providing small communities with power is a far safer system to consider. It will also provide many more jobs locally for both construction and maintenance in the future. It also can be implemented far faster than a number of multi-megawatt facilities.

The price pressure issue will creep up on governments and corporations at a slower pace and not subject the world economy to the huge shock waves we have been experiencing for the last 40 years. This is the type of community energy planning that needs to take place, long before a reactor comes online. So where is the discussion of a vision for 2020 (that was started in 2010)?

It takes me awhile to get to the point.