[Transmute]

Peak oil is usually projected in less then 20 years. Back in the 1950’s fusion power was projected to appear in 2000’s, now in the 2000’s it projected about 2050!

[Transmute]

Yes, I have head of it (look up microwave smelting). The reduction could be achieve with electrolysis or with plasma, yes they would be energy demanding but cheap fusion energy would make them economical. Many steel alloys require carbon in them so a source of carbon is needed. Biomass other then wood can be used, sustainable biomass.

[Transmute]

My back-of-the-napkin calculations are nothing compared to government sponsored research, the amount of energy in renewable biomass is estimated to be between 1/10 and 3 times (averaging .5-1) world energy consumption. With Fusion assisted hydrogenated pyrolysis those numbers would double.
http://www.rics.org/Environmentalandlandconsultancy/Energy/bioenergy_renewables.html
http://www.timberbuysell.com/Community/DisplayNews.asp?id=1462

Duke Leto wrote: Here’s a vicious and cynical line of thinking:

1) Oil wells become depleted because the energy required to get the oil out of the ground costs more then the energy yielded by the oil as fuel.
2) All oil wells are not tapped completely dry, there is almost always some deposit that can’t be sucked up economically.
3) A focus fusion reactor onsite vastly changes the cost of energy needed to extract the oil from the depleted wells.
4) There are tons and tons of depleted wells across the US.
5) If focus fusion works, why not use it to up US oil productivity to prevent a peak oil economic crash while EESTOR or some other electric car tech is implemented?

It could actually happen in fact canada is planing on using nuclear reactors to steam out oil from oil sands.
http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/icapp07/TUESDAY/PL%202/7592%20ACR-1000%20for%20ICAPP%20D1.pdf

[Transmute]

The beryllium can be recycled, its not destroyed by fusion only sputtered off the electrodes to build up on the end of the decelerator.

[Transmute]

I don’t see the anti-nuclear movement having much of an argument if the reactors are getting ride of nuclear waste.

[Transmute]

Yes plasma conversion seems vary feasible, with or without cheap fusion. It

[Transmute]

I think I found the reactions I was looking for:
1. p + Li6 -> He4 + He3 + 4 MeV
2. 2He3 -> He4 + 2p + 26.2 MeV
or
3. He3 + Li6 -> 2He4 + p + 16.9 MeV
Total = 20.9-30.2 MeV

Far more energy productive then p+B11, the only problem maybe that it require multiple steps which might night happen in a F2 reactor if its pulse time is too quick.

[Transmute]

Torulf,

It would become useless if ultra-cheap fusion comes around, because its would be easier to use electricity instead of light (this does not forbid ultra cheap photovoltaics). It would work like this: a reversible scrubber would remove CO2 from air or water and provide pure CO2 to the next stage. CO2 would be converted into CO (+O2) with electricity or CH4 (using hydrogen), CH4 or CO and H2 would be polymerized using Fischer-Tropsch process or free radical chemistry. I’m not sure if I mentioned this before but a F2 reactor would make a nifty free radical polymerizer: all you need to do is cool the reactor with light hydrocarbons (CH4) and the x-ray flux will polymerize it into oil and hydrogen (the hydrogen can be extracted via a proton membrane and feed back into the second stage.)

The CO2 capturing device produces one thing not mentioned: waste and lots of it! Once you absorb the CO2 what do you do with it, shove it somewhere? My problem with carbon sequestering is that no one wants to pay to sequester CO2, its would be better if CO2 could be made into a product like oil which turned into plastic and composites both sequesters carbon and makes a profit.

[Transmute]

As long as its energy positive and cheap, this is where tokamak fails (ungodly expensive). If DPF fusion only manages a source-to-gird net energy of 110% its will still be worth its as long as its producing a few megawatts per cheap reactor. Tokamak is predicted to be producing 1MW per $25 million in its construction and research, coal power plants is at $1.3 million per MW (not include the price of coal) and if its works as claimed DPF could do $.2 million or less per MW! but yes monkeys could help.

[Transmute]

AaronB,

Well all right, murderess urges fading, hugging urges returning. All I ask for is a simple explanation on how the x-ray converter will work, it does not need to be detailed: its already outside of my field. I doubt anyone is going to read your vague explanation and slam a patent before yours get through. Now here a thing I don’t get: if 98% of your input energy comes out as a ion beam and another 57% input energy comes out as x-rays (100% in, 155% out right?) why is it debatable what energy conversion technique you’ll need to be energy positive: neither will do alone, your going to need to extract useful amounts of energy out of both the x-rays (be it directly or indirectly) and the ion beam, to make net energy positive production when all the inefficiencies are cut out.

texaslabrat,

I love you to, is that enough sunshine and sprinkles for you? If you want some positive points: I don’t think there a scam: I’m pretty sure they believe what there doing and the lack of good private investing tells me that they are nerdy scientist that lack the marketing and confidence building skills of a con artist. To top it off they have been so very open: good for academia types, but a no-no for scamer types… except on how the x-ray converter thing works that got me worried.

[Transmute]

Yes but high energy x-rays will also destroy the crystalline structure of any normal p-n junction semi-conductor used for photovoltaics, so it won’t last long enough to be worth it. I’m very hopeful for this technology I would just like to know more about how it will work and defeat problems like x-ray conversion, implying I

[Transmute]

I wouldn

[Transmute]

no no not even theory, they admit they need x-ray conversion: see this thread: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/107/

[Transmute]

I didn’t consider cogen, sure why not in that case its best competition is high Z thermoelectrics.

texaslabrat wrote: It’s great to capture all that waste heat, but if doing so requires the equivalent cost of a whole separate focus fusion reactor just to capture a few extra megawatts of heat…I’ll take another reactor instead and just vent to the environment.

That assuming they can be energy positive without a heat engine, from what they have been saying I think DPF can’t be: most of there energy is still lost in x-rays and they need a means if extracting it, either direct x-ray photovoltaic (how?) or x-rays to a heat engine of some kind (and that heat-sound-electricity qualifies as a heat engine, as it produces pv work though the movement of its piezoelectric components).

[Transmute]

I’ve heard of heat to sound to electricity before, I don’t think its has the efficiency or energy density to compete with a Rankine cycle steam turbines. Steam turbines aren

[Author]

Posts