Let me give you a heads up that net energy creation nuclear fusion is not possible unless you literally create a Sun. None of the companies you can invest in for the next couple centuries are going to be able to do that. Stay away from this scam
>>62728516Wanna know how we know you failed every physics course you've ever taken?
>>62728516Don’t care still buying nuke stocks
>>62728547please go on
>>62728547You don't know what you're talking about do you?
>>62728516Yeah that and you can tell em there's no miles thick lead container that'll ever allow it and whatever else til we're blue in the face, unless they tune the ear you already know they'll never truly hear. My going hypothesis currently is a language calculator may eventually reduce bullshitters. At whatever timescale that occurs. No idea if that'll change things even, let's let things evolve
>>62728516>you can't create combustion engines unless you literally create a volcano.
>>62728547Solved those magneto-hydrodynamic instabilities yet? I didn't think so.
>>62728516Besides, fusion is totally unneeded for the foreseeable future. Fission, properly done using breeder tech and thorium, will provide enough energy for a thousand years. And fission is already available technology.
>>62728516I don't want to create energy, I just want to release the energy that's in the fuel.
>>62728516>/biz/ - Tokamaks & Cold Fusion Reactors
>>62728516Just last year there was the first energy-positive test. If something is theoretically possible but just very hard, it will be done. Especially when we're talking about infinite free energy.>unless you literally create a SunThat happened over 70 years ago retard.
>>62728516I dont care. I wanna make profit and LOTS of it
>>62728516>>62728547>>62728572I have a fusion reactor in my balls.
>>62728547Do you understand how much energy it takes to separate deuterium and tritium from all the other hydrogen out there?Do you understand how little deuterium and tritium are actually present on Earth?This is no different from ethanol subsidies -- sure, let's have farmers burn diesel (which is essentially all oil, can't put ethanol in it) to plant and harvest shitloads of corn, which then gets trucked to processors, which then ferment it to produce ethanol, which then extract the ethanol and truck it to refineries, which then add 10% or 15% or 85% ethanol to gasoline. Oh, all that planting, harvesting, and trucking burns up more oil than if you just let cars drive on 100% gasoline? Fuck you for hating farmers, Anon! What are you, some kind of capitalist economist?!
>>62729980If something is theoretically possible but very hard, it will only be done if it is profitable or heavily subsidized. Fusion is only even being attempted because it is heavily subsidized. Even if the entire process becomes energy positive at a practical scale it will still not be deployed commercially because it will be more expensive than existing tech.
>>62728516>unless you literally create a SunWrong.The Sun has a mass of about 2*10^30kg and a luminosity of about 4*10^26W. This means it has a power density of about 0.2W per ton. A fusion reactor needs to do way better than the Sun.
>>62730221Uranium is costly and energy-intensive to enrich and it's still worthwhile because you get so much energy out of it.The fact that Canadian and Indian nuclear reactors each use hundreds of tons of reactor-grade heavy water as coolant and moderator, indicates that deuterium is not very hard to separate.Generally, you wouldn't separate tritium from natural hydrogen. You separate tritium from tritium-rich material produced by irradiating lithium-6 or deuterium with neutrons, such as those generated in a nuclear reactor. Tritium for US nuclear bombs is produced at the Watts Bar NPP, which is a normal commercial power plant. Tritium is also used in self-luminescent emergency lighting and wrist watches. The cost of tritium could probably be brought down with economies of scale if there were more use cases for it.You need to show an actual calculation if you want to demonstrate that something is not worthwhile.
>>62728516don't care we got thorium thats what we need
>>62728516Net energy creation nuclear fusion has already been achieved, but it's only been in very small amounts.
>>62728516Wind + solar with natgas backup shit on fission and fusion.Fuck your water-wasting, monolithic and over-engineered bull crap.
>>62732765Nuclear power is vastly superior to wind and solar power for thermal applications, because the thermal output of a nuclear power plant is 2-3 times higher than the electrical output.Although this fact has not been exploited much so far, in China they are now starting to upgrade petrochemical plants with nuclear reactors (e.g. Xuwei NPP is being built to provide process steam to the Lianyungang petrochemical plant).Nuclear power can be superior to wind and solar for electrical power generation wherever the weather can be uncooperative for long periods and legal/political reasons make it inconvenient to build very long transmission lines. So, in other words, in much of Europe.
>>62732882>the thermal output of a nuclear power plant is 2-3 times higher than the electrical output.Shit argument. Heat output is a huge problem because NPPs need lots of water for cooling. Fusion is slightly more water efficient since it's safer to run at higher temperatures but it still requires plenty of water. Nobody is exploiting the heat because it's expensive and inefficient to transport. There aren't thousands of homes to heat near a NPP and they don't need much heat during summer.
>>62732882>the weather can be uncooperative for long periodsThat's what the natgas backup is for, fucktard.>>62732882>legal/political reasons make it inconvenient to build very long transmission linesThat's actually another huge disadvantage of nuclear. It's a huge ass facility that you can't build where the electricity is needed while you can have solar on every roof. Even natgas power plants can be relatively small.
>>62732907That is true only for pure electrical generation. For thermal applications, you can use the waste heat for useful purposes, so it's not actually wasted.Many NPPs serve dual purpose for district heating. There are not enough customers to consume all the power output of an NPP, but using some heat for thermal applications significantly improves the economics of the NPP. Many NPPs are configured so that you can vary thermal and electrical output depending on which is most in demand, depending on season. However, district heating wasn't my point. My point was industrial applications, for which a nearby customer can consume 100% of the power output of an entire NPP as thermal power.I already pointed to an example of a project to exploit heat from an NPP for industrial purposes. There are other examples that are already operating. China's Heqi-1 project already uses some power from the Tianwan NPP to provide process steam to the Lianyungang petrochemical plant, although this was a retrofit since Tianwan NPP was not originally built for this task. The under-construction Xuwei NPP is designed so that the power output from 1 out of 2 pressurized water reactors and all 6 high-temperature gas reactors can be used for thermal applications at any given time. Future projects in planning envision 100% of plant power output being used for thermal applications, for example the NPP planned at the Maoming petrochemical plant.All thermal-to-electric power plants, not just NPPs, need coolant, and it is not a problem. If there is a lack of water, just build more cooling towers to make more efficient use of available water. Palo Verde NPP is built in the literal desert and is cooled using municipal sewage.
remember when there was a rumor on twitter than some randos created room temperature superconductor and people actually took it seriously for several days that was wild
>>62732921You might need to run gas plants a lot if the weather is often uncooperative. Natural gas is costly for most countries, but more importantly, as we've seen recently, natural gas import dependency can be a huge risk, the market is highly volatile, and shipping routes and underwater pipelines are huge vulnerabilities, so you don't want to use any more natural gas than you yourself produce.Nuclear fuel is cheap compared to the cost of the power plant and is very energy dense, so you can easily store many years worth of fuel on hand. Uranium can be sourced from many places; you can even extract it from sea water at a cost that is not unreasonable.You can build an NPP within a few dozen kilometers of a load center, within the same jurisdiction. Suitable weather for wind and solar might be hundreds of kilometers or even thousands of kilometers away, across multiple jurisdictions that could obstruct construction permits or decide to cut the chord at any time.
>>62728516>is not possible unless you literally create a SunCouldn't they simply line the interior walls of the nuclear fusion reactor with solar panels?There, I solved it.
>>62733002>Uranium can be sourced from many places;Uranium is super abundant and cheap. Enrichment facilities are not. This creates significant dependency issues.>>62733002>You can build an NPP within a few dozen kilometers of a load centerYou can start planing now and if you are lucky the project will not be abandoned and start to produce the first energy 20 years later when the AI race is already over.
>>62732558No it hasn't actually
>>62728516Yeah, but everything under the nuclear umbrella (fission and fusion) are still miles better than combustion processes, geo, hydro, and wind put together from a material efficiency standpoint.I'm pretty sure the only reason there's been such push back against nuke plants is because the 'right' people aren't poised to stay on top if these plants actually go into production
>>62733604How is fusion better than hydro if fusion literally doesn't work and never will work? Do you think anons are that stupid to read your message and believe you?
>>62733604Hydro literally shits in the mouth of nuclear every day of the week.
>>62733646>doesn't work and will never workThat's funny, I see Sol working right nowThe 2 current competing designs we have for fusion might be unworkable pipe dreams in practice (idk), but saying we can't harness it ever is just being negative>>62733783That's neat (it doesn't). If only we had gargantuan rivers from which to harness this energy in every county.
>>62729302bad analogy, an ICE is not a volcano
>>62733804Then how much energy went into making the Sun, genius?
>>62733858>pretending to pose a thoughtful question as a 'gotcha'Its clear your imagination is meager enough that you believe the answer to your own question is perpetually 'too much'And yet fusion processes have occurred, naturally, without human intervention, literally trillions of times.Just because we probably won't live to see this tech harnessed doesn't mean its impossible to do at (lesser) scale.
>>62734116>No company can do it for 1000 yearsThen why would you invest in it? Isn't this the point of the thread?
>>62728516>net energy creation nuclear fusion is not possibleI miss the good old times when scientist could just come up with nice ideas like project pacer
>>62729980>Just last year there was the first energy-positive testcan you post more info about this? there seems to be one of these "net positive energy test" every year that turns out to be fake
>nex coupla cenchuries...they said that when the first electric lights were switched on, and now, less than 150 years later, everyone has a high resolution pocket computer, connected to a world of digital infrastructure.
