Fusion reacters are technology

Id like to get an engineering degree with a focus on nuclear power. Am i going to be wasting a lot of time and money?

what kind of technology do you mean?

reminder even the sun is net negative in energy output

>might spark

yeah in 40 years maybe

net negative against what? if stars were unable to produce enough of an energy surplus to counteract gravity then we would live in a universe of nothing but black holes and other compact objects.

>like every other fusion reactor that's ever been built before
Wasnt there that one reactor that produced a net positive amount of energy for a short duration?

I-is that pic real? Isnt that child abuse?

Asians just look so young

>thigh-high

hnnnng

Fukushima also re sparked the fear of nuclear energy on our govt

There's been only 6 accidents with nuclear power plants and all are less harmful then all that co2 that does all the climate change shit

ITER a shit, aneutronic boron-hydrogen fusion best fusion

>In 2025 it will be turned on for the first time
And then scientists will check everything for 10 more years before they'll start using D+T

Get's worse when you start looking into climate science.
The amount of people who are ready to throw us back 100 years because they want to both stop co2 emission and avoid nuclear is insane.

>Obsolete boondoggle based on a dead-end technology
Thermalized fusion is the wrong kind of fusion, we've been "20 years away" for 60 years. We need magnetic/electrostatic confinement, aneutronic fusion (p+B11) and direct electric conversion instead of boiling water in a glorified kettle.

>this user is delusional, take him to the infirmary

I don't take any lib seriously if they bitch about anything involving their Al Gore religion if they also oppose nuclear.

>Asian
>open eyes
What did he mean by this

>for a short duration?

That's the real problem:
Fusion reactors will be insanely expensive to maintain.
Requiring billions in new materials and months of repair after every few weeks of operation.

Which is retarded because Fukushima proved how SAFE nuclear reactors are.
Nothing too serious happened even after getting hit by a tsunami, that is impressive as fuck.

>iter
Too little too late.

Attached: fusion-reactor-stellarator-w7-x-3539x2361.jpg (3539x2361, 3M)

>Nothing too serious happened
(You)

Nuclear is dead because no one wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on a plant that won't start producing electricity for decades at prices that would barely be competitive today while renewables continue to rapidly fall in price.

>renewables continue to rapidly fall in price
Take away the government mandates to use them and the subsidies and we'll see what happens to your wonderful prices.

No one wants to spend the money on a nuclear plant because they take a while to build and the entire time they are under threat from liberals trying to kamikaze the project in person and in court.

>won't start producing electricity for decades
Stop being a hyperbolic piece of shit it doesn't help your case. Nuclear plants take about 6-7 years to construct, not 30. No one wants to take the financial risk of spending that time, however, when some lib politician can pull a Barry the Messiah and at 6.75 years order the construction stopped. That's the issue. Once built nuclear plants cost almost nothing to run.

Point of ITER isn't to straight out produce energy, it's for testing final things for DEMO which is meant to be first prototype of fusion powerplant (and meant to produce more than used and actually produce it as in keep itself float and feed to grid).

Nice, which department are you in? Or are you in a DA?
Less than 3 months ago I integrated the HIT department as an intern.

none of this matters. Oil/coal/natural gas and all petroleum based products are trillion dollar markets. Until we pull every last single drop of black gold from the ground, we won't see ANY major moves forward in Nuclear, solar, or wind technology. Gas companies and oil barons across the globe have far too much invested to let it go easily. Governments too.

Thank you for the talking points, mid 2000's average Democrat

just speaking the truth. Not only the interested parties for money, but entire sectors of economies are based on oil and their by products. What's the last major jump forward in actual, tangible net positive gains we've had in Solar or Nuclear? The US gets 30%-ish of it's power from Nuclear stuff that was built in the 70's. Solar farms still are stuck using panels that at best are 50% efficient.

Here's a conundrum for you, if all the evil petroleum markets were shut down then the free shit paradises of Norway, Denmark and Sweden wouldn't have any way to fund their free shit as they get the bulk of their money to keep the gravy train rolling from its gas and oil leasing

I just started working for company called hbk and they make lot of sensors and are one of the leading companies in this area and that's just one of thinks I'm doing is working on the sensors for ITER

I'm not calling oil evil. Oil and its by products are amazing. It's more the greed of people controlling said oil. And yup, I know. That's the case of all Socialist nations who give out "free shit". The money always has to come from somewhere. It's just mind blowing to me that no one sees the benefits of Nuclear because they can't see past shit like Chernobyl.
>huh? Nuclear is emissions free? and can create power for almost 30 years without stopping?
>Nah, there was a reactor the blew up a long time ago
>Nah, it has nothing to do with shoddy construction by a bunch of cyka Blyat's who didn't know what they were doing nor did they follow proper safety procedures. ALL Nuclear is just dangerous
And then they'll continue to complain about carbon footprints. Could you imagine how little emissions there would be if the US, Russia, and China were majority Nuclear powered?

>consume a small town worth of drinking water and energy
>costs billions
>cannot be repurposed
>creates radioactive garbage which cannot properly be disposed of
10/10

Possibly, tho for the record to convert thats mostly in heat. If we redesign the entire thing to actually generate energy there would be a loss in converting the heat to energy.

The anti-plastic thing is as bad and misguided.

>renewables
All energy is renewable. all energy is solar energy in the end, the sun is the only thing putting energy into the system
Outside of that meme, renewables are only viable because of government funding it

Yea nuclear projects get shut down by assholes who hate jobs and cheap energy constantly :/

And nuclear is also only viable because of the government subsidizing it, except even then it's not viable.

Well desu cheap and disposable plastics in the hands of developing countries has been a disaster for marine ecosystems. See: Plastic rivers

But yeah, anti-plastic politics here in the west is not going to do anything about that.

>net negative against what?
there's an external power source powering all stars

Attached: 1548152303669.jpg (1429x1073, 268K)

Nuclear energy isn't renewable. Unless you want to wait 5 billion years until the Sun starts winking out and starts fusioning bigger nuclei than hydrogen.
Fossil energy (oil, gas,coal) also isn't renewable, at least in human scales. The conditons that produced them are incompatible with current vertebrate life, in fact. But hey, 1 million years is less than 5 billion, I guess.

do you think fusion energy is renewable?

No, but then we're not even talking about billions of years. It's "insert new universe and reboot" timescales.
Besides, we'll boil the oceans a lot sooner than we could make a dent in the supply of fuel.

increased efficiency -> increased consumption
but i think it can delay that power thing until we build the dyson sphere

30 years*

the virgin tokamak vs. the chad stellarator

Except we had Chernobyl. And Fukushima. And Three Mile Island. If the risk of permanent irreversible ecological disaster is more than zero, it's a stupid technology.

Kek is that way bud

>too little
Why do you post a picture that will do even less?

is that board good, then im gonna check it out.

Of course is negative energy output, else it would violate the Second Law.
The point of fusion as replacement of current energy sources is that the fuel is way more efficient and abundant than anything else.

I'm sure this is genius bait and you're only pretending to be retarded, but only norway produces any noteworthy amount of oil and gas. On the other hand, compare oil prices and economic output for china, or for japan or west germany in the 70s and 80s, or wherever else
saudi arabia spends a lot of money on solar and in the past have had some very kooky hydro projects planned in the Gulf specifically BECAUSE their entire economy is based on oil. (and because they know they won't be the first to run out, cf. Iraq which has never given a shit) If you knew that at some uncertain point within the next several decades your entire way of life would evaporate, wouldn't you take an interest in it?

Those all could've been limited if there wasn't massive human errors and the operators were properly trained on what to do in emergency situations or if they had even made a god damn manual for it.

Meanwhile in Australia where there is 0% chance of natural disasters outside of bushfires, everyone wants to go green but refuses to consider nuclear even though we have the majority of the world's uranium.

> scaffolding and shit

You just know some deadbeat contractor is gonna leave his mountain dew bottle in there and fuck the whole thing up

fusion is a boondoggle. It doesn't have as much waste as nuclear, but it still produces neutron radiation that alters the chemical composition of the reactor itself and degrades it rapidly. We were literally just researching it to scare the Soviets.

That would be in the best interest of humanity but not yourself.

you’re actually retarded

so did people figure out fusion recently

after the revolution your reactors will have to be maintained by mcdonalds employees

1 (one) guy died.
It's still sad but how many thousands were killed by the tsunami itself?

This is why they build it in Germany and not America.

is this from e3

fusion will never be net positive energy producer

you’re actually retarded

prove it

Fusion is one of those "just around the corner" technologies for the past 30 years. If it ever shows up, I'll put on my jetpack and fly over to see for myself.

Attached: 1423425292504.png (241x206, 124K)

>reacter
retard

this

Come on. The arc reactor, that's a publicity stunt! Tony, come on. We built that thing to shut the hippies up!

Attached: 468px-Bridges-iron-man-468x301.jpg (468x301, 47K)

>It doesn't have as much waste as nuclear, but it still produces neutron radiation that alters the chemical composition of the reactor itself and degrades it rapidly.

Except said reactors can be recycled after 100 years since half-life periods are much shorter, compared to fucking billions of years of nuclear reactors.

As for the materials, they're still looking for materials that don't degrade that fast.

you just made me realize... aren't fusion reactors very fucking inefficient, seen from that point of view, compared to "green energy" soruces?

That's because fusion has gotten literally fuck all funding other than ITER

There's a bunch of fusion energy startups now that think they can crack it, wouldn't be shocked if one did.

Oh shit I work with you bro.

Aneutronic fusion doesn't do that, also reeeeeing about "radioactive waste" is braindead antivaxxer tier. So little waste would be produced it could literally be dumped in the ocean with no ill-effect. The French power their entire country with fission, which produces much more waste, and have no problem storing it.

Looks like something out of Fallout.
I'm ok with this.

Attached: I_think_she_caused_it.jpg (480x360, 15K)

we can make bags out of porcelain chain

>external power source powering all stars
It's called gravity.

You don't drink desal.

whats fusion?

China is building a fusion reactor even larger than ITER.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Fusion_Engineering_Test_Reactor

They're also targeting for first sustained, net positive energy fusion reactor by 2040, 10 years earlier than ITER/DEMO consortium timeline.

Good news on the ITER side is that the construction is slightly ahead of schedule, a real rarity among international engineering projects.

>Aneutronic fusion
As if normal fusion wasn't adequately vaporware
>also reeeeeing about "radioactive waste" is braindead antivaxxer tier.
Which I wasn't doing. I was pointing out that these hugely complex and expensive machines are self-destroying making them infeasible as a practical power source.

Sometimes, when a deuterium atome loves a tritium adom very very much, they get injected into a high-energy plasma stream that can be theoretically contained by adequately strong electromagnetic fields that practically don't exist and then their nuclei fuse to emit neutron radiations that damage the reactor vessell, wasting tax dollars more efficiently than any other methode nown to mann

Isn't human error an unavoidable reality?

Attached: 1yachsinetb01.jpg (532x280, 18K)

People don't want nuclear energy but it is the only way to get off our addiction to fossil fuels so yeah, it's probably a very good idea

>Pursuing the dead Tokamak design

how to get energy from plasma

if i wasnt 30 id ask her out

There's human error and then there's an absolute clusterfuck of failure on every level from the initial design down through to two entire shift crews.

Modern reactors unironically can't explode, while the RBMK design was made to fucking explode. We have hundreds of tiny reactors aboard submarines all over the world's oceans, sitting in tin cans under high pressure with limited resources of everything except salt water (including air), undergoing jolts and acceleration and in a hypothetical combat scenario being at a constant risk of breach, and there has literally never been a catastrophic accident. Fukushima wasn't built to that design, and after being hit by an earthquake stronger than its designed operating limits AND a tsunami, it underwent failure and meltdown over a controlled period of time, with literally thousands of times less casualties than were caused by the tsunami itself.

Point is, modern nuclear is fucking safe.

plasma is hot
you take heat and out it somewhere else
now plasma is slightly colder and somewhere else is slightly hotter thanks to thermodynamics
then you just make sure the somewhere else is steam and then use hot steam to make electricity like almost every other power generation method we have
once steam has made electricity it cools down and meanwhile more atoms have fused so the plasma has heated back up so you put the steam back and repeat

For me, it's molten salt reactors

can people harness plasma now?
wow

I think it would burn your hands.