Nuclear Power Reborn

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So wait, we have reached a break-even point? Or is it something that appears to be within our grasp in the next few years? Just getting to the break-even point would seem to me like a very significant advance.

I would love to see that, too. Those whose (political) power is solely based on fossil fuels will probably throw a horrific tantrum, which will likely cost lives. But ultimately, the entire world would welcome an end to this form of control, and embrace clean, virtually limitless energy.
A hydrogen-based economy could become more viable - now part of the worry is that producing pure hydrogen would take electricity, generated by burning fossil fuels: burning fossil fuels in power plants to prevent the burning of fossil fuels in cars.

But producing hydrogen from fusion power plants would be a clean way of making an environmentally friendly fuel.

The other option is to hope for some major advance in battery technology between now and then, finally making a long-range electric car a possibility.

We've reached the break-even point. The problem is that there are two types of break-even - reaction and engineering. The first has been reached where we can get more energy out of the reaction than we put into it. For fusion to be a success commercially we need to exceed engineering break-even, which is being able to power the reaction and all power plant sub-systems as well. In order to be a viable energy source a fusion plant will need to produce about 30X the amount of energy required to start and sustain the system. That is also doable and is what we are working towards with the ITER project.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

When you say I overestimate the problem what the heck do you mean? I see the problem as the fact that we are storing nuclear waste all over the place in leaky barrels etc and that we have not cleaned up all the mess in the form of nuclear waste we have already created. This is a fact. The waste has not been put in any permanent storage facility. What is is what will continue to be because nobody will allow nuclear waste to be stored in their state. The problem with nuclear is people. Mothers don't want the stuff anywhere near them. Your technical solutions to them are pure bull sh!t. If it were possible to store nuclear waste it would have been done. And until the mess we have has been safely stored you will know that all talk that it will be is crap. Actions speak louder than words. Clean up and then create more or be known for the delusional liars we are.

leaky barrels? The ones you can hit with a semi truck?

Permanent storage facility? Yucca Mountain was buried in politics but is now operating.

Do you understand nuclear physics at all? The "dangerous" radioactive material is not plutonium, uranium, and thorium isotopes. The dangerous material has a *SHORT* half life, which by definition, gives off more radiation. This is why cooling facilities are at nuclear plants on site. After the short half life material decays, the long half life material which is only dangerous in MASSIVE quantities, and even then only if distributed in a fine powder and inhaled (it is not water soluable) is taken to a storage facility.

Google "Leaky barrels and nuclear waste"

Check YuccaMountain.org for whether YM is operational. And remember Harry Reid says it's dead.

Please don't try to tell me that ALL radioactive wastes are sitting at nuclear sites just to cool off. There is no permanent site for their storage available and they are running out of room for more.

Do I understand nuclear physics at all. Oh golly let me see. Well I do know that I had a deep interest in science from an early age and was reading Einstein in my teens. I know that I went to a large high school and took physics in my Junior year and tons of the seniors in the class used to come to me for the answers to the problems. I remember to my deep and still lasting chagrin that I got a question wrong on a test because my answer was only had half the energy produced by a steam train. Fool that I was I failed to remember, blinded by the image of a car piston, that a steam engine piston is powered in both directions. It still makes me sick I could have made such a blunder. I remember in the 4th grade working nuclear reactors into the fantasy weapons systems I was building and that some of my ideas were used much later in real military applications. I know that I graduated from high school as the science student of the year and that I test as a mechanical genius. And I seem to remember getting an A in chemistry at Berkeley without opening a book.

But I left all that behind to follow where the study of the human mind might lead since I met a different kind of professor, back then, who really knew something.

These days I'm just nobody who knows almost nothing.

It sure seems that way, since you act like a moron on these forums pretty consistantly, and im not trying to attack your credibility about nuclear power. You seem to have a condascending tone about everything regardless of the topic.

Oh and by the way, newtonian physics is not nuclear physics. Im glad you can calculate friction.

You don't understand. I act like a moron pretty consistently on these forums in your opinion. That to me just says you have poor judgment or are lying. And notice that right after you call me condescending you inform me that Newtonian physics ain't Nuclear physics. You better look up that word 'condescending'. From the start of this thread I stated that nuclear power's been a disaster because we won't deal properly with the waste and the public has lost all faith in the nuclear story. The result has been an effort to claim that my reasons for opposing nuclear energy are wrong, that all the fear of nuclear energy is misplaced. But that is not the point. It doesn't matter about me. I knew all that stuff, I would imagine, before many of you were born. What matters is the fact that the waste has not been dealt with properly and what was is a profound indication of what will be. So smoke your dreams of clean up and safe nuclear power, because at this late date it will take a miracle to change what people think. All I have ever heard is that in some glorious day in the future things will all be cleaned up. Get real. Believe it when you see it and don't sh!t anymore till the toilet is flushing again. You will be waiting a long long time, trust me. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. You don't like who you are but in your refusal to see the mothers of this world will try to stop you and your mad ideas from killing their unborn children. No sane person creates toxins that are deadly for thousands of years, but pigs that what to satisfy their sick piggish needs certainly will.

I have taken nuclear physics classes and written 3 papers on the state of commercial nuclear power, new reactor designs, and nuclear reprocessing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Paratus: I understand your point but here's the issue. It's your opinion how "Mothers" feel. The fact is most people are now more concerned over the enviromental impacts of fossil fuels than they are of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement hasn't made there case in nearly 20 years but the environmentalists on global warming sure have.

M: Yes my opinion and more accurate than the one you express here. All you are saying is that the frustration with fossil fuels is rising. That doesn't mean a new majority want to jump from the frying pan into the fire. Most people do not want nuclear radiation anywhere even remotely close to them, still, in my opinion.


P: And I'll continue to use my free speech rights to try and convince people that "no sane person creates toxins that are damaging to themselves and the environement FOREVER when they can create 1,000,000th the toxins that are damaging for a few hundred years"

M: That is what dialog and democracy are all about. The obvious need for alternative energy will negate your points I believe. It's crazy to replace one limited source of energy that is slowly killing the planet, with another that can kill for thousands of years. It's irresponsible and immature and the argument would not be happening if we had gone to war with research in that area instead of Iraq.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've reached the break-even point. The problem is that there are two types of break-even - reaction and engineering. The first has been reached where we can get more energy out of the reaction than we put into it. For fusion to be a success commercially we need to exceed engineering break-even, which is being able to power the reaction and all power plant sub-systems as well. In order to be a viable energy source a fusion plant will need to produce about 30X the amount of energy required to start and sustain the system. That is also doable and is what we are working towards with the ITER project.

Really. I would have expected to have heard about reaching the reaction break-even point. That seems like a pretty significant milestone. When did that happen? Maybe I was thinking of the engineering break-even.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Really. I would have expected to have heard about reaching the reaction break-even point. That seems like a pretty significant milestone. When did that happen? Maybe I was thinking of the engineering break-even.

1996.
Text

Of course, reaching reaction breakeven point is very different from:
a) attaching an energy capture system to the reactor
and
b) achieving a reaction with sufficient gain to overcome the losses in the energy capture and plasma heating systems. Conservative estimates suggest that you need about 10-30 times 'reaction breakeven' to make 'engineering breakeven' possible.

 

[SsupernovaE]

I would chime in, but from experience I know that this type of discussion gets nowhere even if I tell people that I have a degree in physics.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Fact: Coal plants (even the newest ones) release more radioactivity into the environment than the waste from nuclear plants (regardless of how old the reactor models are).

Fact: So-called "alternative" energy sources only provide 10% (best scenario AT THE PRESENT MOMENT) of the overall energy needs.

Fact: Hydroelectric dams destroy many unique natural habitats, and create the premises for unknown long-term environmental changes.

Fact: Windmill farms are ugly and dangerous (just ask the Dutch members of these forums)

Fact: All energy-exchange schemes (such as using tides or wind) will be substracting other energy from the environment - with unknown consequences.

Fact: Solar is the only serious contender for the "clean energy" crown - but unless better cells are produced, the current output vs. surface ratio is still insufficient for large-scale implementation.

Fact: No other viable (as in large-scale, cheap, widespread) energy source exists at this point, and the best predictions indicate we won't see a breakthrough for another decade.

What do we do in the meantime? Forgo the safest and cheapest (AT THE PRESENT MOMENT) technology that we have available, just because some people are irrationally afraid of the word NUCLEAR ? Are you really implying that the best minds in every country won't be able to find a way to bury the waste forever in the most tectonically-inactive regions of the planet? All it takes is 10,000 years of peace and quiet (an infinitesimal number on the geological age scale) for that radioactivity to pose no additional risks.

I have next to me a forecast indicating Canada's total projected nuclear waste by 2035 will be slightly under 15,000 cubic metres. If anyone honestly thinks that such a volume cannot be dealt with, they must be really in need of a serious reality check.

 

[QuantumPion]

Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Fact: Coal plants (even the newest ones) release more radioactivity into the environment than the waste from nuclear plants (regardless of how old the reactor models are).

Fact: So-called "alternative" energy sources only provide 10% (best scenario AT THE PRESENT MOMENT) of the overall energy needs.

Fact: Hydroelectric dams destroy many unique natural habitats, and create the premises for unknown long-term environmental changes.

Fact: Windmill farms are ugly and dangerous (just ask the Dutch members of these forums)

Fact: All energy-exchange schemes (such as using tides or wind) will be substracting other energy from the environment - with unknown consequences.

Fact: Solar is the only serious contender for the "clean energy" crown - but unless better cells are produced, the current output vs. surface ratio is still insufficient for large-scale implementation.

Fact: No other viable (as in large-scale, cheap, widespread) energy source exists at this point, and the best predictions indicate we won't see a breakthrough for another decade.

What do we do in the meantime? Forgo the safest and cheapest (AT THE PRESENT MOMENT) technology that we have available, just because some people are irrationally afraid of the word NUCLEAR ? Are you really implying that the best minds in every country won't be able to find a way to bury the waste forever in the most tectonically-inactive regions of the planet? All it takes is 10,000 years of peace and quiet (an infinitesimal number on the geological age scale) for that radioactivity to pose no additional risks.

I have next to me a forecast indicating Canada's total projected nuclear waste by 2035 will be slightly under 15,000 cubic metres. If anyone honestly thinks that such a volume cannot be dealt with, they must be really in need of a serious reality check.

We CAN deal with nuclear waste. We won't, however, because we have always been able to deal with it and haven't. We have met the enemy and he is us. We are pigs. You may not like it but look at what is to know what will be. It's just that simple. A pig lives in a sty not a file cabinet and hypothetical alternative realities won't get him to move. You dream on. I will change my mind when I see all the waste safely and intelligently stored. You keel sh!tting in that overflowing toilet. I want moratorium on insanity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

All this damn technology you're using to post this message requires the use of toxic chemicals to make. It contributed to a lot of waste over the years for R&D, some of it also toxic, including heavy metals.

Hell, some people might say that the earliest "scientists," those who learned how to make fire, or those who were into weapons research (pointy rocks tied to sticks) were unleashing inventions upon the world which the species wasn't "mature" enough to handle.

So in that respect, how far back do you propose we turn the clock?


I do think that we need to lift the moronic ban on reprocessing. Weapons proliferation concerns? Please. If the government really wants to make weapons, they're going to do it, ban or no ban. Reprocessing will reduce the amount of waste, and allow for the extraction of more energy from a given quantity of ore. As for storing the waste, I'm not as much of an expert on that. That Yucca Mountain thing sounded good, but I don't know where that's going, or what more is being done on the project.

People don't like the idea of burying nuclear waste anywhere (anywhere) remotely nearby, partly because people just freak out about anything dealing with "nuclear" or "radiation." People were scared about "irradiating" food because it would somehow make the food radioactive. People don't have a clue about it. The politicians who decide funding don't have a clue.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

The product of scientific research is neither "good" or "bad". The use those products are put to can, on the other hand, be classified as good or evil. Not to mention that in many cases, scientific progress leads to a heightened ability to commit both types of acts.

Example: Research in the 1950s and 1960s led satellite technology and all its wonderful benefits (GPS, cell phones, imaging technology), but all of those things were really merely the byproduct of the race to create intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. The means were neutral, the ends were both good and evil.

I don't expect you to grasp any of this.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Honestly, I give up on any further attempt to bring science and reason to this thread... dissapointingly, it has become a personal trolling playground for certain members, and a hotbed for incoherent knee-jerk reactions and mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Honestly, I give up on any further attempt to bring science and reason to this thread... dissapointingly, it has become a personal trolling playground for certain members, and a hotbed for incoherent knee-jerk reactions and mumbo-jumbo.

Good, you're beginning to catch on. The Mothers don't care about your version of science and reason and the sooner you move on to some form of energy they will support the better off you will be. You have the same kind of mentality that tries to tell the fundamentalist there's no God instead of seeing the good things about his religion he believes in so strongly out of his own internal morality.

Butting your head against a wall is great if you like to suffer. and that's exactly why people do it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

The product of scientific research is neither "good" or "bad". The use those products are put to can, on the other hand, be classified as good or evil. Not to mention that in many cases, scientific progress leads to a heightened ability to commit both types of acts.

Example: Research in the 1950s and 1960s led satellite technology and all its wonderful benefits (GPS, cell phones, imaging technology), but all of those things were really merely the byproduct of the race to create intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. The means were neutral, the ends were both good and evil.

I don't expect you to grasp any of this.

Your expectations have little to do with reality and I asked the nuclear engineer. But to trade expectations I would venture the guess I've been grappling with this issue since before you were born and know very well all the pat answers. You should know, however, there are lots and lots of nuclear scientists who felt much guilt when several hundred thousand Japanese went up in radioactive smoke. And why a Union of Concerned Scientists?

I have posted a thousand times here that the day is coming when a smart teen will be able to create a molecular nano-disassembler that can turn the earth to dust. The survival of man depends on his emotional health and that's my core issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jeff7: Hell, some people might say that the earliest "scientists," those who learned how to make fire, or those who were into weapons research (pointy rocks tied to sticks) were unleashing inventions upon the world which the species wasn't "mature" enough to handle.

So in that respect, how far back do you propose we turn the clock?

M: Can't be turned back.... What we need is to catch up emotionally to our level of handling fire so we don't burn ourselves out of unconscious self hate.

J: I do think that we need to lift the moronic ban on reprocessing. Weapons proliferation concerns? Please. If the government really wants to make weapons, they're going to do it, ban or no ban. Reprocessing will reduce the amount of waste, and allow for the extraction of more energy from a given quantity of ore. As for storing the waste, I'm not as much of an expert on that. That Yucca Mountain thing sounded good, but I don't know where that's going, or what more is being done on the project.

M: I think we need to stop making more and work to get everybody else to do the same.

J: People don't like the idea of burying nuclear waste anywhere (anywhere) remotely nearby, partly because people just freak out about anything dealing with "nuclear" or "radiation." People were scared about "irradiating" food because it would somehow make the food radioactive. People don't have a clue about it. The politicians who decide funding don't have a clue.

M: Yes and out of that reality no safe storage will emerge in your back yard. Waste will continue to accumulate and be stored unsafely for future generations to deal with as is the way of pigs. You are clear about reality, now look at the implications. People are not yet affected by reason.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

Good lord you're a flaming idiot and a trollish tool. The guy is offering to answer questions and you have to be complete dolt and a high-horsed ass to him. Climb down fool before you fall off and bonk your head...again.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

Good lord you're a flaming idiot and a trollish tool. The guy is offering to answer questions and you have to be complete dolt and a high-horsed ass to him. Climb down fool before you fall off and bonk your head...again.

Why you dirty underbridged boojum, where in what I said is there anything that stops you from asking any question you may have. He said he would answer ANY question no, and I will determine what my own questions will be. You have completely smeared him by suggesting that I, a nobody, could possibly harm his reputation or hurt his feelings The man? is a nuclear engineer and doesn't need some soft ball brain like yourself defending him from slights that you in your arrogance assume he is so emotionally disturbed he must feel. You speak for yourself you ass but if he happens to agree with you fine. You would perhaps have noted, had you not your butt in your ear, that I have maintained from the beginning of this thread a point of view impervious to reason. There are no answers to questions nuclear he can give that will change that and my questions were aimed there, that what we need is not reason but wisdom, human emotional intelligence and not engineering or science.

OK, stupid, you have the floor, ask him your burning questions. I am sure you have some deep interest in the subject here, right, and must be filled with them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I do have another question now that I think about it. TLC said we have reached break even with fusion but I can't confirm it. Can you?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

Good lord you're a flaming idiot and a trollish tool. The guy is offering to answer questions and you have to be complete dolt and a high-horsed ass to him. Climb down fool before you fall off and bonk your head...again.

Why you dirty underbridged boojum, where in what I said is there anything that stops you from asking any question you may have. He said he would answer ANY question no, and I will determine what my own questions will be. You have completely smeared him by suggesting that I, a nobody, could possibly harm his reputation or hurt his feelings The man? is a nuclear engineer and doesn't need some soft ball brain like yourself defending him from slights that you in your arrogance assume he is so emotionally disturbed he must feel. You speak for yourself you ass but if he happens to agree with you fine. You would perhaps have noted, had you not your butt in your ear, that I have maintained from the beginning of this thread a point of view impervious to reason. There are no answers to questions nuclear he can give that will change that and my questions were aimed there, that what we need is not reason but wisdom, human emotional intelligence and not engineering or science.

OK, stupid, you have the floor, ask him your burning questions. I am sure you have some deep interest in the subject here, right, and must be filled with them.

Why would he even want to come back after your troll response?

Get back to flipping burgers while contemplating what moronic Nietzsche-isms you can spew next.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

Good lord you're a flaming idiot and a trollish tool. The guy is offering to answer questions and you have to be complete dolt and a high-horsed ass to him. Climb down fool before you fall off and bonk your head...again.

Why you dirty underbridged boojum, where in what I said is there anything that stops you from asking any question you may have. He said he would answer ANY question no, and I will determine what my own questions will be. You have completely smeared him by suggesting that I, a nobody, could possibly harm his reputation or hurt his feelings The man? is a nuclear engineer and doesn't need some soft ball brain like yourself defending him from slights that you in your arrogance assume he is so emotionally disturbed he must feel. You speak for yourself you ass but if he happens to agree with you fine. You would perhaps have noted, had you not your butt in your ear, that I have maintained from the beginning of this thread a point of view impervious to reason. There are no answers to questions nuclear he can give that will change that and my questions were aimed there, that what we need is not reason but wisdom, human emotional intelligence and not engineering or science.

OK, stupid, you have the floor, ask him your burning questions. I am sure you have some deep interest in the subject here, right, and must be filled with them.

Why would he even want to come back after your troll response?

Get back to flipping burgers while contemplating what moronic Nietzsche-isms you can spew next.

My response does not become a troll response because you lack comprehension nor does it have to drive people away because it offended a fool like you. And know that you are immature and arrogant responses are always welcome with me. You are an excellent example of how thinking people ought not to be. But if you prefer something more on your level, the only burgers I flip are meat heads like you.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

Seems easy to me.
Don't tell them anything, since they're ignorant to begin with, they might as well stay that way while enjoying their electricity powered computers, TV's, etc.
There's no reason to let stupid people get in the way of progress.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I do have another question now that I think about it. TLC said we have reached break even with fusion but I can't confirm it. Can you?

The JT-60 torus created a plasma with Q=1 for 30 seconds or so. Q=1 means that the fusion power is equal to the external heating power, but this does not include the power for the magnetic confinement, which is pretty large. The ITER project's goals are to create a sustained plasma with Q=5, which is the "real" breakeven point.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Why do scientists and engineers continue to build things people don't have the emotional maturity to handle? Why have you guys tagged yourselves as Mad? Why are engineers famous for being dorks that don't display normal feelings? Why do you trade your intellectual powers for money when what you create is often bad for people? Why with all your brains do you often have such low emotional intelligence?

42.

Any more questions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Hi, I actually am a nuclear engineer and work for a power company. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I do have another question now that I think about it. TLC said we have reached break even with fusion but I can't confirm it. Can you?

The JT-60 torus created a plasma with Q=1 for 30 seconds or so. Q=1 means that the fusion power is equal to the external heating power, but this does not include the power for the magnetic confinement, which is pretty large. The ITER project's goals are to create a sustained plasma with Q=5, which is the "real" breakeven point.

Thank you, most interesting.