I worked on reactors in the Navy. If done properly, it can provide hundreds of years of energy, and the waste is not as bad as people think if handled judiciously and carefully. The problem is the MSM amplified the accidents more than was necessary and didn't look at the overall picture regarding earth's energy resources.
Via electrolysis, we can crack water into H2 & O. What if there are certain Very High Frequencies (VHF) that excite water molecules that cause them to crack?
Amazing plan God provided for us. A planet covered in 70% water and a continuous source of energy free for everyone.
Strange that everyone who invented cars that run on water had bizarre deaths.
Yes, and in the article they bash the discovery saying that it won't be a viable option for a long time. Maybe it was a legitimate discovery from our side, so the media is trying to downplay the innovation.
I suspect they've had fusion technology for decades but kept it for themselves. This is either a White Hat release, or the cabal realizes they're losing control and are desperately trickling this out to try and get us back in line and reliant on them for access to the new technology.
These points are nonsense, which I learned from workers in the field when I was in grad school, 50 years ago.
Pollution/waste: The deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction produces most of its energy in the form of 14 MeV neutrons, which transmute the elements of the reactor structure into radioactive isotopes. This has long been called the "first wall problem," and it necessitates the periodic removal of the first wall of the reactor and its complete replacement. The removed wall is radioactive waste. We wouldn't have this problem if we could achieve the D-D reaction---but the current fusion technology cannot attain the temperatures necessary.
Cheap/widely available "stuff": Deuterium is commonly available from heavy water. Not a problem, but... Tritium essentially does not exist in nature and must be produced by the irradiation by neutrons of lithium, so it will break down into tritium---which is a radioactive isotope. I hope you realize that there is only so much lithium in the world, and it is being currently sought and acquired for "green" electric propulsion. The interesting question is whether we will run out of lithium before we can run out of uranium and thorium. There is plenty of the latter; the seawater alone carries phenomenal quantities in solution.
The real answer is that there is no "global warming" problem requiring the abandonment of hydrocarbon fuels. And no nuclear waste problem requiring the abandonment of nuclear power. And the use of nuclear power can permit the synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels from carbonaceous material and water, should there be any geological shortage.
Wait a minute, carbonaceous material, like the calcium carbonate produced in the billions of tonnes in the sea by Coccolithophores that settles, ends up miles under subsequent layers, and gets subducted to regions of high temperature and pressure along with the water.... and produces... dinosaur juice?
Crude oil isn't produced by pressing any sort of former living things. The element profiles are very different, after you get past the common elements C, O, and H. There are a number of elements that appear in crude, but not in any living thing. There are also elements that appear in almost all living things, but doesn't appear in crude.
Does it? I've never thought of petroleum as "dinosaur juice." I'm more taken by Vladimir Larin's theory that it is the result of hydrogen gas percolating upward through the mantle, scavenging carbon by reduction chemistry. (The hydrogen comes from degassing metallic hydrides at the core of the Earth.)
But, yeah, with available nuclear heat one could make hydrocarbon fuel from limestone and water.
The Secretary General of ITER (hot fusion) has admitted last month that hot fusion does not produce more energy than it consumes, its a complete lie from start to finish..
The reaction always produces net energy (see any thermonuclear bomb test). The problem is that the reactor technology consumes energy in order to produce the energy. Now, this is true of essentially every power plant. A coal-fired plant or a hydroelectric dam require electric power for the lights, the offices, and the power-generating machinery. But it is a trifle compared to the power that is produced, so there is no harm. The problem with fusion is the challenge to attain "net" power production---power in excess of that required to sustain the reaction.
So, it is not really a lie---it was a mistaken statement. Unless it was made with deliberate prevarication, which would have to be proven. The devil is in the details. According to energy accounting, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It is easy to get misled by enthusiasm.
If we were serious about "zero emissions" vehicles, we could have CNG filling stations all over the country. CNG works perfectly fine and we know how to make vehicles that use it.
We are not a serious country, with all of this windmill bullshit.
Unfortunately people have been brainwashed into believing CO2 is a pollutant.
Nuclear power is true zero-emissions. NOTHING is released to the environment except the water that was used to power the turbines - and that NEVER had any contact with any Nuclear materials. The water that touches the rods is kept under high pressure and does not leave the system.
"For avoidance of doubt", I am super-pro Nuke, provided we do the pebble bed blah blah. What you say here is why the original designs were always solid. But the new pebble bed can't melt down reactors is a new level of "peace of mind" and something that I believe we could market to Johnny Dumbshit.
But also-also, I believe that CNG is a good solution for home heating and vehicles. And we are being clowntastic about it. Frankly I am pro-unleaded gasoline, but that is a bridge too far for the Wokies, so give them something with "zero farts", like CNG, so they can feel like they extracted their pound of flesh.
EDIT: I should add also that I am pro-Diesel. Because I am not a moron. :)
We already have cheap, zero pollution energy.
It's called nuclear energy, and it is a proven technology.
People who pretend they will accept "newer" tech but also reject nuclear tech are idiots.
They can heat their home with dried cow chips.
I worked on reactors in the Navy. If done properly, it can provide hundreds of years of energy, and the waste is not as bad as people think if handled judiciously and carefully. The problem is the MSM amplified the accidents more than was necessary and didn't look at the overall picture regarding earth's energy resources.
Energy Engineer here:
What if we already have it?
Via electrolysis, we can crack water into H2 & O. What if there are certain Very High Frequencies (VHF) that excite water molecules that cause them to crack?
Amazing plan God provided for us. A planet covered in 70% water and a continuous source of energy free for everyone.
Strange that everyone who invented cars that run on water had bizarre deaths.
Edit: Harry Cockburn, really?
Electromagnetic waves cost energy to make. The higher the frequency, the higher the cost.
I like the optimism, but… until you have something to show for that idea all I can say is “good luck”.
Yes, and in the article they bash the discovery saying that it won't be a viable option for a long time. Maybe it was a legitimate discovery from our side, so the media is trying to downplay the innovation.
I suspect they've had fusion technology for decades but kept it for themselves. This is either a White Hat release, or the cabal realizes they're losing control and are desperately trickling this out to try and get us back in line and reliant on them for access to the new technology.
(See: petro dollar)
Thank you for your service pede!
You're welcome fren. 👍
Fusion energy IS nuclear energy. It is better because it does not produce pollution or waste of any kind and runs on cheap, widely available stuff.
These points are nonsense, which I learned from workers in the field when I was in grad school, 50 years ago.
Pollution/waste: The deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction produces most of its energy in the form of 14 MeV neutrons, which transmute the elements of the reactor structure into radioactive isotopes. This has long been called the "first wall problem," and it necessitates the periodic removal of the first wall of the reactor and its complete replacement. The removed wall is radioactive waste. We wouldn't have this problem if we could achieve the D-D reaction---but the current fusion technology cannot attain the temperatures necessary.
Cheap/widely available "stuff": Deuterium is commonly available from heavy water. Not a problem, but... Tritium essentially does not exist in nature and must be produced by the irradiation by neutrons of lithium, so it will break down into tritium---which is a radioactive isotope. I hope you realize that there is only so much lithium in the world, and it is being currently sought and acquired for "green" electric propulsion. The interesting question is whether we will run out of lithium before we can run out of uranium and thorium. There is plenty of the latter; the seawater alone carries phenomenal quantities in solution.
The real answer is that there is no "global warming" problem requiring the abandonment of hydrocarbon fuels. And no nuclear waste problem requiring the abandonment of nuclear power. And the use of nuclear power can permit the synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels from carbonaceous material and water, should there be any geological shortage.
Wait a minute, carbonaceous material, like the calcium carbonate produced in the billions of tonnes in the sea by Coccolithophores that settles, ends up miles under subsequent layers, and gets subducted to regions of high temperature and pressure along with the water.... and produces... dinosaur juice?
Crude oil isn't produced by pressing any sort of former living things. The element profiles are very different, after you get past the common elements C, O, and H. There are a number of elements that appear in crude, but not in any living thing. There are also elements that appear in almost all living things, but doesn't appear in crude.
So there's no such thing as "dinosaur juice."
Does it? I've never thought of petroleum as "dinosaur juice." I'm more taken by Vladimir Larin's theory that it is the result of hydrogen gas percolating upward through the mantle, scavenging carbon by reduction chemistry. (The hydrogen comes from degassing metallic hydrides at the core of the Earth.)
But, yeah, with available nuclear heat one could make hydrocarbon fuel from limestone and water.
The Secretary General of ITER (hot fusion) has admitted last month that hot fusion does not produce more energy than it consumes, its a complete lie from start to finish..
https://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/11/15/new-head-of-iter-organization-withdraws-reactor-net-energy-claim/
The reaction always produces net energy (see any thermonuclear bomb test). The problem is that the reactor technology consumes energy in order to produce the energy. Now, this is true of essentially every power plant. A coal-fired plant or a hydroelectric dam require electric power for the lights, the offices, and the power-generating machinery. But it is a trifle compared to the power that is produced, so there is no harm. The problem with fusion is the challenge to attain "net" power production---power in excess of that required to sustain the reaction.
So, it is not really a lie---it was a mistaken statement. Unless it was made with deliberate prevarication, which would have to be proven. The devil is in the details. According to energy accounting, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It is easy to get misled by enthusiasm.
Fantastic knowledge. Thanks, Fren!
**This is probably a white hat technology declass/release.
Like banana peels and coffee grounds and leftover beer? Like Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion?
I do want me one of those. Seriously.
Fusion is nuclear...current nuclear is fission
If we were serious about "zero emissions" vehicles, we could have CNG filling stations all over the country. CNG works perfectly fine and we know how to make vehicles that use it.
We are not a serious country, with all of this windmill bullshit.
Unfortunately people have been brainwashed into believing CO2 is a pollutant.
Nuclear power is true zero-emissions. NOTHING is released to the environment except the water that was used to power the turbines - and that NEVER had any contact with any Nuclear materials. The water that touches the rods is kept under high pressure and does not leave the system.
"For avoidance of doubt", I am super-pro Nuke, provided we do the pebble bed blah blah. What you say here is why the original designs were always solid. But the new pebble bed can't melt down reactors is a new level of "peace of mind" and something that I believe we could market to Johnny Dumbshit.
But also-also, I believe that CNG is a good solution for home heating and vehicles. And we are being clowntastic about it. Frankly I am pro-unleaded gasoline, but that is a bridge too far for the Wokies, so give them something with "zero farts", like CNG, so they can feel like they extracted their pound of flesh.
EDIT: I should add also that I am pro-Diesel. Because I am not a moron. :)
Nothing will replace diesel and gasoline. It's too much power, safely packaged in a small amount of mass.