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.
"Dinosaur juice" I thought was non-sequitur enough to signal sarcasm. Not to worry, the meaning is the understanding so I will take the blame for not including a /s
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.
I'm not a geologist. Where would I have heard of "the dominant theory," and did you just describe it? I asked a simple question and you could have answered it, but all you did was question my question. Not a very straightforward conversational manner. I do recommend reading Larin's book. He makes a very detailed case for consideration.
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.
I tip my hat. I got only 7 pages into the 37, but this fellow seems to have caught them red-handed. Sadly, as I said, the devil is in the details---and they chose to cook the books.
What I think is more telling, however, is the desperation for funding that this reveals, the willingness of scientists to be corrupt and dishonest, and the huge distance fusion is from any practical application. Truly, it will always be 30 years away. Fusion proponents need to digest this prevarication and learn a lesson.
Thanks for proving your point. Most excellently done.
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."
Bless you Aspie.
"Dinosaur juice" I thought was non-sequitur enough to signal sarcasm. Not to worry, the meaning is the understanding so I will take the blame for not including a /s
I don't catch those sometimes with the sarc tag. As an old Aspie, I've learned enough rules to seem normal most of the time, but I still have lapses.
BTW, "fossil" fuel is a pet peeve. The only real fossil fuel is coal.
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.
You never heard of the dominant theory? ok
I'm not a geologist. Where would I have heard of "the dominant theory," and did you just describe it? I asked a simple question and you could have answered it, but all you did was question my question. Not a very straightforward conversational manner. I do recommend reading Larin's book. He makes a very detailed case for consideration.
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.
There is this, its not complete proof that they lied but it look quite likely that some of them did.
https://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/The-Dark-Side-of-ITER-20200615.pdf
I tip my hat. I got only 7 pages into the 37, but this fellow seems to have caught them red-handed. Sadly, as I said, the devil is in the details---and they chose to cook the books.
What I think is more telling, however, is the desperation for funding that this reveals, the willingness of scientists to be corrupt and dishonest, and the huge distance fusion is from any practical application. Truly, it will always be 30 years away. Fusion proponents need to digest this prevarication and learn a lesson.
Thanks for proving your point. Most excellently done.
Fantastic knowledge. Thanks, Fren!