China Claims Successful Fusion Power Test

SeaDour writes, "China claims to have carried out a successful test of its experimental thermonuclear fusion reactor. But what exactly made this test 'successful' is not clear. From the article: 'Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds. The report did not specify whether the device... had succeeded at producing more energy than it consumed, the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable.'" China is a participant in the 10-nation ITER project to build a fusion reactor in the south of France by 2015. The article quotes the research head of ITER as saying, "It was important for China to show that it is part of the club. Here are English language versions of the Chinese news release: announcement, background.

China's definition of success

[davidwr]

"We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."

Re:China's definition of success

[LoudMusic]

"We're pleased to announce we are still here to report the results."

Hey, nothing wrong with that. I've said it plenty of times myself.

(:

Re:China's definition of success

[steveo777]

It reminds me of the typical physics student's t-shirts and lab coats. On the back is something printed to the effect of, "[some school] Physics. If you see us running, try to keep up."

Re:China's definition of success

[otis wildflower]

"Do not look into laser with remaining eye".

Re:

[secolactico]

"Free Lasik Surgery" -- in a label next to a FC port.

Re:China's definition of success

[CthulhuDreamer]

With the bomb squad, you can usually stop running after the first couple of blocks. If it involves the physics department, keep going.

Re:

[Tim C]

I've seen that one, and I've also seen "pyrotechnics engineer".

You must work for the Government.

[Kadin2048]

Only the NSA would think that a spy satellite is needed in order to read a press release.

Re:

[Tim C]

What do you think is powering the lasers? Fairy dust?!

Re:China's definition of success, likely a lie.

[killjoe]

Go to any elite engineering school and take a survey of the top 10% of the students there. I would be shocked if at least 50% of those students are not chinese. I don't mean chinese americans, I mean chinese from china.

Some of the smartest people I know are chinese. What makes you think they can't do it? Is it because they are not white? Are chinese incabable of doing research? Are the chinese by nature liars?

Re:

[budgenator]

Considering that it's communist philosophy "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" human nature is for people to understate the first and overstate the second, so it's not a chinese thing but a communist thing.

Re:China's definition of success, likely a lie.

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

There was that incident a while back of a [b]North Korean[/b] scientist faking his results in a cloning experiment. That scientist then came clean and blamed the enormous pressure on scientists in that society/government. Perhaps the GP was making an assumtion based on similar political structures as opposed to racial background. I admit being extra sceptical about press releases coming out of the PRC.

It was a South Korean scientist who admitted to faking his results.

You may not know, but South Koreans are not Communists.

However, I am a scientist. And, guess what, my wife is from South Korea. We've had a number of discussions about Hwang Woo-suk (the scientist in question).

I can state, as a scientist, that there's a lot of pressure to get certain results. If you don't get some kind of results you don't get grants. You don't get grants, you can't continue your research.

My wife states, as a South Korean, that there can be a lot of cultural pressure to succeed and that it can be quite overwhelming at times.

I think that the GP (my GGP) was saying that due to all the cultural pressures it may be too tempting for Chinese scientists to fake results.

Oh...

[ackthpt]

100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds.

I think someone needs a CoolerMaster for that one!

bad news, the coolermaster consumed all the net energy

Re:Oh...

[RsG]

Nah, you want it to get as hot as possible. Higher temperature leads to more reactions in the fuel, which in turn leads to greater effeciency. Part of the problem is getting the fuel that hot in the first place, and keeping it together long enough to fuse.

Side note: while 100 million degrees sounds awfully hot, we're talking about a tiny amount of fuel here. The usual figure quoted for a hypothetical commercial reactor is about two grams of fuel in the core at any given time. The reactor itself doesn't get anywhere near that hot, even in the event of a full loss of containment.

Re:

[oc255]

I never thought about the heat. If it produces more energy than it consumes, could we cool the planet off? An A/C unit moves heat around but creates waste heat, could we overcome this by moving it off-planet? Set up reflecting discs?

Seems to me, limitless energy trumps everything because we could use the energy to fix any problems we had with generating it.

Re:

[jeffmeden]

It's not a white hole energy source, its an energy derived from atoms that fuse together (much like our sun). So no, its not limitless, you need to keep it fed with fuel. And that was the least absurd part of your question; please explain how you plan to build an air conditioner outside earth's atmosphere, where theres *NO AIR*...

Re:

[jacksonj04]

That's easy! [weebls-stuff.com]

Re:

[budgenator]

That's actually one of the main engineering problems, it's as lot easier to turn some fuel into a simulated sun than than it is to poke some fresh fuel into the middle of one.

Heat Pollution

[Kadin2048]

Actually this is a premise to a series of ecological disasters described in the Reality Dysfunction series of SF books by Peter F. Hamilton.

It's mentioned only peripherally, but the general idea is that the widespread use of fusion power and the vastly increased energy consumption, combined with population and other types of biosphere-bashing, have led to super-storms that basically scour anything in their path.

A little farfetched at present, but an interesting scenario. You'd really have to have "Mr. Fusio

Re:

[Ironsides]

Ever since I came across something mentioned in Niven's Known Space I've been trying to figure out how to cool off a planet. Trouble is, everything I think of basically generates more energy than it could ever disipate except one. Set up a reallllly long piece of metal like a space elevator, only make it out of two metals. The temperature difference would create an electric current that you could then use for energy.

On the other hand you could just set up really really big radiator fins to help cool th

Re:

[jafiwam]

Some big fins?

Add some "Type R" crop shapes... a few craters for sub woofers and a couple copies of Vegas for lighting and you'd have...

RICER EARTH.

Chinas economic success

[hsmith]

Will be tied to their ability to get away from fossil fuels and develop alternative sources. They, not the United States will be the leader in developing the "big thing" that moves us beyond our oil based economy.

Re:

[mcguyver]

Look up globalization. China's predicted to become one of the worlds most powerful countries in 10-20 years. It and much of the rest of the world is no longer limited to exporting blue collar goods.

I'm pretty sure it didn't hit Q=1

[spike hay]

It was successful in that it fused deuterium and tritium. Of course, the break even point doesn't matter. To be economical, the reactor realistically has to hit ignition, which only the ITER could hope to do.

Re:

[m0nstr42]

It was successful in that it fused deuterium and tritium. Of course, the break even point doesn't matter. To be economical, the reactor realistically has to hit ignition, which only the ITER could hope to do.

Exactly. It's an experimental reactor, not an experimental power plant. It was successful in reacting, not necessarily in generating net power.

Re:

[kidtexas]

Actually, it was successful in getting plasma, usually called "first plasma" in the field. I had heard it was 200kA for 1.2 seconds. I'm would be shocked if they actually were using tritium in the system at this early stage, but I could be wrong. I'm betting that was the result of the scientist media interface.

ITER, which is designed for a Q of 5-10 I think and most definitely for DT plasmas, is supposed to reach first plasma in 2016. I think the first DT plasmas for ITER are scheduled for 2019. The o

Re:

[deglr6328]

I concur about the tritium thing. There's NO WAY they've gone DT yet, that would be nuts. Am I correct in thinking that HT-7U (also (was) in china) is the only other superconducting tokamak ever built? That can't be right. KSTAR the Korean superconducting reactor is still in the planing stages and I am unaware of any others (perhaps with the exception of the hightemp superconductor in the levitated dipole experiment but that's not a tokamak really). It seems so obvious, if you want high B fields....why are

Re:

[AtomicBomb]

According to various chinese news media, the significant of EAST experimental reactor is two fold: first it is all super conducting, second, it adopts a toroid with a non-circular cross section. So far, EAST's reactor design is most similar to ITER. Yes, its role is kind of supportive and serves as training ground/ testbed for ITER.

Re:

[Phanatic1a]

To be economical, the reactor realistically has to hit ignition

Ignition isn't Q=1. Breakeven is Q=1. To be economical, a D-T reactor's going to have to hit Q ~= 20; that is, 20 times as much energy coming out as you're putting in.

Ignition is what you get when the reaction sustains itself with no input energy at all; Q = infinity, basically.

Re:

[spike hay]

Ignition isn't Q=1. Breakeven is Q=1. To be economical, a D-T reactor's going to have to hit Q ~= 20; that is, 20 times as much energy coming out as you're putting in.

Ignition is what you get when the reaction sustains itself with no input energy at all; Q = infinity, basically.

That's basically what I was getting at.

Net gain not the obstacle!

[The_Wilschon]

Achieving a net energy gain is not the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable. That has been done quite successfully. There is no problem passing break-even. It is ignition we are trying to achieve now. That is, a fusion reaction which produces enough heat to cause more fusion, provided enough fuel. If you're going to write an article about fusion, at least know something about the state of the field. Journalists should all be required to read the relevant wikipedia [wikipedia.org] articles before publishing something about science.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

although complex, if there IS a net gain, couldn't that be used to keep the reaction going, even without ignition?

Re:

[spike hay]

although complex, if there IS a net gain, couldn't that be used to keep the reaction going, even without ignition?

That's pretty much the definition of ignition. It turns out you need a lot of net energy to keep everything at the proper temperature. So Q=1 is not nearly sufficient.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

net gain: more energy comes out than went in -> with a net gain, you could restart the process from scratch, repeatedly and get more energy each time, even without a self-renewing reaction.

Re:

[RsG]

I'm pretty sure the problem with that is commercial viability, not any physical limitation. Remember that the reaction only needs to excede it's energy input by a tiny amount in order to break even, so it's not a simple jump from a net energy positive reator to a power generator.

I'm pretty sure that if we improved the tech to the point where producing useful levels of energy was possible, then we'd have already passed the threshold for ignition; ie making the reaction self-renewing is an intermediate step

Re:

[Hoi Polloi]

I think part of the problem is even though there is a net gain the energy being released needs to be contained within the fuel instead of escaping.

Re:Net gain not the obstacle!

[Howserx]

Journalists should all be required to read the relevant wikipedia articles before publishing something about science Or they should at least edit the relevant wiki articles to make sure it matches their article.

Re:

[DerekLyons]

Achieving a net energy gain is not the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable. That has been done quite successfully. There is no problem passing break-even.

No, actually niether has been demonstrated - ITER is intended to do so. (Among other things.)

It is ignition we are trying to achieve now. That is, a fusion reaction which produces enough heat to cause more fusion, provided enough fuel.

No - ignition means achieving fusion. What you call ignition is called a self sustaining

Re:Net gain not the obstacle!

[The_Wilschon]

Go out and get yourself a copy of An Introduction to The Physics of Nuclei and Particles by Richard A. Dunlap, first edition, published in 2004. This is one of the standard texts for an undergraduate physics course in nuclear and particle physics. See pages 192 and 193, esp. Figures 13.12 and 13.13. Then read the text on page 192. I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

In Figure 13.12 the broken line represents unthermalized breakeven. This refers to the situation where the energy output of the reactor is equal to the energy input but the plasma conditions have been augmented by neutral beam injection. The solid line represents thermalized breakeven where the plasma conditions themselves are sufficient for net energy production. The shaded region represents ignition where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain the plasma conditions. This is a self-sustained fusion reaction. These operating conditions refer to d-t fusion; conditions for d-d fusion would follow curves with values of n\tau about two orders of magnitude larger. The data points in the figure represent the operating conditions of a number of experimental magnetic confinement reactors. The general trend of the points from the lower left to the upper right of the figure represents the chronological development of fusion reactors from the late 1960s to the late 1990s. This line also represents an increase in reactor power from the mW range to several MW. Present results are in the breakeven region and future developments can hope to achieve ignition. The time scale for such developments is presumably in the order of several decades.

The figure shows 2 points inside the solid line, and 15 points between the solid line and the broken line. Figure 13.13 on the facing page is a similar plot, showing inertial confinement experiments rather than magnetic confinement. However, 13.13 lacks the lines showing the two breakeven points.

Allow me to repeat the particularly relevant phrases (emphasis mine):

The shaded region represents ignition where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain plasma conditions. This is a self-sustained fusion reaction.

Present results are in the breakeven region and future developments can hope to achieve ignition.

Direct from a credible source. Now, perhaps Dunlap is wrong. Credible sources have been quite wrong in the past and will be in the future. However, you'd best have a stronger argument than "no you're a poopyhead" if you expect anyone to believe you.

Re:

[Hays]

I think you're simply reading it wrong.

"The shaded region represents ignition where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain plasma conditions."

That does not imply that "ignition" = "where the energy output is not only sufficient to yield a net energy gain but is also sufficient to maintain plasma conditions"

replace the word ignition with "trial" or "test" or "experiment" or "burn" or "fusion event"

you wouldn't now say that "trial" = "where the e

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

In that case, how do we explain the final sentence?

future developments can hope to achieve ignition.

Certainly this is not as the GGP said, that ignition is fusing any two nuclei. We most certainly have done this, so why should we "hope to achieve" it?

Furthermore, the first sentence of the next paragraph reads

In Figure 13.13 the solid region again represents ignition for a d-t reactor.

This again seems to support my interpretation. Unfortunately, I can't quote exactly what my professor said in cla

Re:

[deglr6328]

I believe the GP is right. No one has actually achieved breakeven (except for Dr. Edward Teller in the 50's but those weren't exactly practical power producing devices since they tended to obliterate everything in a 20 mile radius!!). The JET in Culham UK came closest a few years back at ~70% breakeven with a 50/50 DT plasma. Those dots you are seeing on that plot are almost certainly extrapolated breakeven points. meaning they represent the DD reactions done on the Japanese JT-60 device which WOULD, if don

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

That would certainly be an adequate explanation for those dots, however it does not agree with what Dunlap says in the text. Perhaps Dunlap is himself mistaken, but since he does not cite a source for the figure, one can presume that he (or possibly a grad student of his) made it for the text, and thus he ought to understand it and know what those points actually represent. Your explanation does not, I suppose, directly contradict "Present results are in the breakeven region", but it certainly contradicts

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

Ok, I have sent an email to Dr. Dunlap. I took the liberty of quoting the following from your comment: "the DD reactions done on the Japanese JT-60 device which WOULD, if done with a DT plasma, have achieved breakeven at 125% gain. But since they have never gone to DT plasmas on that device, because they don't have the facilities to handle T, they have not strictly broken even.". I hope that you do not mind. Hopefully he will respond soon.

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

Alright. My primary (meaning main, not firsthand) source is, as I said in another post, An Introduction to the Physics of Nuclei and Particles, written by Richard A. Dunlap of Dalhousie University, published by Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc., in 2004. See especially page 192. This is a standard text for an undergraduate course in nuclear and particle physics. Happy now?

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

If you look at the other post in this thread that I was referring to, you will see that I have reproduced the relevant part of the text. If you think that I would have a) changed the wikipedia article to agree with me, and then b) misquoted a published text... then I don't know what. You're unlikely to be satisfied with anything I might present as a source.

If you want to have a look at the book yourself, make an appointment with a physics professor at your local university. Find out who teaches nuclea

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

It is not that we are trying to "get energy out" in the sense of produce usable electric current in transmission lines. The net energy gain or loss is how much energy you put into the reaction (like the electricity flowing through the sparkplug in your car) vs. how much energy everything in the reacting system has after the reaction is done. So if I start a fire, I put a small amount of energy in, ie I strike a match, involving a very small amount of energy of motion of the matchhead against the box, and

Everyone will be doing it soon...

[jbeaupre]

Pretty soon even high school students will be making fusion reactors. Oh wait, they already are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_fus or [wikipedia.org]

Re:Everyone will be doing it soon...

[swarsron]

somehow i can't help but be sceptical of a scientist named Farnsworth

Re:

[jeffmeden]

Good news everyone! You no longer have to make the pudding and mello yello delivery to the high school dorks planet, they finally got their fusion reactor to work and it consumed the entire solar system...

How is that good news?

They paid us in advance!!!

Xinhua?

[mustafap]

Xinhua have an atrocious track record for truth verses spin, worse than tony blairs pr department. I'm not going to get excited about this one.

what they are not telling us

[roman_mir]

Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced they had successfully tried a domestically developed fusion device in the eastern Chinese city of Hefei, Xinhua news agency said.

The scientists called the device "the first of its kind in operation in the world", but the report did not specify what tests it had passed. ...
Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds. - what they are not telling us is that their sofistimacated gizmotron is based on a Yin Yang Dragon technology, which employs 500,000,000 manual workers, each one only having to heat up one atom by 1/5th of a degree by applying the power of the Chi.

Since the labor for all the labor only cost about $5 total, the reactor was able to produce an energy surplus, a feat previously considered to be improbable.

Re:

[peragrin]

Heck 500,000 workers on bicycle generators would be enough power to warm up the reactor.

Re:

[roman_mir]

pffft no, a futurologist.

Awsome

[susano_otter]

Good for them.

I hope the test was practical in nature, and will lead to useful contributions from China towards the achievement of practical fusion power.

This is good news. I look forward to following China's future progress and contributions.

Re:

[jazir1979]

hear, hear.

A Small Step

[quanminoan]

A fusion reactor has so many challenges behind it that ignition is only a small step towards something useful. Assuming you ignite a plasma you then have to maintain it, keep it stable, and fuel it fast enough to keep it burning. After that you're left with "mere" engineering problems, such as removing ~ 1 MW of heat per m^2 on the walls of the tokomak, making a gun fire a pellet of solid hydrogen into the plasma at one pellet per second, and finally creating a structure that can handle the intense neutron flux so the reactor can survive long enough to break even.

Though ITER is being built soon, it's being designed as its going up. I'm involved with creating an H- ion beam to inject the plasma (called neutral beam injection). The idea is to fire a high energy beam of neutral hydrogen into the plasma to heat it up (neutral so the atoms can travel through the containment magnets without deflection).

So even if the Chinese managed to build a reactor that beats previous records, it's a long while before fusion powers your home. Nevertheless I consider Fusion research to be one of the most important fields; it takes no imagination to understand what it would mean if nations could be powered on water.

Re:

[RsG]

We already do that. Flip side is, a fusion reaction would need far less water than a thirsty population, so it wouldn't contribute to scarcity. Moreover most of what we fight over is fresh water, whereas current deuterium extraction facilities use seawater IIRC.

Plus, if we stop fouling up our water supplies once we have cleaner energy available, wouldn't that reduce the need to fight over water, instead of vice-versa?

Purity?

[phorm]

How pure of water do you need, and how hard is it to purify? I'd imagine that while a plant to purify enough water for even a small city would be considerable, it wouldn't be a stretch to have a smaller plant purify water for a fusion reaction. That would mean that you can tap water sources that wouldn't be viable for human consumption, no wars needed. Plus you can power your purification systems from the reactor once it's running.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Yes, they'd start fighting wars over access to water instead of oil.

Water (both freshwater for agriculture, drinking, etc. and access to navigable water for trade) has been a vital resource over which wars are fought longer than oil (and, like oil, its been a big factor motivating or complicating Middle East conflicts, including providing a significant part of the motivation for Iraq's wars with Iran and Kuwait, and a complicating factor in resolving the Israel/Palestine problem.)

Re:

[senatorpjt]

The most expensive way to generate hydrogen gas?

Re:

[RsG]

What, at a few kilograms of deuterium per year? It would take us millenia to run out of fuel, and even then we wouldn't make a significant dent in water levels. Hell, D is only about 1 atom of hydrogen out of every 6000+, the other 5999+ being regular hydrogen, which isn't usable in this type of reactor (meaning if we ran out of D, which as I said would take millenia, we'd still have 5999/6000 of our total water supply).

And if we did have fusion reactors capable of using up our water supply by fusing true

In Communist China..

[ch-chuck]

... do they call it The US Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

ATTN Scientists: Why wasn't this done before?

[BeeBeard]

I've read this [wikipedia.org] and this [wikipedia.org] and I'm still a little lost. Could someone with a science background please opine as to what significant hurdles scientists have faced in trying to implement fusion technology in the past?

Mr. Fusion?

[fahrbot-bot]

Any mention of "Mr. Fusion" and a DeLorean in the translation?

Successful Scientific Experiment

[Sloppy]

But what exactly made this test 'successful' is not clear.

Perhaps it confirmed the scientists' hypothesis by matching their latest, most sophisticated model: that the reaction should generate 12% as much energy as needed to heat the plasma. ;-)

ObColbert

[Rob T Firefly]

Not only have the Chinese created a fusion reaction, they found a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit.

Anybody notice the location...

[skogs]

I am surprised that nobody else has taken issue with where the world's very first commercial fusion reactor will be built.

I envision some ill-informed, or just plain stupid, french person getting upset that it will be built in his backyard. He might be afraid of high voltage power lines or something.

I envision Spain folk complaining that they cannot differentiate between the sun coming up, and the ominous glow of their fusion brothers to the east.

I envision German politicians wondering if any funny gasses

Re:Containment?

[RsG]

This is a fusion reactor. There is no nuclear pile - that would be a feature of a fission reactor, which is a different technology altogether.

Re:

[l0b0]

If I ever invent a time machine, the first mission would be to make sure the process of fusion was renamed to hot non-bomby difficult controllable process, or HNBDCP, to make sure these concepts were never, ever, confused again!

Re:Containment?

[spike hay]

Magnetic containment. This isn't like fission reactions. There isn't a "pile." Just a couple of grams of non-radioactive deuterium and radioactive but fairly benign tritium. In the event that the magnets somehow fail, the reaction will stop, with just a bit of erosion on the sides of the reactor.

Re:

[Irish_Samurai]

yeah, but its Rock Hudson gay - Not emo gay.

Re:

[jnaujok]

RTFA. It's called the "Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamok" reactor. That means magnetic plasma confinement. It's not that hard to figure out.

And it's a fusion reactor, so there is no "nuclear pile [wikipedia.org]" since that applies only in a fission reactor.

Re:

[walt-sjc]

So what relation does the Tokamok have to the Typodong missle? :-)

Re:Containment?

[LotsOfPhil]

It's a superconducting tokamak. [wikipedia.org]
The new part is the fact that it uses superconducting magnets. Tokamaks have been used since the 70's.

Re:Containment?

[rubycodez]

or even more accurately, Tokamaks have been consuming far more energy than they put out for over 30 years. But governments still throw billions at them rather than use already operating fusion reactor in the sky.

Re:Containment?

[RsG]

If you have some design for a solar power generator that can even come close to the output of a fusion reactor, then please, by all means, post it. Or patent it - I'm sure you'd make a fortune.

Of course I somehow doubt that. After all, photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency. We could get far better effeciency out of them if we put them in orbit and beamed the power back, given that doing so would get around the problems associated with the atmosphere, but our current space program doesn't even come close to adequate for such a task.

For a point of comparison, fusion is already hitting breakeven. So much for "wasted" money these past thirty years, eh? The fact that something takes time and effort does not make it worthless.

If you seriously want power from sunlight, burn oil or coal. After all, the energy in fossil fuels comes from sunlight introduced into the biosphere millions of years ago. In fact one could argue that fossil fuels are the worlds oldest natural solar battery. And unlike solar energy, which loses much in transmission, oil is easily transportable. You can extract and use it in places where the sun doesn't shine.

Of course, it also burns dirty as hell. Even ignoring climate change, burning fossil fuels releases all sorts of crap into the air, from heavy metals, to soot, to radioactives. But lord knows, if you want to utilize that "fusion reactor up in the sky", you can do so today for all your energy needs - no fancy new tech required.

Plus, who ever said fusion and solar were incompatible solutions? Governments spend a pittance on both of them (yeah it sounds like a lot, but look at their overall budget for comparison), so impling that they favour one over the other is utter rubbish. If you want to get really technical, some of the budget for the space program over the past decades paid for solar panel development, as well as things like fuel cell technology, so it's hardly as though green power has been ignored.

We can pursue solar power in the mean time without the assistance of the governement - go out and buy some for your own use, get your home off the grid (assuming you haven't done so already). No new R&D is required to make solar a viable partial solution to our energy needs, and at the same time, there is little R&D that could ever turn it into a full solution. Conversely we cannot pursue fusion power in the same fashion - the goals are too long term for the private sector to be interested in. Your point is a classic false dichotomy.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree.
The money spent on fusion is a pittance.
Solar is interesting enough that it does not need much government support.
I think more funding for both would be money well spent.

Re:

[wall0159]

While I agree with most of your post, I question this:
"...photoelectric solar panels are already close to their maximum possible energy effeciency..."

my understanding is that current PV cells are only around 30% efficient. This suggests to me that there is large room for improvement.

'No new R&D is required....'
This is so true. we don't need to wait for a magic bullet. We already have the technological solutions to our energy problems - we just lack the political and social will to implement the necessar

Re:

[bill_kress]

Actually, compared to many forms of energy creation, 30% is pretty high.

What I'd like to see is some programs that improve the ammount of surface area that is covered--maybe bring the cost down to 5% of what it is now, THEN you'd see solar take off--and that's what our governtment could be investing in.

Even if the government were to simply buy enough solar panels to cover the roofs of all the government buildings where weather permits, the quantity would drive down the prices and we'd conserve massive ammo

Re:

[RsG]

Well, IANAEOS (expert on solar), but it's been my understanding that the advances in solar panel effeciency leveled off after we got past a certain point due to physical limitations imposed by thermodynamics. Moreover, I know 30% sounds cruddy, but that's 30% of the sunlight hitting the panel being converted into electricity. From a practical standpoint, that's damn good.

I'd be inclined to wonder how effecient the other power sources we have that use energy originating from the sun compare, in terms of ef

Efficiency of photovoltaics

[FooAtWFU]

Well, there are real theoretical limits to the efficiency of a photovoltaic solar cell, and they are significantly less than 100%. I found this 2002 article [lbl.gov] with a search:

One of the most fundamental limitations on solar cell efficiency is the band gap of the semiconductor from which the cell is made. In a photovoltaic cell, negatively doped (n-type) material, with extra electrons in its otherwise empty conduction band, makes a junction with positively doped (p-type) material, with extra holes in the band

Re:Containment?

[l0b0]

You can extract and use it in places where the sun doesn't shine.

You, Sir, have just invented another way of telling people where to "stick it". I salute thee.

I do.

[LWATCDR]

"If you have some design for a solar power generator that can even come close to the output of a fusion reactor, then please, by all means, post it."

I do but it does have some problems.
It is really really big. It requires a lot of parts. And tends to run a little hot.
I do have a prototype. Look up it is one AU above your head.
Yes I am kidding.

America Syndrome

[EmbeddedJanitor]

What goes around, comes around

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Good one. :D

Re:more energy than it consumed

[$RANDOMLUSER]

But that is the law of physics. The extra energy comes from the mass which is converted to energy. Had it said "producing more mass/energy than it consumed", then that would be against the laws of physics.

Re:

[RsG]

Actually, you don't lose mass when you burn something. Chemical combustion converts potential chemical energy into heat, but the end products mass as much as the starting ones. All the energy in a gallon of gas is the energy that went into producing it.

But technically yes, when you talk about fusion reactors you should say "converted more energy from mass than it took to fuse said mass". So the phrasing from the article/summary is technically in error, but most people who know their physics can grasp wha

Re:

[pclminion]

Actually, you don't lose mass when you burn something. Chemical combustion converts potential chemical energy into heat, but the end products mass as much as the starting ones.

Actually, you always lose relativistic mass when you release potential energy. A gallon of gasoline is more massive than the sum of the masses of its individual atoms (but not by much), due to the electromagnetic potential energy of the chemical bonds. By general relativity, any place in space with a nonzero mass or energy density

Re:

[RsG]

Whoops, you're right. I stand corrected.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

There's no "more or less" about it. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved. The energy released through burning (oxidation reaction) is the energy that was stored in the chemical bonds making up the fuel.

Re:

[pclminion]

There's no "more or less" about it. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.

Nope. Mass-energy is conserved. Anywhere you have potential energy, you have mass. Energy and mass warp spacetime precisely the same way, according to the simple relationship E = mc^2. Wherever you have energy E, you have spacetime warping identical to that caused by a mass of E/c^2. The complete equivalence of the two is one of the most core concepts of relativity.

So when you burn a gallon of gas, then cool and weigh the end p

Re:

[Cryssen]

Just don't make her hyperventilate

Re:Seriously? Fusion test? Invade now! Alpha..Omeg

[amliebsch]

What is the thought process here? "China tests fusion reactor. What can I say that's topical, and witty, interesting, funny, or insightful? Of course! BASH AMERICA!"

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

Excellent! Time for another of my "who pissed in YOUR cocoa puffs this morning?" comments.

Seriously dude,it's an obvious joke.

Re:

[BeeBeard]

Yes, of course it was a joke. However, I am having a lot more fun than I thought reading the posts of people who thought I was serious.

My parent post has already been modded down, so I take it some mod was none too amused, wasn't bright enough to identify it as sarcasm, or else just thought that pithy commentary on the Iraq/Iran situation is misplaced here. It is indeed offtopic--especially considering how little technological overlap there is between fusion development and nuclear weapons development--bu

Re:

[Pollardito]

look, everybody, yet another example of fusion

Re:

[GundamFan]

I beleve you can adjust the point that the truncation takes place at in your user profile.

Re:This answers that old question

[RsG]

This finally answers that old question, "What happens when everyone in China jumps onto the same pair of hydrogen atoms simultaneously?"

They collapse into a quantum singularity, obviously. All that mass in such a small place?

A better question would be how they managed to cram everyone in China into the same place at the same time. Methinks someone used a "noclip" cheat :-P

Re:Here's an additional press release, more info

[dan828]

Well, the "Me so horny" prostitute was Vietnamese (from the movie Full Metal Jacket), and it's the Japanese that have problems pronouncing Ls, not the Chinese. So, besides mixing up three different asian countries with distinct languages and cultures, your ethnic insult was spot on. Way to go!