Green Energy . Building a Second Sun

By the year 2018 , Iter will hope to have finished construction on its Vacuum Vessel.

If this becomes feasible , it could take us off coal and oil.

Science is growing by leaps and bounds , Building a device to generate enough

heat to 10x the heat of the Sun could be a source of endless energy.

www.iter.org... excellent site for more info and a

breakdown of the machine.

reply to post by Sean48


Nice story sir..

Why thank you , I think this machine is amazing

one bump for science

reply to post by Sean48


Well I think this story is interesting even though I can't watch the video!

Fusion seems to be the way to go despite us being unable to make it happen in a controlled manner.

Originally posted by OZtracized

Fusion seems to be the way to go despite us being unable to make it happen in a controlled manner.

Apparently they figure that they can control Fusion.

It's limitless energy

Originally posted by Sean48


By the year 2018 , Iter will hope to have finished construction on its Vacuum Vessel.

If this becomes feasible , it could take us off coal and oil.

Science is growing by leaps and bounds , Building a device to generate enough

heat to 10x the heat of the Sun could be a source of endless energy.

i am afraid you have been misled by ITER'S marketing dept.

Their official mission goal buried deep in their objectives file is to maintain fusion for 120 seconds.

To collect more data.

Hot Fusion is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

it is a hoax and mostly a employment club for various scientists.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by beckybecky]

i think this is great russians have been working on this for years but never got it perfected but what happens if the magnetic containmentfields become misaligned or interupted. would system automatically shut down

Mind-blowing concept.. the creation of a sun..

However the reality of it is that would be more complex and inefficient than it would be good for.

- Why not harness the already created sun and skip playing God?
- Why not work towards perpetual motion machines, wind turbines, solar panels, and similar very low budget high-return machines?

Regardless thank you for tickling the left brain.

- Why not harness the already created sun and skip playing God?

Because the sun is very far away, therefore the light that actually reaches us is incredibly dilute thus requires very large structures to convert this electricity into usable power. Furthermore, due to the rotational nature of the earth, and the constant changing nature of the Earths atmospheric conditions, makes turning sunlight into electrical energy is notoriously unreliable and intermittent. All this applies with wind, also. You can view wind generation data by the Bonneville Power Administration here. So unless we have backups (such as fossil, nuclear (fusion / fission) or expensive energy storage, we would only get power when the wind blows. The idea behind Fusion is that it will create a fusion reaction, the same as in a hydrogen bomb, or the sun, that we can control to have energy at our will, cheaper and also at much higher densities.

In my opinion, advanced Nuclear fission can do everything that fusion hopes to do. The main difference is that advanced nuclear was demonstrated in 1954 with the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), and later the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). Why wait till 2018 for even a fusion prototype with actual power reactors becoming online around around 2050, when we can make an advanced nuclear fission power reactor much quicker perhaps before the end of the decade?



The actual power point used in the presentation can be found here. Again, it can do everything fusion can, only it has already been demonstrated.

- Why not work towards perpetual motion machines, wind turbines, solar panels, and similar very low budget high-return machines?

Wind turbines and solar panels are neither very low budget nor high-return machines. An example is here, where the cost of that PV system is 9100 dollars per kilowatt of capacity, despite having a capacity factor of well under 40%. By comparison, new Nuclear Units are estimated to be at around $7500 per kilowatt with a capacity factor of over 90% meaning the nuclear plant will over the same time period on average generate over twice the power (or more correctly, work). The electricity that solar plant sells costs 575% of the average electricity rate, subsidized.

Thanks.

[edit on 17/1/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz

Wind turbines and solar panels are neither very low budget nor high-return machines.

The rate of return and expense is dependent on future technology.

So lar Panel from Hair

Weighed against the improbable idea of creating a new sun; I think the future of these technologies is heavily veered in the latter.

reply to post by Jedi411


I aggree that fusion is out there, possibly attainable with the proper application of heavy funding and government support, but not likely any time soon. Personally, I believe that the the real solution lies in refining current process in order to harvest energy that is lost in the process, such as using the thermoelectric effect to harvest electricity from wasted heat, or developement of low pressure fluid turbines, whose application could harvest more electricity (although only small amounts) out of waste fluid pressure (water, steam, whatever)

thermoelectric effect:
en.wikipedia.org...

fluid turbine:
en.wikipedia.org...

Why not just go to geothermal energy?

I am sure that is way cheaper and much more stable.

Originally posted by Jedi411

Originally posted by C0bzz

Wind turbines and solar panels are neither very low budget nor high-return machines.

The rate of return and expense is dependent on future technology.

So lar Panel from Hair

Weighed against the improbable idea of creating a new sun; I think the future of these technologies is heavily veered in the latter.

1. Fundamental disadvantages to wind and solar exist even with future technology.

2. The article you linked is apparently a hoax.

3. We can already create controlled fusion reactions. The difficulty occurs in sustaining them, and then commercializing the technology.

[edit on 19/1/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Quickfix
Why not just go to geothermal energy?

I am sure that is way cheaper and much more stable.

there are a few issues with geothermal energy.

1. Location... cant happen everywhere, need a vent. There arnt all that many areas where there is enough activity to make geothermal energy useful, and a lot of those areas are hard to build at due to the nature of an active volcanoe.

2. Gases that escape from geothermal vents are unregulated, irregular, and in most instance are highly corrosive. (i.e geothermal development issues in utah) Corrosive fluids, as we know, give metal problems, fluid turbines (hydro, steam. etc) are made of metal, many things that go into the development of a power plant are made of metal. Issues arrise with constant replacement of corroded parts. (replacing a turbine multiple times a year costs a lot a green)

3. More often than not, thermal gases generated from these "active sites" are harmful to humans. in more ways than just superheated gas. Health issues arrise, legal actions... workers comp, INSURANCE. Companies dont like that.

reply to post by LeeTheDestroyer


So making a second sun would be easier?

I highly doubt that, when I think of a second sun being made I think of Spiderman 2 when Doc Oc makes a sun for the same reason, but it failed.

It seems to me making another could be extremely hazardous, accidental black hole anyone?

Maybe look into Magnetic generators or tesla coils or stick with solar power and add hydrogen to the mix.

Simplicity is usually best.

reply to post by Quickfix


As i said in an earlier post, i do not think that fusion is going to happen. Anyway, i am interested in what you want to do with a tesla coil. Since they dont create electriceity, they take electricity to run, and they dont really fit into the mix.

It seems to me making another could be extremely hazardous, accidental black hole anyone?

It is impossible for a nuclear fusion reaction in a man-made reactor to create a black hole. We already create fusion reactions when a hydrogen bomb explodes... no black hole there. Also, generally people do not reference movies when discussing technical matters.

As far as solar, complete pipe dream due to the cost, intermittency. And when you consider the complex grid that would be required to integrate large amounts into the grid, it is by no means "simple", "decentralized", or "cheap".

online.wsj.com...

[edit on 20/1/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by LeeTheDestroyer


Tesla coils may seem like they don't fit in, but it is just another thought of producing energy.

I know Tesla did some pretty amazing things that I still research today. And i happen to be reading a book on building Tesla coils.

reply to post by C0bzz


This is different, we are talking about a mini star in the palm of your hand, well not in the palm of your hand, but in your general area.

Stars are tricky and trying to make small ones to harness the energy is kind of scarey

reply to post by Sean48


If we want fusion in the near future we should stick to what works and that is cold fusion reactions through molten metals. Cold fusion reactions occur when molten metal absorbs and confines hydrogen atoms. Helium3 has been produced as a result of such reactions. He3 is the perfect fuel source for many reasons.

Like NASA, ITER is just a big distraction to cover the existence of advanced (portable) fusion technology from the public. ITER will be very expensive, and as complicated as possible so no one can replicate the technology. In other words; they don’t want us to know how simple the Sun really works because its main reactions can be replicated in a small device.

In school, we are all taught our Sun contains mostly hydrogen plasma. What if the standard model is wrong? It is my honest opinion that the true anatomy of our Sun involves a molten core consisting of mainly iron/nickel formed by accretion just like other space bodies. This model is often referred to as the electric Birkeland model. If Tesla was alive today, he would have supported it. The Sun model taught in schools is seriously flawed. I often wonder if it is just coincidence or part of the plan to limit technical knowledge.

Another interesting fact; UFO saucer type crafts are known to eject molten metal and extremely hot pressurized/ionized gas. They obviously have no problem raising enormous amounts of electrical energy.

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by LeeTheDestroyer

 

Tesla coils may seem like they don't fit in, but it is just another thought of producing energy.

I know Tesla did some pretty amazing things that I still research today. And i happen to be reading a book on building Tesla coils.

From one Tesla buff to another, the guy did amazing things, and in my opinion is the most undercredited human being of all time. But Tesla coils do not product energy, now if you are talking about transmitting energy, as in the wireless transmission of energy, thats where its at. that is why it doesnt fit in. Check out "Nikola Tesla: a Man out of time" its a great biography of his life, and interatcion with the rest of society. I highly recomend the book to anyone interested in Nikola Tesla or his inventions.

I am in no way bashing on that technology (tesla coils), Its just not a means of generating energy.