Nuclear fusion nears efficiency break-even

page: 3
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


You seem to be in the... err, wrong film? =)




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
As one poster as well said what ever happened to Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat reactor that was in test phases that was supposed to carry us through this energy bubble we find ourselves in kinda was big news then no news.

Sorry to get off point but I agree this is a uhge step forward and if made possible would be great as long as it is safe and effective.

SaneThinking



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
Remember the laws of thermodynamics? Infinite energy would mean infinite waste heat, which means we would cook the Earth and all its inhabitants alive.

Except of course the energy would only be infinite in theory and possibility. No one would set a reactor on the "infinite" setting. It would obviously be monitored.

Secondly, any load driven off this power would not count as heat. Remember, heat losses are efficiency losses. If you run a wire between a power source and a load, and the load uses the power at 95% efficiency, you are only losing 5% of your power to thermal heat losses. The world will not be cooked.
edit on 20-9-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


What about in 100 years when every neighborhood has a fusion reactor and our energy use is that of the output of the Sun?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
reply to post by nightbringr
 


What about in 100 years when every neighborhood has a fusion reactor and our energy use is that of the output of the Sun?


So? Again, if loads are being driven, it isnt even close to all heat, especially if superconductors are used in the future to transmit power. Superconductors have very low resistance and generate much less heat loss. I dont know why your assuming we would cook the world, 99% of the power generated will not be heat.
edit on 20-9-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
yea more nukes!

solar energy is free energy. wind energy is free energy. thermal energy is free energy. tidal energy is free energy.

cold fusion is dangerous energy.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Sorry if its already answered, but can they also contain and preserve the plasma/energy? In like a Tokamak?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
yea more nukes!

solar energy is free energy. wind energy is free energy. thermal energy is free energy. tidal energy is free energy.

cold fusion is dangerous energy.

And none of these are practical on the level fusion could be.



top topics
 
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join