Posted on 11/14/2021 4:41:20 PM PST by Kevmo
Breakthrough in fusion energy: Is abundant low carbon energy within reach?
LYDIA POWELL AKHILESH SATI VINOD KUMAR TOMAR
The recent technological advancement in the energy front could translate into abundant low carbon energy supply; however, there are multiple problems associated with it that need to be addressed first.
This article is part of the series Comprehensive Energy Monitor: India and the World
Recent developments Recent news reports suggest that fusion energy is close to a technological breakthrough. The National Ignition Facility in the US is reportedly on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research which is to generate more energy than what is consumed. A pioneering reactor in Britain is gearing up to start pivotal tests of a fuel mix that will eventually power ITER, (International thermonuclear experimental reactor or “the way” in Latin), the world’s biggest nuclear-fusion experiment. ITER is a well-funded collaboration of 35 national governments (including India) designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. Fusion has long remained the domain of government research and international collaborations, but now private investors are getting serious about nuclear fusion. 24 private-sector fusion companies in North America and Europe attracted US $300 million in investment in 2020, about 20 percent of their historical total, according to Bloomberg. Though most of the private initiatives are not close to commercial operations, some of them believe that they will break key technological barriers in fusion reactions in the next five to ten years.
Basics In nuclear fusion, two light atomic nuclei (hydrogen or the hydrogen isotopes deuterium [D] and tritium [T]) unite to form a heavier nucleus (helium). As a result, a piece of their mass is transformed into kinetic energy, which could be used to turn the steam turbines that generate electricity. By contrast, in nuclear fission, heavier nuclei (uranium or plutonium) split into smaller pieces of mass, which emit two or three neutrons with the release of energy. These two fundamental transformations of mass into energy can be calculated by Einstein’s equation E = mc2 (where E represents energy, m represents mass and c2 represents the square of the speed of light in a vacuum). This equation, born from the special theory of relativity, demonstrates how tiny amounts of mass hold enormous quantities of energy.
Deuterium occurs naturally in seawater (30 grams per cubic metre), which makes it abundant relative to other energy resources. Tritium occurs naturally only in trace quantities (produced by cosmic rays) and is radioactive, with a half-life of around 12 years. Usable quantities can be made in a conventional nuclear reactor, or in a fusion system from lithium. Lithium is found in large quantities (30 parts per million) in the Earth’s crust and in weaker concentrations in the sea.
In a fusion reactor, neutrons generated from the D-T fusion reaction are absorbed in a blanket containing lithium which surrounds the core. The lithium is then transformed into tritium (which is used to fuel the reactor) and helium. The blanket is thick enough (about 1 metre) to slow down the high-energy neutrons. The kinetic energy of the neutrons is absorbed by the blanket, causing it to heat up. The heat energy is collected by the coolant (water, helium, or other chemical combinations) flowing through the blanket and, in a fusion power plant, this energy will be used to generate electricity by conventional methods.
For fusion reactions to take place, the repelling Coulomb forces of the nuclear constituents must be overcome, which occur at temperatures of 150 million°C (m°C). At such temperatures, the fuel is in a plasma state (superheated matter with electrons ripped away from the atoms forming an ionised gas, also known as the fourth state of matter) and needs magnetic confinement. In this stage, parameters of temperature, density, and time can be traded off against each other to achieve confinement and their optimal mix is known as the Lawson criterion. At present, two main experimental approaches to containment are being studied by government-sponsored and private nuclear fusion initiatives: Magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF). The first method uses strong magnetic fields to contain the hot plasma. The second involves compressing a small pellet containing fusion fuel to extremely high densities using strong lasers or particle beams.
Tokamaks, which were devised in the 1951 by Soviet physicists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm are currently the dominant MCF technology used to achieve the Lawson criterion and several of the private fusion-power initiatives are using variations on the tokamak concept. A conventional tokamak is doughnut shaped with superconducting electromagnets wound around it. This contains the fuel, which is a plasma that is composed of deuterium and tritium. The magnets serve both to heat the plasma and to confine it, thus, maintaining its density and keeping it away from the torus wall, for if it touches the wall, it instantly cools down.
Tokamaks are very large devices but one of the private initiatives use a smaller one with very powerful magnets to squeeze the magnets tightly. These magnets become superconducting at relatively high temperatures, so can be cooled using liquid nitrogen, which is cheap, rather than liquid helium, which is expensive. Another fusion enterprise uses a more spherical tokamak in which the plasma remains more stable, and thus be easier to handle. The reactor has reached a plasma temperature of 15m°C which is two-thirds of the way to the 150m°C a tokamak needs to achieve the Lawson criterion. One firm is using normal hydrogen instead of deuterium and tritium and boron. Instead of a helium nucleus and a neutron, this reaction produces three helium nuclei, but this fusion reaction requires temperatures of billions of degrees. This is an order of magnitude hotter than anything achieved so far in a fusion experiment.
A combination of MCF and ICF is magnetised target fusion (MTF), also referred to as magneto-inertial fusion (MIF), is a pulsed approach to fusion and a range of MTF systems are currently being experimented with. This technology uses a magnetic field to confine a plasma with compressional heating provided by laser, electromagnetic or mechanical liner implosion. As a result of this combined approach, shorter times are required than for magnetic confinement reducing the requirement to stabilise the plasma for long periods. Conversely, compression can be achieved over timescales longer than those typical for inertial confinement, making it possible to achieve compression through mechanical, magnetic, chemical, or relatively low-powered laser drivers. Due to the reduced demands on confinement time and compression velocities, MTF has been pursued as a lower-cost and simpler approach to investigating these challenges than conventional fusion projects.
Stellarators are based on the concept of MCF, but they use non-axisymmetric coils that achieve magnetic confinement in three dimensions. Fusion can also be combined with fission in what is referred to as hybrid nuclear fusion where the blanket surrounding the core is a subcritical fission reactor. The fusion reaction acts as a source of neutrons for the surrounding blanket, where these neutrons are captured, resulting in fission reactions taking place. These fission reactions would also produce more neutrons, thereby assisting further fission reactions in the blanket. The blanket containing fission fuel in a hybrid fusion system would not require the development of new materials capable of withstanding constant neutron bombardment, whereas such materials would be needed in the blanket of a ‘conventional’ fusion system. A further advantage of a hybrid system is that the fusion part would not need to produce as many neutrons as a (non-hybrid) fusion reactor would, to generate more power than is consumed. In this case a commercial-scale fusion reactor in a hybrid system does not need to be as large as a fusion-only reactor.
The aim of the controlled fusion research is to achieve ‘ignition’, which occurs when enough fusion reactions take place for the process to become self-sustaining, with fresh fuel then being added to continue it. Once ignition is achieved, there is net energy yield.
Initiated by claims for ‘cold fusion’, research at the nanotechnology level is studying low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) which apparently use weak nuclear interactions (rather than strong force as in nuclear fission or fusion) to create low-energy neutrons, followed by neutron capture processes resulting in isotopic change or transmutation, without the emission of strong prompt radiation. LENR experiments involve hydrogen or deuterium permeation through a catalytic layer and reaction with a metal. Researchers report that energy is released, though on any reproducible basis, very little more than is input. Over 2015–2019, Google funded 30 researchers on three projects and found no evidence that LENR is possible, but they made some advances in measurement and materials science techniques. There was some indication that the two projects involving palladium merited further study.
The aim of the controlled fusion research is to achieve ‘ignition’, which occurs when enough fusion reactions take place for the process to become self-sustaining, with fresh fuel then being added to continue it. Once ignition is achieved, there is net energy yield. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the amount of power produced increases with the square of the pressure, so doubling the pressure leads to a fourfold increase in energy production. Recent work at Osaka University’s Institute of Laser Engineering in Japan suggests that ignition may be achieved at lower temperature with a second very intense laser pulse guided through a millimetre-high gold cone into the compressed fuel and timed to coincide with the peak compression. This technique, known as ‘fast ignition’, means that fuel compression is separated from hot spot generation with ignition, making the process more practical. A completely different concept, the ‘Z-pinch’ (or ‘zeta pinch’), uses a strong electrical current in a plasma to generate X-rays, which compress a tiny D-T fuel cylinder.
While many advanced countries have national fusion programmes apart from participating in ITER, China’s fusion initiative is the one that generated headlines most recently. The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) at China Academy of Sciences’ Hefei Institutes of Physical Science (HFIPS) produced hydrogen plasma at 50 m°C and held it for 102 seconds in 2017. In November 2018, it achieved 100 m°C for 10 seconds, with input of 10 MW (megawatt) of electric power. In July 2020, EAST achieved a completely non-inductive, current-driven, steady-state plasma for over 100 seconds, claimed as a breakthrough with significant implications for the future China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR). In May 2021, it set a new world record of achieving a plasma temperature of 120 m°C for 101 seconds. The experiment also realised a plasma temperature of 160 m°C, lasting 20 seconds.
Economics According to a recent study on the economics of fusion energy, the required subsidy of about 141 US $/MWh (megawatt hour) is comparable to the subsidies paid to offshore wind which totalled 136 US $/MWh in the Europe Union in 2012 in the price level of 2015 and is much lower than the subsidies provided in the same year for photovoltaic plants in the amount of 249 US $/MWh in 2015 price level. These subsidies to renewable resources do not include the costs of maintaining large standby power plants running on coal, gas, or pumping hydroelectric power stations, which in the case of fusion plants will not be necessary. According to the study, the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of fusion sources is higher than the average LCOE of nuclear and fossil power plants but lower than the average LCOE of the photovoltaic power plants. Accounting for the external costs (climate change, human health costs, nuclear safety, energy security, etc.), the total cost of energy (TCOE) that includes LCOE and external costs of fusion power plants is second lowest after nuclear fission.
Externalities To date, none of the projects have produced a fusion reaction that creates significantly more energy than it consumes. But if it is achieved, it will mean abundant low carbon energy supply for the world. Each D-T fusion event releases 17.6 MeV (million electron Volt) which on a mass basis, is over four times as much energy as uranium fission. The energy density of fusion reactions in gas is less than for fission reactions in solid fuel, and the heat yield per reaction is 70 times less. Thus, thermonuclear fusion will always have a much lower power density than nuclear fission, which means that any fusion reactor needs to be larger, and therefore, costlier than a fission reactor of the same power output. In addition, nuclear fission reactors use solid fuel, which is denser than a thermonuclear plasma, so the energy released is more concentrated. Also, the neutron energy from fusion is higher than from fission, 14.1 MeV instead of about 2 MeV, which presents significant challenges regarding structural materials.
1 gram of fusion fuel corresponds to that of 12 tonnes of coal. This means that India would need only about 70 tonnes of fusion fuel annually to replace coal in power generation completely. Roughly 55,000 barrels of oil is required to heat 10,000 modern western homes for one year. With fusion energy, it would take one litre of deuterium and tritium, extracted from water to power those 10,000 homes. And whereas those 55,000 barrels of oil would release 23,500 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), fusion produces no emissions and will have a lifecycle carbon intensity lower than solar or wind (as measured in CO2 from all construction, manufacturing, and operations per kWh [kilowatt hour] produced).
With fusion, there would be no danger of a runaway reaction as this is intrinsically impossible and any malfunction would result in a rapid shutdown of the plant. Although fusion does not generate long-lived radioactive products and the unburned gases can be treated on site, there would a short- to medium-term radioactive waste problem due to activation of the structural materials. Some component materials will become radioactive during the lifetime of a reactor, due to bombardment with high-energy neutrons, and will eventually become radioactive waste. The volume of such waste is comparable to corresponding volumes from fission reactors. However, the long-term radiotoxicity of the fusion wastes would be considerably lower than that from actinides in used fission fuel, and the activation product wastes would be handled in much the same way as those from fission reactors with some years of operation.
While fusion power clearly has much to offer when the technology is eventually developed, the problems associated with it also need to be addressed if it is to become a widely used future energy source.
There are also other concerns, principally regarding the possible release of tritium into the environment. It is radioactive and very difficult to contain since it can penetrate concrete, rubber, and some grades of steel. As an isotope of hydrogen, it is easily incorporated into water, making the water itself weakly radioactive. With a half-life of over 12 years, the presence of tritium remains a threat to health for about 125 years after it is created, as a gas or in water, if at high levels. It can be inhaled, absorbed through the skin or ingested. Inhaled tritium spreads throughout the soft tissues and tritiated water mixes quickly with all the water in the body. Although there is only a small inventory of tritium in a fusion reactor, a few grams, each could conceivably release significant quantities of tritium during operation through routine leaks, assuming the best containment systems. An accident could release even more. This is one reason why long-term hopes are for the deuterium-deuterium fusion process, dispensing with tritium. While fusion power clearly has much to offer when the technology is eventually developed, the problems associated with it also need to be addressed if it is to become a widely used future energy source.
Source: Entler et al (2018), Approximation of the economy of fusion energy, Energy 152 (2018): 487-497
The views expressed above belong to the author(s).
ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Yes. It's called fission reactors. And the left pretty much killed it. They'll do the same with fusion if it becomes a large scale reality.
With fission, when the SHTF, you get thermal runaway and multi$Billion cleanup operations that never happen, such as the still-unsafe 3Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. When there is an actual and doable PLAN in place for the radioactive cleanups, that’s when the real cost of fission will be known.
These creepozoids hated the massive amount of energy unleashed by Trump. We were exporting LNG to Europe.
Before Trump, Obama tried as much as he could to hinder all forms of energy production. It was only the spread of fracking and horizontal drilling (on private lands) that allowed an increase in overall oil and natural gas. Once Trump set free the entrepreneurs, drillers etc. we had more natural gas than anyone.
The creepozoids know that energy is freedom, and low cost energy spreads more freedom. People have more disposable income, which spawns more enterprise.
The other destruction under way is language. Just like Alinsky taught the left to focus and concentrate on individuals, the left has bastardized the word carbon, focusing and concentrating on it as something evil. We used to teach the The Carbon Cycle, and beautiful and natural process. In actually, more carbon equals more life. We all know that leftist opinion of life.
I wish I could be there for the next Ice Age, and watch most of the world chuckle at AlGore and his minions.
Uuhhh no. Primarily because every 6 months they talk of a breakthroug h and........nothing. Headline whores!
It seems that, for the last three or four decades, fusion energy has remained “twenty years away.”
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Keywords: ColdFusion; LENR; lanr; CMNS
chat—science
—
Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y
Best book to get started on this subject:
EXCESS HEAT
Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette
https://www.abebooks.com/9780967854809/Excess-Heat-Why-Cold-Fusion-0967854806/plp
Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you don’t like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars, or engage in trolling activities, etc. ~Jim Robinson
Please refrain from posting anything that doesn’t legitimately address the issue.
Something is going on in this segment of science. There are a considerable number of research groups studying the matter. -Sidebar Moderator
LENR experiments have often done so...the problem is getting the reproducibility high enough for engineering practicality. The scientific reality can no longer be legitimately questioned.
"There may come a day when we can do fusion, but I don’t think we will be able to sustain it very long, because of the energy requirements to get it going."
I think this will be the case for all the different approaches to brute force hot fusion. Not at all true for LENR/"Cold Fusion". Also apparently not true for SAFIRE/Aureon "warm fusion", which is plasma based, but not brute force.
Apparently, one is currently being built in Finland, as they have realized that in their climate, nuclear is the only available non-carbon technology currently available.
Supposedly, the French also have one, but I have not researched it. The Finnish info was a YouTube explanation I ran across yesterday.
the only available non-carbon technology currently available.
***Well, yeah, available. But we’re talking about the next round.
Okay...did some more research. France has not yet completed its “permanent” disposal site...they have their spent fuel reprocessing and intermediate storage running, but the geologic disposal does not come online until 2025.
Finland’s geologic site is due to come online in 2023.
Well, I would prefer that the "next round" succeed, but fission's problems ARE solvable.
What’s the solution for storing radioactive waste for 20,000 years? And why haven’t they rounded up the waste from Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island & done it?
Oh, FAR longer than 20,000 years...solutions lasting millions of years are technologically possible.
> "And why haven’t they rounded up the waste from Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island & done it?"
Because government is in charge, and governments simply cannot innovate.
ping
get added to the cold fusion ping list
Oh, FAR longer than 20,000 years...solutions lasting millions of years are technologically possible.
***Yeah, POSSIBLE. But not FEASIBLE. It would drive the cost of fission to the stratosphere. Even now it can barely compete against cheap natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
... five aging reactors were permanently closed in 2013 and 2014 before their licenses expired because of high maintenance and repair costs at a time when natural gas prices have fallen: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, Vermont Yankee in Vermont, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin,[12][13] and in April, 2021 New York State permanently closed Indian Point in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City.[13][14]
....
Competitiveness problems
In May 2015, a senior vice president of General Atomics stated that the U.S. nuclear industry was struggling because of comparatively low U.S. fossil fuel production costs, partly due to the rapid development of shale gas, and high financing costs for nuclear plants.[76]
In July 2016 Toshiba withdrew the U.S. design certification renewal for its Advanced Boiling Water Reactor because “it has become increasingly clear that energy price declines in the US prevent Toshiba from expecting additional opportunities for ABWR construction projects”.[77]
In 2016, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo directed the New York Public Service Commission to consider ratepayer-financed subsidies similar to those for renewable sources to keep nuclear power stations profitable in the competition against natural gas.[78][79]
In March 2018, FirstEnergy announced plans to deactivate the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, and Perry nuclear power plants, which are in the Ohio and Pennsylvania deregulated electricity market, for economic reasons during the next three years.[80]
In 2019 the Energy Information Administration revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a 4.3% cost of capital (WACC) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[81] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC) (pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40-year lifetime, making it the most expensive privately financed non-peaking generation technology other than residential solar PV.[82]
In August 2020, Exelon decided to close the Byron and Dresden plants in 2021 for economic reasons, despite the plants having licenses to operate for another 20 and 10 years respectively. On September 13, 2021, the Illinois Senate approved a bill containing nearly $700 million in subsidies for the state’s nuclear plants, including Byron, causing Exelon to reverse the shutdown order.[83][84]
....
Economics
George W. Bush signing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was designed to promote US nuclear reactor construction, through incentives and subsidies, including cost-overrun support up to a total of $2 billion for six new nuclear plants.[244]
US nuclear power plants, highlighting recently and soon-to-be retired plants, as of 2018 (US EIA).
The low price of natural gas in the US since 2008 has spurred construction of gas-fired power plants as an alternative to nuclear plants. In August 2011, the head of America’s largest nuclear utility said that this was not the time to build new nuclear plants, not because of political opposition or the threat of cost overruns, but because of the low price of natural gas. John Rowe, head of Exelon, said “Shale [gas] is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development”.[228]
In 2013, four older reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[12][13] The state of Vermont tried to shut Vermont Yankee, in Vermont, but the plant was closed by the parent corporation for economic reasons in December 2014. New York State is seeking to close Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City, despite this reactor being the primary contributor to Vermont’s green energy fund.[13][245]
The additional cancellation of five large reactor upgrades (Prairie Island, 1 reactor, LaSalle, 2 reactors, and Limerick, 2 reactors), four by the largest nuclear company in the U.S., suggest that the nuclear industry faces “a broad range of operational and economic problems”.[246]
In July 2013, economist Mark Cooper named some nuclear power plants that face particularly intense challenges to their continued operation.[246] Cooper said that the lesson for policy makers and economists is clear: “nuclear reactors are simply not competitive”.[246]
....
In August 2012, Exelon stated that economic and market conditions, especially low natural gas prices, made the “construction of new merchant nuclear power plants in competitive markets uneconomical now and for the foreseeable future”.[250] In early 2013 UBS noted that some smaller reactors operating in deregulated markets may become uneconomic to operate and maintain, due to competition from generators using low priced natural gas, and may be retired early.[251] The 556 MWe Kewaunee Power Station is being closed 20 years before license expiry for these economic reasons.[245][252][253] In February 2014 the Financial Times identified Pilgrim, Indian Point, Clinton and Quad Cities power stations as potentially at risk of premature closure for economic reasons.[254]
Timeline of state subsidies for nuclear power as of 2019
As of 2017, the U.S. shale gas boom has lowered electricity generation costs placing severe pressure on the economics of operating older existing nuclear power plants.[255] Analysis by Bloomberg shows that over half of U.S. nuclear plants are running at a loss.[256] The Nuclear Energy Institute has estimated that 15 to 20 reactors are at risk of early closure for economic reasons.[257] Nuclear operators in Illinois and New York have obtained financial support from regulators, and operators in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are seeking similar support.[255] Some non-nuclear power generating companies have filed unfair competition lawsuits against these subsidies, and have raised the issue with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.[256]
Not to worry....the Democrats will see that natural gas, oil, or coal rapidly become more expensive, and nuclear even more so. Nuclear’s expense problems are all due to government already, fostered by propaganda originally funded by the KGB and then by their leftist US spinoff anti-nuclear groups.
I look at the technical solutions. Right now there is NO technical solution for long term radioactive nuclear waste storage, and yet those fission plants can’t even compete against natural gas effectively. Cleaning up a natural gas or coal plant doesn’t require a 20,000 year solution against radioactivity.
When [well, really IF] LENR breaks out, this will be one of the salients of the technology.
Finland's comes online in 2023, France's in 2025. And fission, properly designed, most certainly can compete. The reasons it cannot are all due to artificial, government imposed barriers not technically valid, but imposed due to political pressure.
I would prefer fusion, but...if that doesn't work out (note that I fully expect one or more to work), there "is" a possible solution.
Kevmo: “Right now there is NO technical solution
WW: Finland’s comes online in 2023, France’s in 2025.
***So we both agree. Right now there is no technical solution, especially for America.
Kevmo: “Right now there is NO technical solution for long term radioactive nuclear waste storage, and yet those fission plants can’t even compete against natural gas effectively.
WW: Finland’s comes online in 2023, France’s in 2025. And fission, properly designed,
***What makes it “properly designed”, shouldn’t that standard have been applied all along? And doesn’t that show a gigantic weakness in the technology, that there has been no good “properly designed” solution until, uh, 2024?
most certainly can compete.
***Based upon its past performance I would say it most certainly cannot compete.
The reasons it cannot are all due to artificial, government imposed barriers not technically valid, but imposed due to political pressure.
***Storage of radioactive nuke waste for 100k years is NOT sumthin artificial, not a guvminbt imposed barrier, not technically invalid to look at, and to be candid, there hasn’t been nearly enough political pressure to generate a solution.
I would prefer fusion,
***Same here.
but...if that doesn’t work out (note that I fully expect one or more to work), there “is” a possible solution.
***We have enough solar weenies and wind turbines and ocean wave experiments and geothermal and fracking cheap natural gas and other energy things to provide for our energy needs for generations.
There "was" one, under construction. Blocked by a Nevada politician.
"What makes it “properly designed”, shouldn’t that standard have been applied all along? And doesn’t that show a gigantic weakness in the technology, that there has been no good “properly designed” solution until, uh, 2024?
What wasn't "properly designed" was the political process necessary to design reactors. Every installation was custom-built from scratch instead of producing a standardized design and mass producing it. Fission needed the Elon Musk solution...mass production, which is now being seriously proposed.
:Storage of radioactive nuke waste for 100k years is NOT sumthin artificial, not a guvminbt imposed barrier, not technically invalid to look at, and to be candid, there hasn’t been nearly enough political pressure to generate a solution.
Sure it is. I already know how to do it, and the solution is mega-year, not mere hundreds of thousands, and far cheaper than the Finnish or French approach.
I will work up a description, and we can discuss it on Freepmail.
"We have enough solar weenies and wind turbines and ocean wave experiments and geothermal and fracking cheap natural gas and other energy things to provide for our energy needs for generations.
Actually, Elon Musk will probably provide the ultimate solar solution. He is already mostly there. It isn't all that far from Starlink to powersats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.