Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 02:03:32 UTC No. 16617417

Because a huge amount of money and R&D is still being poured into it, and progress is indeed being made- in very recent years fusion reactors have achieved short bursts of net power gain, though not sustained reactions of it

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 02:14:09 UTC No. 16617428

>>16617417
fusion will come out in 3025, might as well shut it all down.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 02:22:36 UTC No. 16617438

Fusion reactors are trying to beat the universe at fusion by such a wide margin, I doubt the nature's laws will allow it.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 03:27:16 UTC No. 16617486

>>16617397
this is literal money laundering technobubble so new administration will put an end to this next month

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 03:40:01 UTC No. 16617496

>>16617397
DEI money, they need more loans to pay for research on black people building fusion.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 03:41:45 UTC No. 16617497

So your leaders are called the higher ups cause they are upper in the hegemony of degrees?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 03:49:30 UTC No. 16617505

Tbf EUROfusion only claims commercial fusion by 2070-2080 as earliest.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:28:56 UTC No. 16617523

Not because it's easy, but because it's hard
You wouldnt get it because you will never accomplish anything in your pathetic life

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 04:39:13 UTC No. 16617533

>>16617523

Neither have you.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 07:01:40 UTC No. 16617599

>>16617438
Yes, fusion per se is easy, but sustaining it at such ridiculously high power density is obviously a scam. There really is no possible way.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 07:01:51 UTC No. 16617600

>>16617397
Because you post this every five minutes.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:05:04 UTC No. 16617768

>>16617438
>>16617599
>I, a random faggot on a xiongnu yak milking forum, have concluded that every scientist is wrong and I am right

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 01:19:23 UTC No. 16618325

>>16617397
from experience, the academics working on this are conceited, mentally ill, incompetent pussies that are far more concerned with prestige, politics, tenure, climbing ladder at university etc. than expanding the human body of knowledge

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 02:36:13 UTC No. 16618372

>>16617768

Emperors have been naked before.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 21:52:05 UTC No. 16619069

>>16617397
Even if they get it ""working"" it won't be economically viable. Besides "merely" working it needs to actually be cheaper to set up and operate than other forms of power generation. And seeing as these things are all massively funded science projects, that just ain't going to happen.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:07:31 UTC No. 16619368

>>16617397
Isn't it just a classic engineering problem at this point where the last step is picking the right materials with the right properties to make it work without costing a trillion dollars? If I'm not mistaken the goal has always been "make economically self-sustaining fusion energy" not "make fusion energy at any ludicrous cost"

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:16:05 UTC No. 16619849

>>16619368
no. at least in magnetic confinement-based fusion, we dont understand turbulence well enough

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:19:12 UTC No. 16619855

>>16618325
>>16619849
am this fag

I should add (this was obvious to me because about to finish PhD on turbulence in nuclear fusion reactors)
>the turbulence makes all the really hot stuff leak out of the core of the devices to the outer walls which are basically at room temperature
>Kinda like how when you boil water on the stove, shit gets so hot at the bottom of the pot that the water turns to gas and bubbles up to the ambient air above the pot

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:22:47 UTC No. 16619864

>>16619368
>>16619855

nature abhors a gradient, o algo

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:22:54 UTC No. 16619865

>>16617768
it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:16:21 UTC No. 16621061

>>16619849
>>16619855
>>the turbulence makes all the really hot stuff leak out of the core of the devices to the outer walls which are basically at room temperature
that still sounds like a materials problem. Pick better materials to stop the hot leaky stuff..
>inb4 any material in universe would melt
that has always been known
Some jet engine turbines operate at temps above the melting point of the superalloys used to construct the components. But they still made it work
>>Kinda like how when you boil water on the stove, shit gets so hot at the bottom of the pot that the water turns to gas and bubbles up to the ambient air above the pot
you can just say nucleate boiling m8

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 20:29:37 UTC No. 16621119

>>16621061
>that still sounds like a materials problem. Pick better materials to stop the hot leaky stuff..

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:35:02 UTC No. 16621262

>>16617397
TAE Technologies will solve proton-boron fusion. it's literally over for fudders

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:40:43 UTC No. 16621265

>>16621262
commercial fusion companies are the worst. they literally HAVE TO lie to billionaires to get funded despite being a bunch of salarycuck children larping in their labs fooling themselves

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:27:27 UTC No. 16621290

>>16621262
did they ask dall-e to make this design?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:41:39 UTC No. 16621298

>>16621061
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:57:10 UTC No. 16621303

>>16621262
buy an ad fucking scammer

jewing jews at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 02:21:34 UTC No. 16621320

>>16617428
don't be hysterical

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:22:29 UTC No. 16621620

>>16617397
>NOOOOO you can't just take forever to figure out how to fuse hydrogen like a fucking star does

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:37:49 UTC No. 16621825

>>16621298
>we need NS solutions before fusion energy can work
peak midwit

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:53:32 UTC No. 16621950

>>16617397
People used to build monuments that they knew their grandchildren wouldn’t see completed. But fusion isn’t worth researching because it isn’t ready NOW? 100 years ago we had more horses than cars, and you’re complaining that we’re moving too slow?

You’re fucking retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:06:27 UTC No. 16621970

>>16621950
>We finally invented fusion
>No you can't have free unlimited energy you need to pay back the investment of the business that took the final step after centuries of tax payer subsidized research
At least the cathedrals are free to visit.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 22:41:45 UTC No. 16624561

>>16617397
I feel the same pain with thorium reactors

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:04:08 UTC No. 16625142

>>16624561
Molten salt reactors or "continuous process reactors" if you like, you don't need thorium to get the advantage of those reactors.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:32:02 UTC No. 16625158

>>16625142
Thorium would be great here it's way more plentiful than uranium, especially more plentiful than high grade uranium. Even then, those continuous process reactors, are they even in use? Or will it be another 30 years of endless talking?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:15:53 UTC No. 16625212

>>16625158
>way more plentiful than uranium,
There're about the same reserves of U and Th, it isn't far more even if you consider the total Earth crust abundance.
All the claims about Thorium reactors comes from the continuous process reactors rather than thorium itself. Molten salt reactors allows continual removal of neutron poisons so you can "burn" all your fuel instead of 1% (0.5% of mined uranium).

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:16:32 UTC No. 16625435

>>16617438
>>16617599
>>16617768
The sun cheats though by using quantum fusion.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:34:27 UTC No. 16625949

>>16621950
The only thing anyone cares about anymore is the next quarter. It's extremely depressing.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 20:43:11 UTC No. 16626123

>>16625212
So then what is stopping us from utilizing this tech? Why is the US so show in experimenting with this potencial to use far more fissial martial than a conventional reactor??

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 21:02:30 UTC No. 16626134

>>16626123
Because light water and molten metal reactors are far cheaper and predictable.
At high temperature halogen salt chemistry is a nightmare by its own, if you add radiation the problem is even worse. A solution to that is static MSR but that negates a lot of the advantages of MSR. If you read about IV gen reactors you will see MSR and high temperature solid reactors.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:18:31 UTC No. 16626519

>>16617397
>mount solar cells on rooftop
>have fusion power today
It realy isn't that complicated or expensive to use fusion power.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:20:57 UTC No. 16626670

It's only 5 years now, they don't repeat it like you said.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:46:58 UTC No. 16626697

energy doesnt matter, just reduce the population to 200 million and they will do fine with hydropower. Just keep the cities near the large hydropower sources.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:12:43 UTC No. 16626711

>>16626134
Interesting, thank you for that

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 20:21:15 UTC No. 16626884

>>16626134
>molten metal reactors are far cheaper and predictable.
What? Do they not cost a fortune in time and maintenance costs due to said molten metals?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 20:25:22 UTC No. 16626888

>>16617397
Fusion reactor development will always be funny because scientists are essentially scamming rich people

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:04:21 UTC No. 16627133

>>16626884
Compared to water? yes, compared to salts? absolutely not.
MSR are hellishly complex and unpredictable, closer to a fusion reactor than a fast breeder.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:59:29 UTC No. 16628572

>>16617397
>fusion thread on /sci/
>no worthwhile discussion
>nobody understands the physics
>no interesting contributions to the thread
>calling the entire endeavor a scam and scientists corrupt
what a bunch of luddite faggots you all are
fusion power is the closest thing we have to potential free energy
shows again that half the people on this site are just schizo welder dropouts with inferiority complexes

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:16:20 UTC No. 16628582

16628572
You will not have a (you)

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:18:33 UTC No. 16628583

>>16628572
If cold fusion were cracked tomorrow it would be decades before the first commercial plants opened up. I am a big proponent of green energy research but fusion is not coming any time soon. There are just too many engineering, materials science, and financial barriers in the way.

t. pv researcher shill

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:45:56 UTC No. 16628589

>>16617397
in 20 more years

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:02:54 UTC No. 16628601

>>16628572
I am not a plasma physicist (HEP here) but the only plasma physicists I’ve met who weren’t complete faggots all freely admitted that they don’t give a shit about fusion and keep it around so the DoE can keep giving them money that they can spend on their fun autistic shit like stellar coronae.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:06:44 UTC No. 16628937

>>16617397
It is a real problem, that Fusion is "always 20 years away", but you also have to consider the moving of the goalpost.
At first it was "achieving fusion".
Then it's " Q-plasma > 1"
And once we reach that it will become "Q-total > 1".

For those who didn't get what I just said : Q-plasma is the ratio of fusion power produced by the plasma to the heating power injected into the plasma.
Q-total is more comprehensive and considers the entire reactor system, not just the plasma. It's the ratio of the total electrical power produced by the reactor to the total electrical power consumed to run the entire system.

So yeah, we're not even close to breaking even on Q-plasma, let alone Q-total.
And also, even then, who the fuck believes in "Free Energy"?
Unlimited and clean energy? Sure. Fusion has the potential to be clean and virtually unlimited, however I don't think it will ever be "free".

Is it possible to build a nuclear fusion reactor for free? What about operating it for free?
I don't see any possible scenario where energy could be "free". There would always be a cost to that energy.
No one is going to invest billions into making such high tech reactors just to give out the energy for fucking free.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:13:13 UTC No. 16629005

>>16628572
>fusion power is the closest thing we have to potential free energy
Giant oceanic hydro dams are the closest thing we could have to free energy because we already know how to build dams and the ocean is literally right there. Cope and seethe, I'm objectively correct.