

Fusion: The quest to recreate the Sun’s power on Earth - simba-hiiipower
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120810-the-quest-to-recreate-the-sun

======
chubbard
I hope they are successful, but I think the work Robert Bussard's work sounds
more promising. The reason Fusion hasn't work to produce net energy is
inherent to the tokamak design. You spend too much energy charging up the
magnets to keep the plasma from colliding into the wall. Which is why more
material is constantly added to the mix. Bussard currently holds the record
for most fused particles/second (I think that's the metric) beating
Farnsworth's record set in the 60s. Neither of them used Tokamaks to set their
respective records.

He has made significantly more progress towards the goal of net energy
production from Fusion over 40 years and billions spent on Tokamak research. I
think his ideas have lots of promise, but oddly enough society hasn't trained
people in this type of science in decades.

Problem is Bussard passed away not long ago so progress on Polywell is slow
since there are very few people out there with the technical know how to pick
up where he left off. But, still he has left quite a lot of documents and
details about what he has done. I hope research continues.

[http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/...](http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/03/07/bussards-
emc2-fusion-contracts-extended/)

------
vignesh_vs_in
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our
international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run
commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the
profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new
BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital
activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

What kind of logic is that?

~~~
alexhawdon
Massive 'WTF'.

So, if you live in the UK and directly (through license fee) or indirectly
(through taxes) fund the BBC then you don't get access to the content they
give away to the rest of the world for free? Okaaaaaay

~~~
martswite
Apart from the fact that BBC Worldwide isn't funded by our license fee or tax
payers money. Still don't understand why we can't view it. Is it a
subscription service to the rest of the world?

~~~
drucken
No. It is merely an IP/country wall to content that is not paid for (directly)
by UK taxpayer.

Free proxies like Hide My Ass work.

Alternatively, here is pastebin for convenience:

<http://pastebin.com/7dFAS82m>

~~~
martswite
Appreciate the link, cheers.

------
kator
Reminds me of a really old short story about a planet that built a black-hole
drive. The story leads right up to the point where they hit the power button.
And then it breaks to an "astronomical observer XY-1134" and his report on
"yet another soloar system destroyed by attempts to travel faster then light".

I'm paraphrasing but does anyone wonder what happens if the fusion leaks out
of the container and lights the planet on fire?

It makes me laugh that everyone is so focused on all sorts of dooms day
scenarios and the reality is most likely someone will drop a vial of something
horrible accidentally in a lab somewhere and half the human population of
earth will be wiped out in 30 days.

Or most we'll just keep worrying about all this stuff and most of us will be
dead, gone and dust before anything really interesting happens.

~~~
indiecore
To be fair running experiments like these in our only biosphere isn't exactly
the sanest thing. I'd rather be doing stuff like this (and biological
research) on the moon or something. There's a good short story about this
somewhere I'll see if I can dig it up.

~~~
stephengillie
Maybe we can convince our Mars Rovers to do some of the crazier experiments.
;)

------
kabdib
Counter-intuitive number: The net energy production in the sun's core is about
the same as what a mammal produces per cubic meter. So we're already there, we
just need more mammals. :-)

While fusion is indeed what powers the sun, we're trying to do something with
fusion that's on a completely different scale.

~~~
a-priori
Not according to my calculations.

The sun's energy production is 3.846x10^26 W, nearly all of which is produced
in its core which has a volume of 2.207x10^25 m^3. This gives the sun's core a
power density of 17.43 W/m^3.

The average human male has a basal metabolism rate of about 81.3W, with a
volume of 0.0664 m^3. This gives an energy density of 1224W/m^3.

So by volume, a human produces over 70 times the energy of the sun's core.

(Source: Various queries to Wolfram Alpha.)

~~~
gte910h
That's amazing, so the matrix was not that silly after all.

~~~
gd1
Of course it was silly. Conservation of energy... There is no net gain, they
would put energy (food) in to their 'human batteries' but it is impossible to
get back any more than they put in. Complete nonsense.

------
drucken
Tokamaks have always seemed to me such a massive distraction in practical
energy production, other than ancillary benefits due to the funding, upfront
energies involved, and sheer scale.

Instead military complexes are quietly focussing on other nuclear research
such as Polywell devices or forgoing the difficulties of fusion entirely and
focussing on Generation IV fission reactor types such as Molten-Salt Reactors
(MSR).

I'm willing to bet that the world's energy problems will be greatly
ameliorated or even solved long before ITER ever produces more energy than it
consumes. Even if it ever worked, the likelihood is that the extreme
dependence on scale of any installation would make it impractical in a future
we are heading to where everything is greatly distributed, including energy
generation.

~~~
demallien
I'll take that bet. ITER won't just break even, it will have sustained (15min)
runs where it produces 10 times as much energy as was input. This is not
wishful thinking, this is the expected output of the reactor, which will be
attained unless something _really_ unexpected goes on in the reaction chamber.

It should be completed in less than 10 years, so I'm curious as to what you
think will solve/ameliorate the world's energy problems in such a short
timeframe.

------
misterfusion
The Sun is not doughnut-shaped. The ITER fusion machine is conceptually
flawed; the drawbacks are numerous: confinement time, plasma temperature,
energy consumption, tritium breed, and there on. It is a lame that mainstream
scientists think they are so smarter, but are unable to understand that
electrostatic fusion machines are conceptually much better, much more energy-
efficient and can be developed with much less money and in less time.
<http://youtu.be/ro5-QYqqxzM>

------
ten_fingers
How about the part

> Global energy demand is expected to double by 2050, while the share coming
> from fossil fuels – currently 85% – needs to drop dramatically if we are to
> reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming.

That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there.
Just dropped in.

Question: Where does that statement get its legs? That is, what forces,
influences, or whatever are causing it to be just dropped in, just sprinkled
on like salt on food?

To me dropping in that statement makes the BBC and the author look really
silly; I can't believe that dropping in that statement helps their credibility
or reputation. So, why are they just dropping in that statement?

Here's one reason: Just keep pushing that story. Everyday, every way, just
push it. So, keep the story going. Get others in the media, e.g., the NYT, to
do the same.

Then, for the payoff, about once a week, use some anecdotal data as an excuse
to write a full story about 'global warming'. That story is really easy to
write -- just pull up the framework story, fill in some blanks, and, presto,
get a new story with new ad revenue. Maybe that's the answer.

~~~
enko
> That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there.
> Just dropped in.

It's a pretty uncontroversial statement to me. In fact half of it seems self-
evident, the other merely the overwhelming consensus.

And so maybe that's why it was dropped in. Just dropped in. Just dropped in,
like a drop-bear dropping into a salt-sprinkling-party. Just dropped in!

~~~
ten_fingers
Part I

Okay, I'll bite. I'll type quickly, so there will be some rough edges. But the
basics are really simple and will be clear enough.

Here I bring good news: Warm up the barbie, feel no guilt, and enjoy the
picnic.

I can bite because there is, within what can be said with any seriousness, a
very easy and, for what can be said, relatively good answer.

No, the answer is as science really bad, but so far likely and apparently
there's nothing better. So, it's what we are stuck with. Sorry 'bout that.

First off, the NASA site is total, cooked-up, Saint Laureate Al Guru, please
send more money, the sky is falling, crack-pot, rip-off, flim-flam, fraud,
scam, dirty politics BS, and I will so explain.

But first the simple answer. There are just two parts.

The first part is from the PDF

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council, 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last
2,000 Years', ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006,

long and still available at

<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html>

There we go to the graph on page 2. It's a crude graph, but it's likely and
apparently about the best data available.

So, here's what we see: As of year 2006, the date of the study, as far as we
can tell, the temperature of the Earth in year 2006 was exactly the same as in
year 1000, and the increase in temperature over the last 100 years is exactly
the same as the increase from year 900 to year 1000. As far as we can tell.
The list of authors includes some of the most respected scientists on the
planet, e.g., in time series, Brillinger at Berkeley.

And we don't believe that CO2 from humans or anything else was responsible for
the temperature from year 900 to year 1000.

And, since year 1000, we fell into The Little Ice Age, for whatever reasons,
solar activity, the orbit of the earth, volcanoes, whatever, and since then
have been pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we have pulled out of The
Little Ice Age, the planet has warmed. Semi-, pseudo-, quasi-amazing.

We don't want to go back to The Little Ice Age.

So, as far as we can tell, the increase in CO2 from the industrial revolution
has had exactly zip, zilch, zero effect on the temperature of the earth.

Here's a short Q&A:

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure, that's Physics 101. But CO2 is not a very
effective greenhouse gas since it absorbs only in three quite narrow frequency
bands in the infrared, one band for each of bending, twisting, and stretching
of the molecule.

Then the 'greenhouse' effect is sunlight hitting the surface, warming the
surface, the surface radiating in the infrared as a Planck black (or 'gray')
body, CO2 absorbing the radiation and warming. But the amount of such
radiation is limited by what comes from the sun and in the context essentially
fixed so that once absorb that amount, more CO2 won't absorb more. Moreover,
even if CO2 doesn't absorb some of that radiation now, water vapor, methane,
etc. may. So, the warming effect of more CO2 is not so clear.

Has the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased due to human
activity? Sure.

Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? Likely not. No doubt the main greenhouse gas
is water vapor, but due to clouds, atmospheric circulations, thunderstorms,
little things like the oceans, etc., the effect of water vapor is complicated
beyond belief. Methane may also compete.

But that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is crucial? Not necessarily. A simple
diffusion model can as good science show a significant warming effect from
CO2, but that model is laughably simple compared with the real planet.

Does CO2 warm the planet? Likely yes, and so does lighting a match. The issue
is, is the warming significant? So far the answer is, in the present context,
not on Venus, apparently not.

But climate science has shown ...? For CO2 from humans causing significant
warming of the planet, there's no 'science' in 'climate science'. In
particular, the 'radiative forcing' of the IPCC and Ramaswamy is just catchy
terminology for some simplistic model building and essentially just nonsense
for serious science for the main issue of CO2 from humans causing significant
warming.

Maybe there would, could, and should be a real climate science able to address
this issue of 'warming', but for now the issue is far too difficult for solid
science. Sorry 'bout that.

But just because the real issue is too difficult for solid science does not
mean that we should shoot ourselves in the gut from crack pot 'science'.

The second part is from

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020364600457721...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

In simple terms, the recent predictions of warming just didn't happen, didn't
come even close to happening, were way, way off, were a really bad joke.

Lesson: We can't take the predictions from the 'climate science' community of
significant and harmful global warming seriously.

Where does that leave us? The planet is doing fine, and there's no good reason
to worry for now. As I said, warm up the barbie.

~~~
ten_fingers
Part II

Then there's the NASA Web site

<http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/>

Good. Since this is their "evidence", we can f'get about solid evidence of CO2
from humans causing significant global warming. Warm up the barbie!

Let's start with their points:

(1) IPCC.

They quote the IPCC. Tilt. They just blew their credibility, showed that they
are just pushing rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, political nonsense, and went
to the back of the class with the D- students.

(2) The graph.

They show a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere over several hundred thousand
years. Likely that data was from the ice core samples from the Russian Vostok
site in Antarctica, although since then there is another sample from a US site
that drilled deeper and went back further in time.

So, yes, over hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have fluctuated, both
up and down. We should have expected something else? And just now CO2 levels
are relatively high.

But we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C, or
K, and not CO2 levels. And when we measure temperature, just temperature, did
I mention, temperature, we're okay.

Dragging CO2 levels into this discussion without a solid connection with a
significant increase in temperature blows their credibility.

(3) CO2

They wrote:

> The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated
> in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared
> energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed
> instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause
> the Earth to warm in response.

True but trivial and says no more than if light a match then warm the planet.

Again, they blow their credibility.

(4) Ice Core Data.

They write:

> Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers
> show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the
> Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the
> past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-
> speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

This is basically a lie, a deliberate, contemptible lie. Their lie is their
statement that the ice core data shows that

"climate responds to ... greenhouse gas levels".

The ice core data shows that CO2 levels increased about 800 years AFTER the
increases in temperature. So, the guess is that (A) from some cause there was
an increase in temperature, (B) the higher temperature resulted in more
biological activity, and (C) by 800 years later the increased biological
activity resulted in higher CO2 levels.

With this lie, we should quit reading, but I will go on.

(5) Sea Levels

They write:

> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
> The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last
> century.4

Again, we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C or
K. Did I mention we were talking about temperature? And in particular we were
talking about significantly higher temperatures from higher CO2 concentrations
from human activity -- for which we have zilch for good science. So now they
are talking about sea levels. Where'd they get the importance of sea levels?

Maybe they want to use sea levels as a thermometer. BS. We have excellent
thermometers and have had for well over 100 years. For measuring temperature
over the past 2000 years, we have the results of a serious effort that I
referenced above. For recent temperature, with high irony, from NASA we have
satellites with just excellent measurements of global temperature. So, stuff
it with the sea levels.

Of course, with the sea levels they are really trying to build a rolling
snowball of emotional reaction from anecdotal evidence. That's contemptible.

Just what is it about temperature that NASA has so much trouble understanding?

That's enough.

NASA just wet it's pants and showed that it's a tool of some dirty politics.

The whole thing is not about science, CO2, global warming, or the planet.
Instead mostly the subject is about a rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam that
will let some people rip off some of what they want from some other people.

No sale: Not going to shut down our use of coal and pump more payoff,
kickback, political machine money into more Solyndras and do more damage to
our economy than was ever done by Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin combined. No
thanks.

I'm torqued because I see an effort to sabotage the US.

My original question was, why is the media, e.g., the BBC, so eager to go
along with this highly destructive scam?

My best explanation: The old KGB.

