[Shutsanonofre] Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be

[mike_bullock at earthlink.net]

Human survival requires that we avoid climate destabilization. Our first-occurring climate-stabilization requirement is for 2030. We must achieve a specified reduction in our emissions by the end of 2030. We should have a plan to achieve that reduction and we should be executing that plan.

 

Since fusion will not help us by 2030, it is another dangerous distraction. One might think that since our survival hangs in the balance, we would be interested in the details. 

 

We seem to be interested in the distractions.

 

Quotes from the Secretary General of the UN:

 

1.	We have a Code Red Climate Emergency
2.	We are solidly on a path to an unlivable planet
3.	We are driving towards Climate Hell with our foot on the accelerator
4.	We are dangerously close to the point of no return

 

From: Shutsanonofre <shutsanonofre-bounces at citizensoversight.org> On Behalf Of Alice McNally
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:31 AM
To: Ray Lutz <raylutz at citizensoversight.org>
Cc: shutsanonofre at citizensoversight.org
Subject: Re: [Shutsanonofre] Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be

 

Thanks Ray,

We would all love to see Clean, unlimited energy, but as the saying goes, “Fusion will always be 20 years away and will always be”.

 

Here is another article from Nirs of interest. https://www.nirs.org/one-small-step-for-nuclear-fusion-no-giant-leap-for-climate-action/?eType=EmailBlastContent <https://www.nirs.org/one-small-step-for-nuclear-fusion-no-giant-leap-for-climate-action/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0bd31f12-8c1f-4776-8d2e-0603ab1049cc> &eId=0bd31f12-8c1f-4776-8d2e-0603ab1049cc

 

A



On Dec 14, 2022, at 7:33 PM, Ray Lutz <raylutz at citizensoversight.org <mailto:raylutz at citizensoversight.org> > wrote:

 


Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be



https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be

This is an article from about 5 years ago, but it is good to keep these concerns in mind.

The recent news about the "breakthrough" where a net positive power output was achieved is far from being a reality or "sustainable". It was only for a brief billionth of a second, and there is a lot of fudging to make it seem that this would produce a net power output. Plus, there are many problems. 

I'm not against working on this, but it is still pie in the sky. We should work harder and not divert funding from renewable power sources, that reduce the net heat in the environment, whereas these power plants, if we have them, would still have the problem that they are adding a lot of energy to our environment. So then, a great amount of this power would need to be used to cool the planet. In contrast, solar and wind removes energy from the environment.

Also, these power sources suffer from the same issues as nuclear fission plants. They are very complex, big projects that do not fit well within our free-market optimization system. Solar panels are small and relatively easy to mass produce, and they are being improved all the time through this competition. Meanwhile, we have the same nuclear power plant designs that have known big problems that are not corrected because it costs too much to do so.

Thus, this seems like a cheeseless rathole to me.

--Ray



-- 
-------
Ray Lutz
Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPs)
http://www.citizensoversight.org <http://www.citizensoversight.org/> 
619-820-5321

_______________________________________________
Shutsanonofre mailing list
Shutsanonofre at citizensoversight.org <mailto:Shutsanonofre at citizensoversight.org> 
http://lists.citizensoversight.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shutsanonofre

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizensoversight.org/pipermail/shutsanonofre/attachments/20221215/b67a66a2/attachment.html>