Working fusion power will change everything

No need for coal power plants, fission power plants, oil powered cars or gas power plants any more.

"Renewable energy" aka wind and solar BTFO massively.

Electric cars basically run at 0 dollar cost electricity.

All oil countries and gas countries lose out massively, Saudis bankrupt, Libya bankrupt, Russia in troubles.

Everything becomes more affordable as energy becomes more affordable - robots become more common, combined with cheap power they do everything nearly for free.

Why is fusion power not in the news more?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=R693BqhtW60
greenpeace.org/luxembourg/fr/campaigns/nucleaire/fusion-nucl-eacute-aire/
nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet
theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/201991/counting-hidden-costs-energy
world-nuclear-news.org/NN-European-consortium-completes-first-Iter-magnet-2205177.html
archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/03/dayintech_0323
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Why?

Bumping because this is actually a relevant thread and Sup Forums is retarded.

even if there is no fuel costs or a infinite power source you need that energy to be transported and distributed for everyone which is something very complex that needs people 24h/7d and costs a lot of money energy will never be 0 dollar

Watch the documentary who killed the electric car and you will understand why the massive energy businesses will not let that thing be released.

If they could they would buy the blueprints for the first working one and sit on it like they have for every alternate energy invention.

Correct. And the Jews will never let modern, high end ones be built.

The irony is, with fusion you can cheaply catalyze hydrocarbon fuel from air and water. Oil companies could stay oil companies, they just wouldn't mine anymore. Instead, they would have fuel factories built around fusion reactors.

I thought Fusion was perpetually 20 years away

We've had this stuff for years but we don't get to see it because you it's difficult to control, regulate and tax near free energy.

the robot slaves will do it. they'll do everything.

>you need that energy to be transported
Last I checked, there can be power lines from the power plants - those power lines run to your house or to the car charging station.

The left will never let it happen

They want to rise and become Green Barons, with absolute control over renewables, enjoy having it be a crime to buy and set up your own solar panels, goy

Why would you end up putting together a fuel from electricity generated by fusion... and not just use electricity directly?

that technology allows a terrorist the ability to create a bomb from a blade of grass, they will never release such technology because of this

Because they can sell that synthetic oil for more money than the bulk electricity.
Gross margins man, they keep the stocks healthy.

yes, but you don't understand how complex is a power grid, its expensive and costs a lot of money to keep everything stable and with no harm to what's connected to it

>Why is fusion power not in the news more?
It's been 50 years away for 50 years. It would be fantastic to see. But doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

You won't get any of it. The only thing you can do personally is get a solar roof, or wait for near-perfect panels. Wait for batteries to develop some more and make more than 100% of your own energy needs. Then you won't have to be connected to shit.

The goal should be self-sufficiency.

Never gonna happen. If that goes through my energy company cant charge you 100€ a month for elec +climate protection green energy tipp.

50 years ago it was 20 years away.
Now it's 50 years away

Because liquid fuels are still a lot more energy dense than batteries. Converting them into an easily transportable, easily measured, long lasting form is always good for supplying vehicles and portable generators around the world.

It's just 10 years away...

Because petroleum fuels are a better portable energy source than batteries, especially for size and weight limited applications where a large amount of power is required. Examples: jet aircraft, space flight, armored military vehicles, etc. Really anything that uses a gas turbine for power.

>Why is fusion power not in the news more?
Gee, I wonder

>Working fusion power will change everything
>Working

>Why is fusion power not in the news more?

Because fusion will never be net positive. Even our sun is powered externally, with fusion only being a side effect.

Research the "electric sun theory"

On the bright side, this means we can tap energy from free space.

Fuel is more energy denser than expensive batteries. Even if we improve massively our battery tech I recon it will still be cheaper to just fill your fuel tank and go. And before you say my air pollution: the fuel factories next to the reactors will consume carbon form the air. If this thread is decent enough I can recommend a great video on the benefits of almost free energy from fusion.

>Russia bankrupt, Saudis bankrupt
>implying every country can afford electric cars

Fossil fuels are gonna stay for the next century.

>haha we can't have super effective energy plants because it costs too much to distribute the power haha
Durrrrrr

you realise oil is used for countless other products besides petrol right?

Look dude, you showed a tokamak reactor, that's for research. The design fundamentally cannot produce power.

It only sustains it for milliseconds and even if it lasted longer, the tiles on the inside only last for about a half second and that's made of tungsten with all kinds of protective coating.
Since it's inception we've only made it a few percent more efficient despite tens of billions in funding.

Tokamaks are at big universities because it helps physics students write prestigious papers but the concept does not scale as we do not have stronger materials to do so.

A farnsworth fusor, on the other hand, is small, has the potential to be even smaller, can self sustain for over 45 seconds after input has stopped. It's still far from efficient but it's mostly private low funding labs and Lockheed driving this. Since it's inception we've made it 7000% more efficient. The hardest part is building coils around the thing in an efficient manner to capture energy. They scale well and are relatively cheap.

youtube.com/watch?v=R693BqhtW60

When it works, it's going to be something that can be done anywhere and safely and cheap. That's why big companies don't want to invest in the small fusor usually. They want a big power plant and they think they can make a Tokamak do that.

havent people been saying this for like 30 years?

we JUST got to the point where it ALMOST doesnt cost money to run.

daily reminder nuclear was also supposed to be cheap as fuck, "too cheap to meter" they said.

0/10

It's ok lads we'll just get Helium-3 on the Moon or even better we'll just create space docks to harvest meteorits.

Haha.

>Chernobyl
>Fukushima

Why is dangerous power tech not more viable, I wonder.

Does anyone in ppl understand history asides their lopsided view of ww2?

greenpeace.org/luxembourg/fr/campaigns/nucleaire/fusion-nucl-eacute-aire/
(((Greenpeace))) is against nuclear fusion. I wonder why

Fusion power right now is a net loss of energy to run, so it is useless. I am sure there is research and work being done to make it viable, but until then its not really newsworthy.

Great movie I agree. Cant believe they just fucking crushed all of those brand new cars because of the threat to oil companies.

>wew, laying down all those miles of steel just so a carriage can roll along it once an hour is mighty expensive and requires loads of people 24/7 and loads of money, will never be cheap
>wew, erecting all these miles of copper wire on thousands of wooden poles just so a mong can transfer electric impulses along it requires loads of people 24/7 and loads of money, will never be cheap
>wew, erecting all these thousands of towers with a good 10 or so gigantic wires and transformers just so we can transfer electricity from one city to another requires loads of people 24/7 and loads of money, will never be cheap
And yours:
>wew, transferring electricity from a different source will require a completely new grid that is something very complex and costs a lot of money, will never be cheap
>can't use the grid we've already got, nooooo

Do you see the flaw I'm presenting here?

At least do some research user, the electric universe theory makes a lot of sense.

>fusion is as risky as fission
Leafland education.

Because they are barely figuring out the magnetic field needed to contain it. Plus even then batteries need a massive jump in size cost and efficiency.

Oil is useful as fuck because it is evolved tech with years of experience behind it plus its relatively portable.

>It's been 50 years away for 50 years.

It is a bit like commercial, intercontinental airliners.

In the late 1800s, they had zeppelins and gliders. Of course they dreamt of intercontinental airliners. It still took until the 1950s to actually get real airliners. And it took until the 1980s/1990s for air travel to become affordable to the masses.

If you actually knew anything about power you would know 5 megawatts is a joke amount of capacity. The largest wind turbines have 10 megawatt nameplate capacities now.

>a fissile material that melts through concrete and steel when not contained behaves exactly like fusion materials that are only fusing because they're forced to
>a malfunction in fusion reactors wouldn't shut down the reaction by default without human failsafe design features

Not even all fissile material behaves the same. If Chernobyl and Fukushima were Molten Salt Thorium Reactors, they wouldn't have gone splody and in the case of Fukushima there wouldn't be cooling water leaking into the ocean because THERE IS NO COOLING WATER TO GO SPLODY OR LEAKY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And we don't even have that. Really makes you think.

Too bad Trump hates science

will never happen, if we get too close the oil companies will just kill a few major scientists

I say this every thread I see.

Look at energy distribution costs. They make a large part of energy costs. They're non-trivial and fusion power is going to make jack shit "0 dollar cost", unless you stick things right at the exit. Transporting electric energy isn't free, the infrastructure is expensive and there are plenty of places to lose energy.

>you realise oil is used for countless other products besides petrol right?
Yes, I realize that. But guess what, pic related is the breakdown of how much of the oil is used for applications other than transportation. It is not as much as you think.

You just listed both fatal civilian nuclear accidents.

No it's not.

Concorde was the ALPHA plane of all planes.

Hypersonic flights.

Now? Generation easy bolshevik.

>the massive energy businesses will not let that thing be released.
Lol what? They'd be tripping over themselves to run these plants since it's steady, cheap power. No utility is going to suppress this tech since it means they can get rid of their most costly expense, manpower & fuel. Like imagine a company can now sell something for the same price but their profit margin goes from 2% to 70%. No one with half a brain believes this shit.

>taking oil and gas money away from (((them)))

Yeah, that's why it's not a thing yet and never will.

>Look at energy distribution costs. They make a large part of energy costs.

The grid costs for base power plants such as fission or fusion power plants is extremely small.

You are right, for things like solar or wind you have a shitton of grid power costs due to the fluctuations in power generation.

The last I heard about it, Lockheed was building yet another semi-compact fusion reactor as a demonstration device to show off in the next couple of years. The idea for the final full-scale model was something that could replace a Naval vessel's power plant 1:1, so a device that fits in a standard shipping container.
If lockheed is as far along as they claim, they could be producing a production model producing in the 100s of Megawatts range before 2020.

>your plane is shit and barely works how can you expect to travel around the world with it lol it goes maybe like 5mph cars are faster who is going to push start this thing how can you even imagine transporting more than 2 people it can barely carry you alone lol do you think people can afford enough planks and ropes to make their own plane just give up retard you are wasting your time

>Concorde was the ALPHA plane of all planes.
>Hypersonic flights.

Concorde was pretty much like the Moon landing or the Space Shuttle. A solid proposal which works technically and is more advanced than other methods... but just not economically.

If you can produce and fly supersonic aircrafts at costs only twice or three times as high as subsonic aircrafts, you have a massive market.

Got a link for that? Going to dig up the EU report on the same thing, transport costs (for the user) are between 30 and 70% of energy costs in various countries in the EU, which doesn't seem to be taken in account in your graph.

Have a look at this beauty.

*snif*

O R B I T A L R I N G W H E N
R
B
I
T
A
L

R
I
N
G

W
H
E
N

I know it's NASA, but take a look at this
nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet

One of the reasons Concorde failed financially was the high fuel costs, a significant part of which is down to the health and safety standards. NASA's proposed design would mean mechanics need to 'climb a 30ft ladder' just to get to the engine, which is dangerous. The aerodynamic efficiency gained from it however would make a massive difference in the fuel bill, thus affordability.

So, imagine that instead of having to replace 100% of our fossil fuel vehicles and equipment, we could just stop mining for fuel and create it cheaply and 100% carbon-neutral. This technology can also be used to produce the precursor materials used to make plastics and composites, so there's another avenue for outright carbon sequestration into useful industrial and consumer products.

Here you go.

theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/201991/counting-hidden-costs-energy

...

In that case we would still have the negative health effects from artificial fuel combustion in our cities.

I don't see the real benefits for doing that. Battery tech and e-motors are getting cheaper and cheaper and once their prices as a system are below the ones for ICEs, I do not see why we should take the losses that come with generating artificial fuel from electricity, rather than using electricity directly.

Alright, meanwhile I've dug up (a) EU report. Most relevant are black and dark grey (I had a better one, but I can't find it right now, that didn't have this color issue - going to keep looking at post it if I find it)

Goddamn, I knew Malta's energy prices were sky high, I didn't realize how bad they were.

There have been a bunch of basically infinite energy systems, even energy synthesis (based of Nikola Tesla's work) but they all get snubbed because of (((them)))

We could be harvesting energy wirelessly from the atmosphere for free right now too, but (((they))) paid someone to burn a lab down so they could make money instead. Anyone who gets even close to developing free energy will pressured or murdered if they won't comply, guaranteed.

Have fun flying internationally in a plane that's 70% batteries by volume, and violently heats to 1000+ degrees in seconds if it suffers damage.

> Why is fusion power not in the news more?

You're just reading wrong news, bro
world-nuclear-news.org/NN-European-consortium-completes-first-Iter-magnet-2205177.html

ITER is a meme, a false flag to keep real fusion power out of reality.

>0 dollar cost electricity.

>not carrying a Thorium power plant instead of all those batteries

hawhawhaw this is gay, i know

i am dutch

fusion works by fusing hydrogen, the must abundant substance in the universe and it can be found easily in water sources.

insightful comment

Don't you just want to fuse your dick with Kelly's ass?
Like just, fuse it together, create some high energy?
And then turn around so she can fuse her dick with your ass?
Even more high energy?
Just imagine what it would yield if you fuse your dick with Kelly's dick
You'd be Australian

How is electricity generated from fusion? In the form of heat?

This is correct, the power grid needs constant monitoring and maintenance. It won't be expensive but it won't be 100% free either as consumption will also explode

now imagine you have something you can now still sell for profit and then change to the product with the massive profit margin.

>How is electricity generated from fusion? In the form of heat?
Yes. Essentially your cooling fluid double-functions as a heating fluid which then heats up water in a heat exchanger or is directly used as steam to power generators.

Essentially how any other power plant, coal, gas, fission etc. works.

My friend, if we move to fusion, how will we be able to have a monopoly on energy?
My friend, why are you so stupid?

Thank you.

>Working fusion power will change everything
The most RETARDED waste of money EVER. Tokamac fusion DOES NOT WORK. We already know this. We are pissing our money away on yet another stupid liberal myth.

Too bad the UK is taking its reactors and leaving the EU.

WTF is this diagram? It can't be correct.

Here's the electricity cost composition in Germany, currently the second-highest in Europe after Denmark
Translation:

23.6% EEG-Umlage - tax to cover the renewable production subsidies
2.8% Sonst. Umlagen - other taxes to cover renewable-related subsidies (efficient heating plants, biogas, offshore windpower)
5.7% Konzessionsabgabe - concession levy (use of third party property for electric installation/transport)
25.6% Netzentgelte, Messung, Abrechnung - grid costs, measurement and billing
19.3% Stromerzeugung, Vertrieb - electricity production and sales costs
7% Stromsteuer - electricity tax
16% Umsatzsteuer - VAT

Average household price (~3500 kWh/year) : 29.16 ct/kWh
Taxes and levies : 55% of total price

Every time fusion is brought up or some "breakthrough" happens it's a bunch of bullshit. Even going back to the 80s - anyone remember this fucking embarrassment?

archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/03/dayintech_0323

Lol. But are Slavs white?

Good goy, keep spending your shekels on coal and oil

Why can't WE harvest power from gravity?

Newton and the apple.

Enough bullshit naow!

>working fusion power

Sure thing, Hanz. I bet we'll put it right next to our Unicorn Fart refinery...

because they gave up on the dream of cold fusion?

Energy will never be 'free', it's a simple law of the universe.

However, yes, fusion power would likely have the biggest impact on our planet in terms of industry, technology, progress and wellbeing.

...

>tokamax

>not stellarator

Once the robots do everything, what else is there to even do?

Yeah, energy bill would be more like internet services. Everyone pays a flat rate to pay for the infrastructure. Well, until (((they))) figure out a way to start charging for usage again. The thing would still burn hydrogen right? Maybe a water shortage would do it. Idk I'm part jewish

That's what they are doing in CERN

Never going to happen, it's no closer than it was 50 years ago despite the billions thrown at it.