452
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Meh, net gain is the point, long cycles well be useful for production. Useful, eventually. Cart before the horse, otherwise.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I'm studying Physics at the moment and Prof. gave us a printout of a textbook last week stating that the internal of the sun generates approximately 150 W / m³ on average. That's about as much as a compost pile, so, not very much. The sun only generates enormous amounts of power because it's so huge. In other words, reproducing fusion on Earth might actually not be very efficient.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Different kind of fusion. Don't forget hydrogen bombs have been around for decades, right? They're just not very controlled and harnessable.

To the sun's credit, it's 4.5 billion years in and it's still got plenty of juice left to go.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

0 theoretical hope for fusion energy to ever provide electricity under 30c/kwh. These are hot plasma experiments, which could be used to produce mass HHO from water vapour at just 2200C-3000C, even if endothermic. Can get energy from concentrated solar mirrors or just PV solar if plasma is used. Cooling magnets is a huge energy drain. HHO provide the highest turbine energy gain, though a net gain pathway is just slightly more in reach than fusion.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yes but do you concur?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
452 points (97.3% liked)

Science

4686 readers
135 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS