A major breakthrough has been announced by US scientists in the race to recreate nuclear fusion. Physicists have pursued the technology for decades as it promises a potential source of near-limitless clean energy. On Tuesday researchers confirmed they have overcome a major barrier - producing more energy from a fusion experiment than was put in. But experts say there is still some way to go before fusion powers homes. The experiment took place at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. LLNL director Dr Kim Budil said: "This is a historic achievement… over the past 60 years thousands of people have contributed to this endeavour and it took real vision to get us here." Nuclear fusion is described as the "holy grail" of energy production. It is the process that powers the Sun and other stars. It works by taking pairs of light atoms and forcing them together - this "fusion" releases a lot of energy. It is the opposite of nuclear fission, where heavy atoms are split apart. Fission is the technology currently used in nuclear power stations, but the process also produces a lot of waste that continues to give out radiation for a long time. It can be dangerous and must be stored safely. Nuclear fusion produces far more energy, and only small amounts of short-lived radioactive waste. And importantly, the process produces no greenhouse gas emissions and therefore does not contribute to climate change. But one of the challenges is that forcing and keeping the elements together in fusion requires very high temperatures and pressures. Until now, no experiment has managed to produce more energy than the amount put in to make it work. How close is a fusion-powered future? The amount of energy they've generated in this experiment is tiny - just enough to boil a few kettles. But what it represents is huge. The promise of a fusion-powered future is one step closer. But there's still a long way to go before this becomes a reality. This experiment shows that the science works. Before scientists can even think about scaling it up, it needs to be repeated, perfected, and the amount of energy it generates will have to be significantly boosted. This experiment has cost billions of dollars - fusion does not come cheap. But the promise of a source of clean energy will certainly be a big incentive for overcoming these challenges. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63950962
These announcements have been made several times in the past to then be quietly retracted after calculation errors were discovered or the experiment results could not be repeated
There are about 20 fusion reactors projects going on. A good number (if not all of them) have generated fusion reactions. The one in the news used lasers to apply pressure. The tokamak reactors have used gigantic magnets for that purpose. I really don't see what is such great news about this particular one. Even those involved say we're a LONG way from fusion energy. It's far to far out to have ANY affect on our energy plans.
With entire oceans to convert to free nuclear fusion energy what will the climate alarmists glom on to next? They have to have something to beat us over the head with.
I guess you could say even converting sea water into clean fusion heat energy warms the planet. So we should all still freeze in the winter to save the Earth.
The problem today isn't that humans are creating heat. The problem is that we are changing the amount of solar heating that stays on Earth. To have a steady state (or nearly so) there needs to be an equal amount of heat leaving Earth. That is, incoming solar radiation and the outgoing infrared radiation combine to heat or cool Earth. If more heat escapes, we cool. If less heat escapes, we warm. Since the industrial age, humans have steadily increased the output of the gasses that slow the infrared frequencies of heat leaving Earth. But, those gasses aren't nearly causing the same kind of reduction in Solar radiation that arrives. So, solar heat is the roughly the same as usual, but the departing heat has decreased. THAT warms the planet. It is far more of a deal than anything man could do to try to directly heat Earth. Think of the sun's heat reaching Earth every day. That much heat has to leave Earth if we are to be in a steady state temperature.
Very well. Now convince me, as the northern hemisphere enters the depth of winter, that an Earth a couple of degrees warmer is such a bad thing. Think less permafrost, more arable land and longer growing seasons.
This is totally off topic. Briefly, climate change will not affect everyone equally. As for food, the major problem with hunger is in the distribution, so longer growing season in Russia and Canada isn't a solution for those in regions that are getting way less water and more heat. Do you see residents in the American Southwest saying about their heat and dry, "It's OK, 'cause, you know - Canada!" And, we're all doing great, because we are rich!
And yet, for all of that they are no closer than they were half a century ago. "Generating a fusion reaction" is nothing really amazing, it was first done in the lab over 64 years ago. And in all that time, we are no closer to a nuclear power plant than we were in 1958. "Generating a fusion reaction" means absolutely nothing.
Greater humidity, which will reduce the size of deserts and increase rainfall globally. Of course, that will take time and that is something they have no concept of. They want solutions immediately and right now, not in the time it takes in reality. The best example we have of permafrost melting and a new ecosystem taking its place is the American Midwest. And estimates vary but are generally in the range of around 10,000 years for how long it took to move from arctic tundra and permafrost to the grasslands we see today. Someday, almost all of the land in North America and Asia-Europe to the Arctic Circle will be similar grasslands. Probably in another 10-15,000 years. And even more greenhouse gasses will be emitted, as the plant and animal matter that has been trapped under ice for tens of thousands of years finally starts to decay. Because that process has been halted since the last ice age started, and we know decomposing material releases a hell of a lot of greenhouse gasses. Hell, there are even some now calling for people to stop composting for this very reason. As apparently even trying to live green is increasing global warming according to some.
Some people saying we need to stop composting because of greenhouse gasses lol! That belief alone should be enough to convince people they're being lead down the garden path by the environmental wingnuts.
Reference for that claim? Because I already proved that historical records show that the average rainfall in California today is the same as it was over 400 years ago. The "drought" is entirely man made due to increased demand by humans, and not a damned thing to do with any changes in precipitation. A great example of this can easily be found. There are plentiful "sources" that point the blame of the Aral Sea in Russia vanishing because of global warming. https://www.unescap.org/sites/defau...eport_Part I_25 April_clean_ENGreferences.pdf However, the reality is that it was 100% human caused, and has nothing to do with rainfall at all. In fact, it is a good example of what is happing in the US, as humans are increasingly diverting water and destroying the environment in the process. This is reality. There is not less water, simply more demand for what water there is.
I especially see it as I am indeed very much a conservationist and try to live my life with as little impact on the environment as I can. But not out of any kind of "save the world - force others to live as I do" mindset, but simply because I think that is the best for the environment. I often go out into nature, and will spend days with just a tent and camping as simply as I can. For most of my adult life my main transportation has been motorcycles, as they require a lot less raw materials to manufacture and are far more efficient in the use of fuel. Most of my vehicles since the early 1980s averaged in the range of 40 MPG or more. Several have have given me in excess of 50 MPG. And the entire vehicle took roughly the raw materials of the engine alone in most cars. Yet, they insist that I need to "do more". At that I just shake my head, and see most as morons and bullies. Yet, I do not go around demanding that they live by my example. Because I know that most are completely unwilling to give up their massive gas hog SUVs and live even remotely as I do.
Do you deny that composting emits greenhouse gasses? In fact, MIT said that it accounts for 90% of greenhouse gas emissions. https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004 SO we all have to stop composting now! That is only adding to the problem, we must collect up and bury all plant and animal material, so we can sequester it deep underground and save the planet!
It is a global problem. We just recently surpassed 8 billion people. The planet simply can not support that many people, period.
What the heck has you in a twist??? My comments have been about EVs as a method of reducing pollution that is adding to our healthcare costs. More than 2/3 of our total oil consumption is going towards burning it on our streets and roads. That's serious from a healthcare point of view.
