I'm just hearing this on NBC News. This is HUGE !!! https://www.theguardian.com/environ...clear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy Nuclear power Breakthrough in nuclear fusion could mean ‘near-limitless energy’ Researchers managed to release more energy than they put in: a positive gain known as ignition
Unfortunately, we have been hearing about breakthroughs and how unlimited energy from fusion power might be just around the corner for decades now. There's this issue of creating, containing, maintaining and controlling the fusion reaction, sort of like having a miniature sun in a small container. As I recall, the hoopla began in the late 1960s when Soviet scientists came up with the tokamak magnetic containment approach. Since then, there have been a stream of "firsts" that rekindled the dialog but, alas, still no sliver bullet.
My physics knowledge is sadly lacking but I thought the main problem was creating a magnetic bottle to contain the intensely hot fusion reaction. They've done something of the kind with lasers and are claiming to be getting more energy out than was put in. The difference, I think, between past claims of this with cold fusion and the current endeavor is that the cold fusion energy levels were too low to be useful, while the laser energy expended with this effort is, I'm guessing, magnitudes higher since this is hot fusion. John, I rushed into this reply before even fully reading your post so I sound repetitive of your stuff. I'm on a short break from work and was hurrying myself. (deep breath, repeat mantra - "hairy Christmas, ooom").
Aside from the problems of "sparking" off the fission reaction (and getting more energy out than went in) and containing it, there's the problem of the fuel - tritium, which is an isotope of hydrogen that's in very short supply. It exists only in trace amounts, both in the upper atmosphere and in nuclear reactors. Supposedly, very few nuclear reactors are capable of harvesting tritium and then only in inconsequential amounts.. Scientists are, I believe, moving forward on the idea that they can 'breed' tritium but that would seem to first require a working fusion reactor. Thus there's the issue of building one that works before using up what little tritium there is. Bottom Line: I am pretty sure we'll not be around to see fusion power and wonder why not use more, smaller, safer nuclear reactors to generate electricity in a highly distributed network.
Aside from the problems of "sparking" off the fission reaction (and getting more energy out than went in) and containing it, there's the problem of the fuel - tritium, which is an isotope of hydrogen that's in very short supply. It exists only in trace amounts, both in the upper atmosphere and in nuclear reactors. Supposedly, very few nuclear reactors are capable of harvesting tritium and then only in inconsequential amounts.. Scientists are, I believe, moving forward on the idea that they can 'breed' tritium but that would seem to require a working fusion reactor. Thus there's the issue of building one that works before using up what little tritium there is. Edit Note: I am pretty sure none of us will live to see fusion power. I also wonder why not create a highly distributed network of smaller, safer, nuclear poser stations.
I have some vague recollections of proposed heavy water reactors. Is tritium the same as heavy water? I thought it could be 'mined' from ocean water.
I read that tritium is produced in heavy water when it is used as nuclear reactor coolant. Neutrons bombard the deuterium in heavy water, which produces tritium. Collecting that tritium is another matter.
Mike Adams has a interesting take on the socio-political reasons for this breakthrough being allowed to be made public at this time - another plausible conspiracy theory. Also, he talks about cold vs. hot fusion. https://www.brighteon.com/19322dd0-bbe6-4b08-b3a4-a24a6a8e6336
I think I'm going to go fishing this weekend over by the power plant. They have radioactive fish, so I'll use my nuclear fission pole. Thank you, thank you folks. I'll be performing here all week. I recommend the prime rib.
Given that nobody has been able to replicate Fleishmann and Pons' findings (that supposedly produced extraneous energy from the electrolysis of heavy water), I am guessing the hoopla around cold fusion was and is just vacuous noise. I did a somewhat similar (but less sophisticated) experiment (as my 8th grade science project) on the electrolysis of water using different electrodes to see what I could find. Having neither heavy water nor any sophisticated measuring instruments, all I got was hydrogen, oxygen and perhaps a trace of heat near the carbon electrodes. It went along with my 8th grade term paper on atomic energy, neither of which got a good grade due to some grammatical errors and the fact the teachers's weren't interested in such stuff. I think that gave me a distaste for chemistry, physics and lousy teachers.