News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by shaqbert on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:15AM (#14202652)
Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by mrfusion on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:55AM (#14202936)
I think someone needs to let bill gates know about this video. It's very promising and well planned and it really just needs a minimal investment.

Also someone needs to write this stuff up into an engaging article. It's hard to spread the word with an hour long video.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by leephillips on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:55AM (#14202934)
All his major claims seem correct to me, but my experience in fusion-related research was on the theoretical side. Is there a written summary of what is supposed to be incorrect?
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by Xorlev on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:52AM (#14202912)
Which claims does it refute? I'm not able to watch the video, but I'm interested.
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by shaqbert on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @12:27PM (#14204463)
E.g. the nuclear waste problem: With the right shielding you'll get to radioactive waste that is much easier to handle and usually decaying enough in a 60 year time span. As opposed to the millennia from fission products. So yeah it is a problem, but manageable.

Or the parasitic power consumption problem. Yes, fusion reactors require a lot of energy to power that magnetic field, the cooling for the magnets, but the whole point of fusion research is to get an order of magnitude out of the energy put in, i.e. a G-factor which is > 1. Right now we don't have a fusion reactor that manages G >1, but Iter has the potential to operate around G = 5, and before long some smart kid will figure out a design that gives you G > 10.

The tritium breeding problem. There are indeed some smart solutions like a FLiBe salt blanket fill. Which also is great at absorbing the neutron "waste".

The nuclear proliferation problem. This is more of a theoretical problem, as there are way easier pathways to a bomb. E.g. the thorium fuel cycle to breed a U-233 based bomb is doable even with tech from the 1960'ies.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by politicalthrow on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:47AM (#14204013)
That video gives a terrific overview of the landscape of the fusion field as it exists pretty much right now. It's an extremely coherent talk.

It's long but worth the watch.

Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be by senectus1 on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @11:13PM (#14208923)
it was mesmerising.. this video needs to spread more.