Skip to main content

Crowdsourcing and Fusion - Perfect Together

crowdsourcingA project on Indiegogo:

Scientists at LPP Fusion, led by Chief Scientist Eric Lerner, are just one step away from this groundbreaking technology and we need your help for the final push.

One step away! That’s pretty exciting, belying the fusion joke that a breakthrough is always five years away – unless of course that’s how long the step takes.

Rising energy costs and resource scarcity are concerns shared by the developed and developing world alike.  We need the ultimate renewable energy technology in the form of fusion energy, the source of energy for the Sun and stars.  If we can succeed, Focus Fusion's low cost and easily distributed electricity will eliminate both global energy poverty and global air pollution once and for all. 

Bold in original – and bold in concept.

One thing you should not do when selling fusion is rank on fission. Bad form.

Today, nuclear energy means nuclear fission, which raises issues like long-lived radioactive waste and catastrophes like that at Fukushima Daiichi. 

Fission energy, what is commonly called nuclear energy,  would be obsolete. There would be no more radioactive meltdowns spilling radiation onto our land and into our oceans.

But really, why think small? Among other utopic reasons for fusion:

Create peace

Nuclear fission technology, like uranium enrichment with its weapons applications, is another source of conflict in our world. 

With no use for civilian nuclear energy, we could lock up the uranium mines, making proliferation of nuclear weapons almost impossible.    

There’s a lot more on the page, including a description of the fusion technique that will change everything. Although I’m having fun here, I have no opinion about this one way or another. A thick sales pitch doesn’t make the project illegitimate. That said, throwing in cash to help out has to be a personal decision. A fool and his money is about as far as I’d want to go on advice.

Still, fusion and crowdsourcing? Perfect together. When I last checked in, LPP Fusion has raised about $58,000 of the $200,000 it is looking for.

Comments

Jaro said…
LPP is the only outfit claiming that they are "very close" (their "timeline" indicates "scientific demo" in 2014 - this year!!), while at the same time admitting - with a STRAIGHT FACE - that they are four orders of magnitude off on the required plasma density.
Don't you resent it, when someone takes their audience for a bunch of idiots?

The standard LPP answer to bridging this little four-orders-of-magnitude density shortcoming is:

* 50x-- Achieve theoretical density—tungsten electrodes to eliminate impurity
* 10x-- Increase current to 2.8 MA
* 20x-- Better compression with heavier pB11

If you buy that, there's also some great swamp land in Florida for sale.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=741313735891479&set=p.741313735891479
jimwg said…
"Today, nuclear energy means nuclear fission, which raises issues like long-lived radioactive waste and catastrophes like that at Fukushima Daiichi."

I've seen wreckage of a jet crash near JFK Airport. THAT'S a "disaster" and a "catastrophe". These fellows seriously need to check a Websters. I though we already know what to do with nuclear waste; the hard part is the FUD and Politics.

"There would be no more radioactive meltdowns spilling radiation onto our land and into our oceans."

I'd REALLY like to have this fellow cough up the proof of this on a live podcast! Bad enough to know that their rants will go unchallenged in the open public, much to our detriment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-atom-friendly-asia-a-nuclear-power-boom-in-the-west-stagnation/

Generating public nuclear confidence and preserving plants aren't helped when prestigious periodicals like Scientific American keep on harping on safety points and Fukushima almost as though a nuclear reactor is exceptionally intrinsically prone to failure or meltdowns in so-called "disasters" and "catastrophes". They won't respond/post my comments.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Mitch said…

What Blogger Jaro Franta said...

But could it be that LPP is really a gas/oil puppet behind the curtains to keep the public fearful of fission in any form and to instead chase the red-herring of fusion?
Anonymous said…
I remember reading a headline in the Nuclear News magazine
'Nuclear fusion in 25 years? That's what they said 25 years ago'
That was in 1980, so don't keep your breath waiting.
Fredrik L

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...