So fucking cool!!!!!!

You gotta see this!

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech/2015/10/02/orig-zp-nuclear-fusion-po...

I totally love this!!!!

I am concerned that by the time we "get there" it WILL be too late....but it's a shot in the dark.

Views: 578

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Except that Mylar shit they make the birthday balloons out of, I suppose.

Those generally contain helium, not hydrogen.  And if you ever look at one after a few days, you'll notice it's generally looking a bit sad and deflated.  So it is porous stuff, you wouldn't want your car's gas tank made out of it, particularly if you park it in a closed garage for a few days.  Hydrogen is colorless, odorless, and if mixed in the right ratio with oxygen, violently explosive. 

Seriously, containing hydrogen gas for long periods of time under pressure is a bit of a challenge.  There are ways to do it, but economically on a large scale?  Your "gas" tank (literally, a gas tank) would be very expensive and heavy.

Propane (just to contrast it) is a gas under normal conditions but under a little bit of pressure liquefies and serves as fairly dense energy storage.  The tanks for it are still bulky and heavy but nothing like for hydrogen or compressed natural gas (CNG actually is an energy source, however).  Putting hydrogen under several thousand pounds per square inch of pressure leaves it as still a gas and volume for volume, containing less energy than something that is liquefied.

A bit of an aside and a true fact:  There is more hydrogen in a gallon of water, than there is in a gallon of actual, liquefied hydrogen (which you have to keep at absurdly low temperature, -423 F, just ask NASA).  The gallon of liquid hydrogen weighs 7 percent the weight of the gallon of water (think liquid packing peanuts), but the water is 1/9th or about 11 percent hydrogen.

Here's a list of a few announced projects, filtered for >4 hour endurance. One quote I saw was "75% efficiency".

Seems better than billions of batteries (wikipedia says 50%-85% efficiency for batteries) using up earths metals and chemicals and only providing a working life of 10 or so years.

The thing is not to get that water up the hill with less energy than it produces, it's to not use any of OUR energy. Hence, (wait for it) use Illegal immigrant slaves to haul water up the hill and get Mexico to pay for them! (Trump can do that for us, I'm sure.)

This is actually an energy storage solution that's being used in some locations , @Matt.   As you say, any sort of storage/conversion like this introduces efficiency losses.

I think the bigger problem is that not everywhere has hills with reservoirs and lots of water.

As I understand it, the other big problem is the amount of time it takes to switch over to drawing from storage.  Electrical loads fluctuate substantially, as does wind and solar generation.  It's necessary to have storage that can respond very quickly to fluctuations in either demand or generation.  If you don't, then voltage fluctuations can become too large and you start blowing out people's electronics or transformers along the way.

Batteries can respond quickly to load changes; power plants can also do that reasonably well. Other storage is not always fast enough.  The pumped storage setups I believe use reversible pumps, so it can take a bit to reverse the flow and come up to generating levels.

Perhaps a hybrid solution: batteries for short term fluctuations, stored hydro for longer periods.

Another possibility is using the wind and solar power to only pump water. Then continuously run the hydro generator to produce a stable supply. I thought of it on my own but it's also mentioned in your wikipedia article. Obviously, this would need a seperate pump and generator.

Pretty cool stuff.

Click on the Nuclear Fusion story here.

Damn, I can't find the charger for my perpetual motion machine. Anyone got a spare?

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service