Exactly, also even if fusion became viable solar might be obsolete in terms of powering a city but for smaller off grid use cases it’ll still be around.
The whole green sector only exists today due to government mandate and subsidies. If fusion threatens the planned green dystopia it'll be buried. They'll somehow connect it to racism and regulate it out of existence.
That's probably why HBO made their chernobyl miniseries last year. Was surprised to see anything that portrays socialism in a critical light on mass media, but this makes me think they're making sure everyone is scared of nuclear.
Revisiting my childhood shows makes me realize a ton of them were just anti-nuclear propaganda.
Teenage mutant ninja turtles, toxic avenger, captain planet, class of nuke em high, China Syndrome, Fat man and little boy, the Manhattan project, war games, etc just to name a few.
Not just nuclear plants and ICBM’s, but how many movies and shows revolved around some sort glowing ooze that caused mutations?
I guess things like Chernobyl are put out to re-scare a new generation with anti-nuclear propaganda.
Completely agree friend. And I hope R&D on solar continues along side technology such as this for purposes it's good at. Again there is a place for all things when used properly.
I have about 6 kW on my roof here in South Texas, where it at least makes sense, but I learned during the Freeze back in Feb that the power company (CPS in my case) locks the array out of the grid during a power outage to protect the workers from shocks (and electrocution, I suppose). I think that I will invest in a Powerwall next so that I can always utilize my roof array.
The power company doesn't "lock the array" and the "worker safety" issue, while true, isn't why your solar doesn't generate power when the grid is down.
You have a grid-tied solar array, where the smarts of your electronics are at the power company. Your equipment has no ability to convert solar's DC to AC without the grid and is the price you pay for having the power company issue you credit for your unused power. I don't think you can "sell" your power back to the power company using anything other than their grid-tied equipment.
To use your existing grid-tied solar you need something like the Sol-Ark ( https://shopsolarkits.com/products/sol-ark-12k ). I'm not sure if Powerwall can utilize AC coupled / grid-tied arrays (it's not mentioned in the literature).
If you want to continue getting solar power "credits" from the power company and be able to generate power off-grid you fundamentally need 2 separate systems.
Powerwall works when the grid goes down, yes, that is accurate.
I just meant that I couldn't find in Powerwall literature if you could use your existing grid-attached solar to connect to the Powerwall, or if you would be forced to buy DC or Powerwall brand solar panels.
Update Note: Basically you are talking about 2 different solutions. Cheap grid power because you let the power company use your roof for solar panels, and "off grid" power (when you want to run power out of your home outlets during a grid outage, or just in general). You may have to keep your current solar system as-is to take advantage of the power credits, but for "grid failure" conditions a combination of natural gas generation and solar charged battery is optimum.
All my semantic ramblings aside, it's an exciting product space, I'd love to hear about your experience with PowerWall if you go that direction, I want one too! I don't have any solar so it would just be a battery backup, like a UPS for your house.
I'd be really interested if you find out the details, i.e. Can you use your existing solar panels to charge the PowerWall when the grid is down and still get the power credits when on grid?
I will try to remember to get back to you on this. It will be some time until I even will be able to get a Powerwall, but I would like to, eventually. Our house runs on electric only and was built in 1985. We used to have an outrageous average electric bill (~250/mo), but this dropped about 75% when we did all of the following: replaced the ductwork, replaced the AC, changed out the insulation and installed solar. We also could never get our house really cool enough until we did all of that. As I said, our house was built in 1985, and we had the original AC unit when we moved in.
Last year my father passed at 88, and has left us a moderate inheritance with which we intend to get entirely out of debt (except the house, which we will pay off when I retire in a few years). Hopefully there will be enough there to also get a Powerwall installed.
The small Nuclear reactor could also be used. Nuclear is the only way to make enough energy at a price we can afford. Currently panels are way to expensive and take 20+ years to pay for themselves. Problem is most only last 5-15 years and the older the less power they generate. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a30225278/tiny-nuclear-reactor/
I'll believe it when their is a working commercial product. And then I'll wait 10 years to see if it's legit before I'll even considering it if it's a personal energy product. I doubt it's viable.
As if the all powerful oil industry, (as well as the military industrial complex and political power houses who've been making money hand over fist in the middle east wars), will ever allow cheap and clean energy to exist.
Still, what the fusion people have been trying is one of the most technically most difficult things human have even done -- keep a gaseous plasma contained at 100 million degrees.
Atoms are held together closely in a crystal or lattice structure, creating a better setup for two atoms to fuse. This is what the SAFIRE project is trying to commercialize. In an experimental setting, they are already excess energy and getting self-sustaining reactions.
Can anyone explain how a fusion reactor on Earth would work? The only fusion I know about happens in the core of stars, which requires a shit ton of mass and gravity. Just don't see how it's possible to create fusion.
we can create it, fusion, for 10000th of a second. the real problem is a storage solution to suspend the 7 million degree ball plasma. that, we don't have yet. as far as I know..
Just like fusion in the H-bomb, aka the thermonuclear bomb, all you need is a lot of heat. Fundamentally; heat = pressure, it's all just 'atoms running into each other'. Pressure and heat are two sides of the same coin, two attributes of the same thing.
Any nuclear energy we've created on this planet was from fission, not fusion. Fission is splitting a heavier atom into a bunch of smaller, lighter atoms. The immense power is from the nuclear forces that hold the atoms together, the protons and neutrons. Fusion would be taking two hydrogen atoms, and somehow combining them to make a helium atom. We aren't even close to being able to do that.
"Any nuclear energy we've created on this planet was from fission, not fusion."
-Energy is not created, only converted. H-bombs do just fine converting hydrogen -> helium to heat/EM/particles and have been around for decades. Stating we have never converted energy with fusion on planet Earth is wrong on both counts.
"Fission is splitting a heavier atom into a bunch of smaller, lighter atoms."
-Fission (and fusion for that matter) does result in a different quantity of atoms but mass is lost in both reactions. It's not as simple as just "splitting" an atom or just "fusing" two atoms.
"The immense power is from the nuclear forces that hold the atoms together, the protons and neutrons."
-The energy converted is a result of the interplay between the nuclear force (that holds protons together) and the Coulomb force (which makes protons repel each other). If the nuclear reaction (fission OR fusion) results in a net positive conversion of energy then yes that energy can be used to do work over time but it's not because of the nuclear forces but rather in spite of them.
"Fusion would be taking two hydrogen atoms, and somehow combining them to make a helium atom."
-Fundamentally correct, but there is no mystery, no "somehow", it's just heat. Just as the kinetic energy conversion of neutron collisions disrupts the balance between nuclear and Coulomb forces in a uranium atom, so does the kinetic energy conversion of hydrogen atom collisions disrupt the balance in hydrogen. In fission Coulomb forces win, in fusion the nuclear forces win.
"We aren't even close to being able to do that."
-The H-Bomb uses a fission reaction which creates the high energy state (heat/pressure) required to fuse deuterium ( hydrogen isotope ). Experimental fusion reactors today regularly fuse deuterium in a plasma, under conditions several times hotter than the center of the sun. Researchers just don't have a way to contain, sustain, or capture the reactions released energy yet, but claim to be close.
Do I ever think we'll have viable fusion based electrical power generation? Yes, we already do. It's called coal. Will deuterium fusion power generation ever be a thing? Probably, eventually...
Stupid... the average idiot American fears fission, but then will go and wet their panties any time the word fusion drops. Here's a little "Breaking News" for you to gather sustenance from: We need the power of fission to get to fusion.
Nuclear fusion has been "10 years away" for the past 60 years. I'm not holding my breath. The tokamak containment device consumes more power than it can generate, simple thermodynamics
Solar is definitely the future.....about 100 years on the future. The technology is just beyond us right now. If people really cared about the environment they'd become engineers and scientists, not activists.
We've been 10 years from fusion power for 80 years.
*Here are the top 10 reasons this time is different. Number four will ignite you.
Read the article, they say just 9 years! ;)
All right 80 more years until we are 8 years away!
Progress
our amplifiers go to up to 11
I've been hearing "we're just a few years away from fusion power" since at least the early 1990s.
That's because Politicians crush the industry everytime they get close to a breakthrough.
They're going to the government for permission. So, even if it really does work, it will be 900 years
Exactly, also even if fusion became viable solar might be obsolete in terms of powering a city but for smaller off grid use cases it’ll still be around.
Solar’s going to be obsolete because Bill Gates will soon blot out the sun.
Have to keep the human body from producing vitamin D naturally so he can infect us with more of his viral creations!
The whole green sector only exists today due to government mandate and subsidies. If fusion threatens the planned green dystopia it'll be buried. They'll somehow connect it to racism and regulate it out of existence.
That's probably why HBO made their chernobyl miniseries last year. Was surprised to see anything that portrays socialism in a critical light on mass media, but this makes me think they're making sure everyone is scared of nuclear.
Revisiting my childhood shows makes me realize a ton of them were just anti-nuclear propaganda.
Teenage mutant ninja turtles, toxic avenger, captain planet, class of nuke em high, China Syndrome, Fat man and little boy, the Manhattan project, war games, etc just to name a few.
Not just nuclear plants and ICBM’s, but how many movies and shows revolved around some sort glowing ooze that caused mutations?
I guess things like Chernobyl are put out to re-scare a new generation with anti-nuclear propaganda.
Is it weird that I viewed them as pro nuclear?
“Why nuclear power is actually WAYCISS” - The CDC, probably
Yup, the government would use it for themselves only without it seeing the light of day.
Be fusion
Be thorium or molten salt reactors
Yea but you can’t make weapons grade fuel with Thorium reactors 🙄
Yeah I don't think so, I have enough solar on my RV's roof to run my AC and everything inside, this does not look like it would fit on my RVs roof..
There is a place for all things when used properly..
OK for personal bs solar can work but it's useless to power a city or factories.
Completely agree friend. And I hope R&D on solar continues along side technology such as this for purposes it's good at. Again there is a place for all things when used properly.
I have about 6 kW on my roof here in South Texas, where it at least makes sense, but I learned during the Freeze back in Feb that the power company (CPS in my case) locks the array out of the grid during a power outage to protect the workers from shocks (and electrocution, I suppose). I think that I will invest in a Powerwall next so that I can always utilize my roof array.
You realize that even with a power wall as long as.younare grid tied the system won't feed when the power company is out?
You need to install a transfer switch and be non grid tied.
Yes. The company that installed the array (I can't call it a Solar System, lol) also specializes in this.
The power company doesn't "lock the array" and the "worker safety" issue, while true, isn't why your solar doesn't generate power when the grid is down.
You have a grid-tied solar array, where the smarts of your electronics are at the power company. Your equipment has no ability to convert solar's DC to AC without the grid and is the price you pay for having the power company issue you credit for your unused power. I don't think you can "sell" your power back to the power company using anything other than their grid-tied equipment.
To use your existing grid-tied solar you need something like the Sol-Ark ( https://shopsolarkits.com/products/sol-ark-12k ). I'm not sure if Powerwall can utilize AC coupled / grid-tied arrays (it's not mentioned in the literature).
If you want to continue getting solar power "credits" from the power company and be able to generate power off-grid you fundamentally need 2 separate systems.
Tesla advertises that the Powerwall works when the grid goes down. Is that not accurate?
Powerwall works when the grid goes down, yes, that is accurate.
I just meant that I couldn't find in Powerwall literature if you could use your existing grid-attached solar to connect to the Powerwall, or if you would be forced to buy DC or Powerwall brand solar panels.
Update Note: Basically you are talking about 2 different solutions. Cheap grid power because you let the power company use your roof for solar panels, and "off grid" power (when you want to run power out of your home outlets during a grid outage, or just in general). You may have to keep your current solar system as-is to take advantage of the power credits, but for "grid failure" conditions a combination of natural gas generation and solar charged battery is optimum.
All my semantic ramblings aside, it's an exciting product space, I'd love to hear about your experience with PowerWall if you go that direction, I want one too! I don't have any solar so it would just be a battery backup, like a UPS for your house.
I'd be really interested if you find out the details, i.e. Can you use your existing solar panels to charge the PowerWall when the grid is down and still get the power credits when on grid?
I will try to remember to get back to you on this. It will be some time until I even will be able to get a Powerwall, but I would like to, eventually. Our house runs on electric only and was built in 1985. We used to have an outrageous average electric bill (~250/mo), but this dropped about 75% when we did all of the following: replaced the ductwork, replaced the AC, changed out the insulation and installed solar. We also could never get our house really cool enough until we did all of that. As I said, our house was built in 1985, and we had the original AC unit when we moved in.
Last year my father passed at 88, and has left us a moderate inheritance with which we intend to get entirely out of debt (except the house, which we will pay off when I retire in a few years). Hopefully there will be enough there to also get a Powerwall installed.
I would be very interested in your setup. Back when I had an RV, panels were mostly under 200 watts and batteries were way too expensive.
The small Nuclear reactor could also be used. Nuclear is the only way to make enough energy at a price we can afford. Currently panels are way to expensive and take 20+ years to pay for themselves. Problem is most only last 5-15 years and the older the less power they generate. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a30225278/tiny-nuclear-reactor/
i want cheap power so i can run my AC at 60 then hide under huge blankets from the chill
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE, I'M RICH WITH ELECTRONS
this
pure white privilege. I like it
I want to run my Heater in the Summer because I'm always Cold.
I lol’ed at your comment, then I lol’ed at your username. Lol.
I wasnt able to build Fusion Power Plants in Simcity until the year 2055.
I remember Amazon promising drone deliveries to homes by 2018,
have you met any of their drivers?
More like "targeted surveillance" disguised as deliveries.
And we would've got it too, if it weren't for the FAA.
I wish this would happen so I could laugh at the idiots I know who went into 10s of 1000s in debt for solar panels that "pay for themselves."
I'll believe it when their is a working commercial product. And then I'll wait 10 years to see if it's legit before I'll even considering it if it's a personal energy product. I doubt it's viable.
As if the all powerful oil industry, (as well as the military industrial complex and political power houses who've been making money hand over fist in the middle east wars), will ever allow cheap and clean energy to exist.
I know, I’m reading this and thinking, shhhh shut the fuck up until it’s 100% ready to go online, before you get Arkancided!
Even if fusion became viable tomorrow it wouldn't change the Borg mind one bit. Environmentalism is about money and control.
We already have plenty of options for safe nuclear. But it's not about cheap safe energy.. It's about control.
The only true green energy
Not to worry. China/Burisma Joe will make sure it never happens
It’s always just ten years away. . .
It would be good if that happens.
Still, what the fusion people have been trying is one of the most technically most difficult things human have even done -- keep a gaseous plasma contained at 100 million degrees.
Atoms are held together closely in a crystal or lattice structure, creating a better setup for two atoms to fuse. This is what the SAFIRE project is trying to commercialize. In an experimental setting, they are already excess energy and getting self-sustaining reactions.
Can anyone explain how a fusion reactor on Earth would work? The only fusion I know about happens in the core of stars, which requires a shit ton of mass and gravity. Just don't see how it's possible to create fusion.
we can create it, fusion, for 10000th of a second. the real problem is a storage solution to suspend the 7 million degree ball plasma. that, we don't have yet. as far as I know..
Just like fusion in the H-bomb, aka the thermonuclear bomb, all you need is a lot of heat. Fundamentally; heat = pressure, it's all just 'atoms running into each other'. Pressure and heat are two sides of the same coin, two attributes of the same thing.
Any nuclear energy we've created on this planet was from fission, not fusion. Fission is splitting a heavier atom into a bunch of smaller, lighter atoms. The immense power is from the nuclear forces that hold the atoms together, the protons and neutrons. Fusion would be taking two hydrogen atoms, and somehow combining them to make a helium atom. We aren't even close to being able to do that.
Not trying to be a prick here but...
"Any nuclear energy we've created on this planet was from fission, not fusion."
-Energy is not created, only converted. H-bombs do just fine converting hydrogen -> helium to heat/EM/particles and have been around for decades. Stating we have never converted energy with fusion on planet Earth is wrong on both counts.
"Fission is splitting a heavier atom into a bunch of smaller, lighter atoms."
-Fission (and fusion for that matter) does result in a different quantity of atoms but mass is lost in both reactions. It's not as simple as just "splitting" an atom or just "fusing" two atoms.
"The immense power is from the nuclear forces that hold the atoms together, the protons and neutrons."
-The energy converted is a result of the interplay between the nuclear force (that holds protons together) and the Coulomb force (which makes protons repel each other). If the nuclear reaction (fission OR fusion) results in a net positive conversion of energy then yes that energy can be used to do work over time but it's not because of the nuclear forces but rather in spite of them.
"Fusion would be taking two hydrogen atoms, and somehow combining them to make a helium atom."
-Fundamentally correct, but there is no mystery, no "somehow", it's just heat. Just as the kinetic energy conversion of neutron collisions disrupts the balance between nuclear and Coulomb forces in a uranium atom, so does the kinetic energy conversion of hydrogen atom collisions disrupt the balance in hydrogen. In fission Coulomb forces win, in fusion the nuclear forces win.
"We aren't even close to being able to do that."
-The H-Bomb uses a fission reaction which creates the high energy state (heat/pressure) required to fuse deuterium ( hydrogen isotope ). Experimental fusion reactors today regularly fuse deuterium in a plasma, under conditions several times hotter than the center of the sun. Researchers just don't have a way to contain, sustain, or capture the reactions released energy yet, but claim to be close.
Do I ever think we'll have viable fusion based electrical power generation? Yes, we already do. It's called coal. Will deuterium fusion power generation ever be a thing? Probably, eventually...
As far as I'm aware, it's not. Because stars are giant particle accelerators that produce shitloads of antimatter which fuels the fusion events.
Fusion is like a Star, but a Star does Fission, which Fusion on Many Many Steroids.
jUsT iNsTaLl fUsIoN rEaCtOrS
Stupid... the average idiot American fears fission, but then will go and wet their panties any time the word fusion drops. Here's a little "Breaking News" for you to gather sustenance from: We need the power of fission to get to fusion.
In an H-bomb, but not in a reactor, that has other, bigger problems
Nuclear fusion has been "10 years away" for the past 60 years. I'm not holding my breath. The tokamak containment device consumes more power than it can generate, simple thermodynamics
This is not a tokamak, it's a linear acceletor.
Good lord, that's even worse
Solar is definitely the future.....about 100 years on the future. The technology is just beyond us right now. If people really cared about the environment they'd become engineers and scientists, not activists.
Amazing
Pfffttt! My flying car is going to be powered by cold fusion. Any day now.
Cold fusion is still just a theory and has never been created in a lab. If it had been it would be the biggest story of any day.
I never understood this. "We made heavier elements but no heat" why? Don't we want energy output?
This is not "cold fusion", it's hot fusion, like the sun.