Nuclear fusion edges closer to reality thanks to new tungsten reactor

[Thrackerzod]

Are you happy with governments and investors throwing tens of billions literally into the trash on something obviously unviable? The other guy just said the obvious.

I don't consider research money being thrown in the trash. Those who declare things a waste of time and that we shouldn't even try are very short sighted. With enough time and research it could be completely viable someday. People once thought air travel was impossible and walking on the moon was certainly a fairy tale. If we didn't experiment and try new things we would never make any progress at all.

 

[Gastec]

"The WEST (Tungsten Environment in Steady-State Tokamak) reactor,[...]'

It would have been helpful to transliterate the acronym fully, as WEST equaling 'Tungsten Environment in Steady-State Tokamac' doesn't quite make sense. It's WEST because they use the alternative name for Tungsten which is "Wolfram".

Or the alternative name of Wolfram is Tungsten, as in the periodic table the element has the symbol W, from Wolfram.

 

[lonetac]

What is with the solar panel brigade at the moment? Solar doesn't work anywhere near as well as it's made out to.

At least, in the UK, I know only a few people that have gone for it, none of them really recommend it, they all say "yeah my electric bill is lower for sure" but none of them really recommend it. The savings aren't really there and it's a very expensive thing to do, takes many years to pay itself back, and that's assuming it's operating at its peak for the whole 10 years or however long it takes to pay back.

I didn't really say this to the people I know but they're also all older people, with even older houses. I suspect the UK having the worlds oldest housing stock + famously bad weather really hurts Solar's ability to be useful here.

Im in the USA. I have solar on my house. I have $0 electricity bills and generate WAY more electricity than my house uses by a metric ton. It gets sold back to the grid. We use the grid when the sun isnt shining. If we had a battery, we could run 100% off grid.

The system cost us around $30k with some tree cutting and other minor things. It will amortize itself in 6 years and then we will have roughly 20+ more years of free energy. The govt gave us $10k back in a tax rebate for moving to clean renewable energy source.

The electric company pays us for the electricity we sell back to the grid.

its 100% viable and im living proof in my current situation that it works. Can everyone do this? There are obviously variables involved but its possible for a majority of suburbia.

 

[DanteSmith]

I don't consider research money being thrown in the trash. Those who declare things a waste of time and that we shouldn't even try are very short sighted. With enough time and research it could be completely viable someday. People once thought air travel was impossible and walking on the moon was certainly a fairy tale. If we didn't experiment and try new things we would never make any progress at all.

We are not in the medieval era. Today, we have the technology and data to determine what is viable and what is not, and to efficiently invest money, which is not infinite. The hundreds of billions wasted on something clearly unfeasible for obvious reasons would be better allocated to research on sodium batteries and solar panels. This would reduce our dependence on China.

Life can feel like a vast game of chess, where every decision and move with our limited resources can dramatically alter the outcome. However, there comes a point where there's no going back, Your destiny has already been fixed by the wrong moves.

 

[Endymio]

3-4Kwh of solar panels costs only about US$1000, the current ROI is only 4-5 years, the panels last decades and decades.

The amount of errors in this one short sentence alone is staggering. First of all, you have your units wrong -- KW-hr is a unit of energy, not power. Secondly, your price is off by an astounding 800%. Forbes Magazine currently lists the cost of ONE KW of solar panels at $2000:

How Much Do Solar Panels Cost? A Full Breakdown of Associated Costs and Factors

Get expert advice on improvements to your home, including design tips, how much you'd expect to pay for a pro and what to ask when hiring experts.

www.forbes.com

Thirdly -- multiplying the ROI by that 800% price error gives an ROI of 30+ years. But even that is misleading, as it depends on the government forcing utilities to purchase excess power from you at wildly unrealistic prices. That scheme works only when a tiny fraction of consumers have such panels.

Fourth and lastly, if "decades and decades" means 30+ years, then panels lose ~35% efficiency over that period. Unless you gain 35% of roof area over that time, then you have a problem.

 

[Endymio]

And despite what you think about environmentalists and your tendency to tell us all "The Sky is Falling," Fission has received a big boost in the US by, OMG, Biden

Do you read your links before posting them? In that monstrous $1,200,000,000,000.00 "Infrastructure" bill, there was $6B to keep open current nuke plants -- required, unless we want the US grid to collapse -- and all of $2.5B earmarked for research in "advanced nuclear" technology. The $6B in funding is spread out over the next fourteen years, with the program ending in 2035.

Even worse, as of Nov 2023 -- two years after the bill was passed -- only $150M of the research funds had actually been awarded by the DOE.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

The amount of errors in this one short sentence alone is staggering. First of all, you have your units wrong -- KW-hr is a unit of energy, not power. Secondly, your price is off by an astounding 800%. Forbes Magazine currently lists the cost of ONE KW of solar panels at $2000:

How Much Do Solar Panels Cost? A Full Breakdown of Associated Costs and Factors

Get expert advice on improvements to your home, including design tips, how much you'd expect to pay for a pro and what to ask when hiring experts.

www.forbes.com

Thirdly -- multiplying the ROI by that 800% price error gives an ROI of 30+ years. But even that is misleading, as it depends on the government forcing utilities to purchase excess power from you at wildly unrealistic prices. That scheme works only when a tiny fraction of consumers have such panels.

Fourth and lastly, if "decades and decades" means 30+ years, then panels lose ~35% efficiency over that period. Unless you gain 35% of roof area over that time, then you have a problem.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Here (Brazil) a 580w(22%) panel costs around U$ 100-110, U$ 1000 = 5.8Kw of panels. If I were to buy from a supplier as a company, it would be even cheaper.

The average energy generated is 29Kw/day, 870kw per month. When you generate more than you consume, the energy company only charges the minimum maintenance fee, which is around U$15.

The ROI here is only about 2-3 years.

 

[DanteSmith]

The amount of errors in this one short sentence alone is staggering. First of all, you have your units wrong -- KW-hr is a unit of energy, not power. Secondly, your price is off by an astounding 800%. Forbes Magazine currently lists the cost of ONE KW of solar panels at $2000:

How Much Do Solar Panels Cost? A Full Breakdown of Associated Costs and Factors

Get expert advice on improvements to your home, including design tips, how much you'd expect to pay for a pro and what to ask when hiring experts.

www.forbes.com

Thirdly -- multiplying the ROI by that 800% price error gives an ROI of 30+ years. But even that is misleading, as it depends on the government forcing utilities to purchase excess power from you at wildly unrealistic prices. That scheme works only when a tiny fraction of consumers have such panels.

Fourth and lastly, if "decades and decades" means 30+ years, then panels lose ~35% efficiency over that period. Unless you gain 35% of roof area over that time, then you have a problem.

Trina Solar 410 Watt BiFacial Mono VertexSolar Panel - All Black | TSM-410NE09RC.05

Trina Solar 410 Watt BiFacial Mono VertexSolar Panel - All Black | TSM-410NE09RC.05 EcoDirect.com | Call Us! 760-597-0498

www.ecodirect.com

410watts = U$ 175 x 2460watts (U$ 1050) = 295Kwh*

Conservative number of just 4 hours of sun exposure.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you better not want to act smart. The quiet ***** can pass off as intelligent.

 

[Endymio]

Trina Solar 410 Watt BiFacial Mono VertexSolar Panel - All Black | TSM-410NE09RC.05

Trina Solar 410 Watt BiFacial Mono VertexSolar Panel - All Black | TSM-410NE09RC.05 EcoDirect.com | Call Us! 760-597-0498

www.ecodirect.com

410watts = U$ 175 x 2460watts (U$ 1050) = 295Kwh*

Oops again! You still have the same dimensional error in your calculation. I assume what you meant to say was 295KW-hr per month. Without that, the statement is meaningless.

Furthermore, your "bare panel" cost doesn't include mounting, installation, wiring & inverter, etc. Including those costs gives the figure I cited from Forbes. Furthermore, if you don't wish to waste 75% of your power during peak daylight hours, while doing without entirely at night, then you must factor in a large battery array, which can double or triple the costs again.

Conservative number of just 4 hours of sun exposure.

Not terribly conservative. It works out to a 17% CF. Solar farms in the US generally do about 25% ... but they're sited in ideal areas, oriented perfectly to the sun (which isn't possible on the vast majority of roofs), and don't have to worry about shading from nearby trees, buildings, etc.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you better not want to act smart.

Good advice!

 

[lonetac]

The amount of errors in this one short sentence alone is staggering. First of all, you have your units wrong -- KW-hr is a unit of energy, not power. Secondly, your price is off by an astounding 800%. Forbes Magazine currently lists the cost of ONE KW of solar panels at $2000:

How Much Do Solar Panels Cost? A Full Breakdown of Associated Costs and Factors

Get expert advice on improvements to your home, including design tips, how much you'd expect to pay for a pro and what to ask when hiring experts.

www.forbes.com

Thirdly -- multiplying the ROI by that 800% price error gives an ROI of 30+ years. But even that is misleading, as it depends on the government forcing utilities to purchase excess power from you at wildly unrealistic prices. That scheme works only when a tiny fraction of consumers have such panels.

Fourth and lastly, if "decades and decades" means 30+ years, then panels lose ~35% efficiency over that period. Unless you gain 35% of roof area over that time, then you have a problem.

I have solar. I just paid for panels and have first hand experience. We were charged $800 per panel.

Our ROI is 6 years (system cost around $32k). That doesnt include the tiny smidgen the power company pays you for energy you return to the grid. The utilities paying you back is pennies compared to what they charge for electricity and not wildly unrealistic. Your comment is wildly incorrect based on real life experience and our company didnt even include what they pay you to calculate the ROI.

While we are producing WAY more than we can use. For example, last month we produced 1.1MWh, consumed 612.6 kWh and exported 748.5 kWh. We will be lucky with that trend to get a few hundred bucks back from the energy company. its not wildly unrealistic prices. What they charge for electricity is wildly unrealistic which is $14-17 per kWh.

We are now enjoying $0 electricity bills and will be for the next 30 years. This is very feasible for most of suburbia.

Also, not sure if you know this, but our panels still produce electricity even on cloudy days or if they are covered in snow. Science is fun like that.

 

[RaXelliX]

During the record-setting run, the team injected 1.15 gigajoules of power into WEST, sustaining a plasma burning at approximately 50 million degrees Celsius – over three times hotter than the core of the Sun.

When they achieve 1.21 gigajoules then the flex capacitor will power up and enable time travel.

 

[bclaymiles]

I have solar. I just paid for panels and have first hand experience. We were charged $800 per panel.

Our ROI is 6 years (system cost around $32k). That doesnt include the tiny smidgen the power company pays you for energy you return to the grid. The utilities paying you back is pennies compared to what they charge for electricity and not wildly unrealistic. Your comment is wildly incorrect based on real life experience and our company didnt even include what they pay you to calculate the ROI.

While we are producing WAY more than we can use. For example, last month we produced 1.1MWh, consumed 612.6 kWh and exported 748.5 kWh. We will be lucky with that trend to get a few hundred bucks back from the energy company. its not wildly unrealistic prices. What they charge for electricity is wildly unrealistic which is $14-17 per kWh.

We are now enjoying $0 electricity bills and will be for the next 30 years. This is very feasible for most of suburbia.

Also, not sure if you know this, but our panels still produce electricity even on cloudy days or if they are covered in snow. Science is fun like that.

It would probably reduce confusion if folks discussing their solar installation identified what country they're in; and in the US, what state they're in. "Dollars" aren't the same country to country, and US states have wildly varying incentives as well as the costs they charge for electricity, and what they'll pay back when you send to the grid. Yes, I realize you said you were in the US in an earlier post, but keeping track of who's who and where can be difficult.

For decades, California's PG&E paid back very good per-kwh rates. That all ended a couple of years ago, which drastically alters the payback time.

$14-$17/kWh sounds completely out of reach for anyone. My overall usage (in California) for my home is about 10kWh to 13kWh per day. That would be $5,460 a month at the rates you suggest you pay. My current electric bill - in a state with high rates to begin with - is about $150/month. I don't have solar.

 

[lonetac]

It would probably reduce confusion if folks discussing their solar installation identified what country they're in; and in the US, what state they're in. "Dollars" aren't the same country to country, and US states have wildly varying incentives as well as the costs they charge for electricity, and what they'll pay back when you send to the grid. Yes, I realize you said you were in the US in an earlier post, but keeping track of who's who and where can be difficult.

For decades, California's PG&E paid back very good per-kwh rates. That all ended a couple of years ago, which drastically alters the payback time.

$14-$17/kWh sounds completely out of reach for anyone. My overall usage (in California) for my home is about 10kWh to 13kWh per day. That would be $5,460 a month at the rates you suggest you pay. My current electric bill - in a state with high rates to begin with - is about $150/month. I don't have solar.

I already stated in this thread prior that I live in the USA.

That's the cost of electricity in CT.

There is a gov subsidy where you get 30% of your solar project cost back at tax season. That equated to about $11k for us which we did get back.

You can view the electrical rates on eversources website.

Our electric bills were around 200-500 a month prior and the rates continue to go up.

Ive been told the only state that pays more for electricity is hawaii

*EDIT* Ive been told CA has higher rates so what I was told about CT rates being high doesnt seem to be accurate.

 

[Endymio]

Our ROI is 6 years (system cost around $32k). That doesnt include the tiny smidgen the power company pays you for energy you return to the grid. The utilities paying you back is pennies compared to what they charge for electricity

False, of course. The majority of utilities are forced to pay full retail price:

"...Thirty-eight states, Washington, D.C., and four territories net metering, and utilities in two additional states—Idaho and Texas—have voluntarily adopted net metering programs. Seven states—Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada, Maine and Mississippi—have statewide distributed generation compensation rules that do not qualify as net metering because they do not offer full retail rate compensation...."

State Net Metering Policies

Net metering policies have facilitated the expansion of renewable energy through on-site, also known as distributed, generation.

www.ncsl.org

"....With net metering, you get the full-retail rate of electricity for all of the excess solar energy you send to the grid..."

State Net Metering Policies

Net metering policies have facilitated the expansion of renewable energy through on-site, also known as distributed, generation.

www.ncsl.org

The assumption that a utility must pay what it charges for electricity is based on two false assumptions. One ignores the substantial costs due to transmission lines, maintenance, billing, etc. The larger problem, though, is that not all kilowatt-hours are created equal. When the utility is already producing an overage due to their own "renewable" sources maxing out in low-demand periods, the value of an additional KW-hr you want to sell them is exactly zero.

Essentially, your fake "ROI" figures are based on laws that force other consumers to pay the costs of you using your utility as a gigantic free "battery". And that's even without considering the large state, federal, and (in some areas, local) tax credits used to lower the purchase cost of said system.

What they charge for electricity is wildly unrealistic which is $14-17 per kWh.

LOL, what? I think you mean something closer to 1% of that amount.

Also, not sure if you know this, but our panels still produce electricity even on cloudy days or if they are covered in snow. Science is fun like that.

Science IS fun. On cloudy days, those panels produce much *less* electricity in total. And when Texas-based ERCOT's solar panels were covered in snow, they produced an average of 3% of their maximum output. This is why your average commercial solar farm has a "capacity factor" of 20-25% of max output ... and residential homes generally run about 5% less than that.

 

[bclaymiles]

I already stated in this thread prior that I live in the USA.

That's the cost of electricity in CT.

There is a gov subsidy where you get 30% of your solar project cost back at tax season. That equated to about $11k for us which we did get back.

You can view the electrical rates on eversources website.

Our electric bills were around 200-500 a month prior and the rates continue to go up.

Ive been told the only state that pays more for electricity is hawaii

Those rates are in CENTS not dollars.

 

[Endymio]

I live in CT .. There is a gov subsidy where you get 30% of your solar project cost back at tax season. That equated to about $11k for us which we did get back.

So in other words, you stole $11,000.00 from other taxpayers. Or, to be more charitable, were "given" that amount.

Regardless of what you call it, I'm sure you understand that such credits only work as long as a small number of consumers purchase these systems. If everyone gets an $11K check from each other, it's mathematically equivalent to no one getting one. You're just playing musical chairs with tax dollars.

 

[bclaymiles]

Those rates are in CENTS not dollars.

I'm in CA, PG&E, and our rate is 42 cents per kWh baseline, 52 cents per kWh on the next tier. That's three times your rates.

 

[lonetac]

Those rates are in CENTS not dollars.

My apologies.

The amortization and cost of my system is accurate though. Its a 6 year ROI. At higher rates, you would be hitting your ROI even sooner. It only reinforces my point.

 

[lonetac]

So in other words, you stole $11,000.00 from other taxpayers. Or, to be more charitable, were "given" that amount.

Regardless of what you call it, I'm sure you understand that such credits only work as long as a small number of consumers purchase these systems. If everyone gets an $11K check from each other, it's mathematically equivalent to no one getting one. You're just playing musical chairs with tax dollars.

Thats just an *****ic thing to say.

I didnt steal anything, its a tax incentive, it isnt stealing. Your failed attempt to portray this as me stealing is not appreciated and highly offensive.

Its an incentive for moving to renewable green energy. Please leave assumptions about me being a thief out of your mouth.

Why are you continually the most toxic person on this website? Go get some fresh air dude, you dont need to attack everyone.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

False, of course. The majority of utilities are forced to pay full retail price:

"...Thirty-eight states, Washington, D.C., and four territories net metering, and utilities in two additional states—Idaho and Texas—have voluntarily adopted net metering programs. Seven states—Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada, Maine and Mississippi—have statewide distributed generation compensation rules that do not qualify as net metering because they do not offer full retail rate compensation...."

State Net Metering Policies

Net metering policies have facilitated the expansion of renewable energy through on-site, also known as distributed, generation.

www.ncsl.org

"....With net metering, you get the full-retail rate of electricity for all of the excess solar energy you send to the grid..."

State Net Metering Policies

Net metering policies have facilitated the expansion of renewable energy through on-site, also known as distributed, generation.

www.ncsl.org

The assumption that a utility must pay what it charges for electricity is based on two false assumptions. One ignores the substantial costs due to transmission lines, maintenance, billing, etc. The larger problem, though, is that not all kilowatt-hours are created equal. When the utility is already producing an overage due to their own "renewable" sources maxing out in low-demand periods, the value of an additional KW-hr you want to sell them is exactly zero.

Essentially, your fake "ROI" figures are based on laws that force other consumers to pay the costs of you using your utility as a gigantic free "battery". And that's even without considering the large state, federal, and (in some areas, local) tax credits used to lower the purchase cost of said system.


LOL, what? I think you mean something closer to 1% of that amount.


Science IS fun. On cloudy days, those panels produce much *less* electricity in total. And when Texas-based ERCOT's solar panels were covered in snow, they produced an average of 3% of their maximum output. This is why your average commercial solar farm has a "capacity factor" of 20-25% of max output ... and residential homes generally run about 5% less than that.

Fake? As he reported, the government with its taxes and companies are basically robbing people, a panel that costs 100 dollars becomes 800 dollars and you think they are interested in this green agenda?I say they don't seem to be. Incentives are crumbs compared to the real cost of the equipment, which is artificially inflated.

 

[Endymio]

False. You cant tell me my ROI is wrong, its not.

In addition to all the other errors, your calculation is based on your neighbors paying heavily to subsidize the costs of your system. Even if that generates no guilt on your part, you surely see such a system is feasible only when a small number of individuals participate.

You do not get full amount of your electricity you sell back to the grid. Its pennies compared to what they charge you. You not knowing that is just laughable as you talk about something yet again that you are wrong about.

I gave you facts -- and the references to support them. I'm sorry if those facts upset you. In your state of CT, you're paid full retail rate up to the first 10 KW-hr, then a value that, while smaller, is still above the utilities *wholesale* generation costs. Essentially, you're making the utility pay 100% of the transmission, billing, and leveling costs.

I am selling energy back to the grid that takes away the draw needed from fossil fuels.

And then you buy back that fossil fuel power in the evenings and nights when your system isn't operating.

 

[lonetac]

In addition to all the other errors, your calculation is based on your neighbors paying heavily to subsidize the costs of your system. Even if that generates no guilt on your part, you surely see such a system is feasible only when a small number of individuals participate.


I gave you facts -- and the references to support them. I'm sorry if those facts upset you. In your state of CT, you're paid full retail rate up to the first 10 KW-hr, then a value that, while smaller, is still above the utilities *wholesale* generation costs. Essentially, you're making the utility pay 100% of the transmission, billing, and leveling costs.


And then you buy back that fossil fuel power in the evenings and nights when your system isn't operating.

Wrong, lies and fabrications to fit your narrative.

I love folks who tell you that reality isnt reality. And btw, lots of folks have solar out here. My solar production does nothing to increase my neighbors cost and they are not subsidizing anything. With no-one on solar, it doesnt change anything.

I am producing more electricity than I use and selling it back to the grid. My dependence on the grid is somewhere around 20% based on the production I have. The app tells me this, I dont need your made up scenario to come to that conclusion.

How you describe it is absolutely incorrect.

Enjoy your fantasy land!