Printable View
Oh, how I hope that comes to fruition.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwbuild
But I am old enough to remember when the same things were said about nuclear power. It would be so cheap to produce that it would not be worth the cost of metering. Just a very low connection fee. And no risks....
Let us wish the team at UNSW all success in getting their project successfully completed, then out of the lab and into commercial reality.
Graeme
Hmm - Interesting - UNSW seem to have pulled down their newsroom page for that press release. I woder why??
You can see the cached article here:
Pioneering technology promises unlimited, clean and safe energy | UNSW Newsroom
But its no longer on the UNSW website.
Page not found | UNSW Newsroom
And it does not come up in any UNSW searches.
The HB11 website makes no mention of these patents or any details of imminent commercialisation. If the article in New Atlas is to be believed, HB11 are saying commercialisation is more than a decade away.
HB11 has published a paper in journal of High Energy Density Physics in Jan this year, but that seems to simply be a summary of prior published research from some years ago, nothing startling or new there.
It would be interesting if they do in fact have something in the pipeline for a proof of concept build.
I think Brett is maybe on the money - The Australian propping up Scotty from Marketing & his so called "Tech solutions" for addressing cliamte change. Watch out for more "clean cal"research, support for fracking and the rest.
Ooooh! Are we suggesting that that this is a back door to fossil fuel subsidies? A scarcely disguised rort for industial "friends." Perish the thought or alternatively anybody who is party to such a devious and underhand sheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossM
Regards
Paul
So a question for the more technically minded people: when they talk about fusion in that now-hard-to-find news release (:roll:), are they talking about the legendary (and so far mythical) "cold fusion" that has landed more than one scientist in, shall we say "hot fission"?
If that is what they mean, then I am very inclined to say "pfffft, dream on a bit more".
They were using two lasers that are chirped (pulsed) at very high frequencies to drive hydrogen atoms into Boron. They start with a golf-ball sized chunk of this. One laser holds it all in place magnetically, the other gives it a razzle to excite the process.
It is really a fusion-fision reaction.
Boron 11 (5 protons, 6 neutrons) and Hydrogen 1 (a bare proton) fuse to form Carbon 12. This is the fusion reaction.
Carbon 12 is the commonest carbon isotope (98.93% of natural carbon). Normally it's rock-stable. But the newly fused nucleus is in an excited state. It quickly (at nuclear reaction time scales) springs apart into a Helium 4 and a Beryllium 8. The Beryllium 8 then (also nuclear-reaction fast) springs apart into two more Helium 4s.
The flying Helium 4s share 8.7 MeV of energy as kinetic energy. The first one comes off with a well defined fraction of that energy. The other two split apart carrying the rest - but its distribution between the two varies somewhat, depending on the angle of their split versus their line of flight.
Nevertheless, you can collect something near 90% of the fusion energy as DC electricity, just by decelerating the flying helium nuclei with positively charged electrodes and then letting them grab electrons from the electrodes (at positive voltages in the ballpark of DC interstate transmission lines) and wander away as helium gas. From there it's stock electronics to shove it into the grid or otherwise make use of it.
I'll find another place I saw the article.
@Ilya would know all this stuff. I was also under the impression that this would create a fair bit of heat.
edit: tradaa! Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech
Well it all sounds wonderful....so why isn't all over mainstream news all around the world? It sounds like it is the most important scientific discovery in perhaps 100 years or more - surely that would garner enormous attention.
A search of HB11 only brings the sources we have discussed and linked to in here, so not passing the sniff test yet (especially with the original UNSW Newsroom link having been taken down).
I read that their predictions/simulations gave them one set of expectations... but the actual results were a BILLION times greater.
Yes, a billion. This is obviously not good. There are a few science places I haunt that are discussing this.
Here is a Wiki discussing the processes. It is far from new, or novel, or no-understood. Im curious why this chap thinks he has now "cracked it"....
The take-down is intriguing. Maybe its BS hokum, or a guy fishing for research denero.... Hydrogen Boron Fusion | HB11 Energy
I don't know enough to comment, but here is their paper that was published in the journal High Energy Density Physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
https://aca3d9dd-3b9c-446b-8797-0ba1...05895197cb.pdf
They will soon be discredited if they have got it wrong.
some commentsQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
off shore wind turbines are scaleable -- 2 MW, or thereabouts, at a time -- at a cost of $4 to $5 M each.
an east-west inter-connector is not scaleable. A suitable sized inter-connector is an upfront investment 3 orders of magnitude (1000 times) greater.
Tassie has a wind resource as good as, perhaps greater than, that in WA.
The distance of an undersea DC connector from Tassie is an order of magnitude shorter than that required for one connecting WA with Victoria or NSW.
Do we need both?
You betcha, PLUS Snowy 2.
Where's the money to be sourced from -- now there's the rub.
No private sector entity is going to invest in a WA wind farm to export power to NSW/QLD/VIC as the cost and risk is far far too great.
Government -- despite all it's faults and the current dolts in power -- is really the only source of long term finance at the level of risk involved.
Unlike coal and gas based generation, 100% renewable electricity means investing in 4 to 5 times the generating capacity we currently have.
I think the term is "nation building" ?
the longer quoteQuote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
The researchers estimated that if electricity prices are high, offshore wind could provide more than 1,000 terawatt-hours, or about 36 percent of all coastal energy demand. If electricity prices are low, it could provide more than 6,000 terawatt-hours, or 200 percent of total energy demand.
Based on the numbers quoted, that "200% of total energy demand" should be 200% of current (2018) coastal electricity demand.
And, here is the Wiki page on Emeritus Prof Heinrich Hora. No slouch when it comes to high energy physics, having worked at both the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics and CERN, and recipient of a number of honors including the Edward Teller Medal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
So true, Ian
And Tassie also has hydro power that can, and is, instantly adjusted to cope with vaguaries in the wind supply. Get a gust, the computer narrows the sluice gates, get a lull in the wind and the hydro production ramps up, virtually instantly. This cannot be done with coal fired power plants that take several hours to steam up.
This then creates the opportunity for Tasmania to sell electricity to the mainland in hours or minutes of high prices. When prices are very low, it can also close down the hydro plants and buy electricity from the national grid up to the capacity of the cable. Remember, the coal powered plants cannot ramp down production quickly!
But there is only one BassLink cable of dubious quality and sale or purchase of electricity from the national grid is impossible during its periodic outages. Too many eggs in one basket.
Cheers
Graeme
Why is this not good? Because the predictions were so far out? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
From Ray's quote:
"The company will seek $1m for preliminary testing over 12 months. A further $5m would be needed over two years for international research collaborations to achieve experimental proof of concept. A pilot fusion electricity generator would require a further $80m."
They aren't seeking a lot of money in the short term ($6m over 3 years), and even the $80m isn't a crazy amount - the total is less than what Tim Flannery supposedly ripped off Gillard for. :roll::doh::no::~ (and less the price of inflation too...). You'd have to think that someone like Twiggy Forrest would be good for the first few years financial requirements. Or Mike Cannon-Brookes. One of the American billionaires recently pledged a huge amount of money to fighting climate change...hang on....yes, Bezos pledged $10b. In short, the money they are seeking short be VERY easy to raise.
As Neil points out, Prof Hora has the credentials in spades, and at 88 he has no need for wealth (because he'll be dead - or as good as - by the time it is commercially operational), so why is my Murdoch BS Detector red-lining? Too much previous MBS conditioning me - the boy who cried "WOLF!" and all that? ("sniff sniff - nope, not smelling right..."
I wonder what that well known seeker of truth and exacting commentator Andrew Dolt thinks of it.
Yes, with the way this government pisses money up the wall, a bit of money on Science wouldn't be too bad.
Perhaps some of that $200 Mil they blew on sports grants?
Yes, please!Quote:
Originally Posted by ian