Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "How close is nuclear fusion power?" video.

I get what you're trying to say, but the problem is the reactor can be coupled with any number of electricity generation solutions from very inefficient thermoelectric generators to pretty darned efficient molten salt turbine systems. To speak of a "true Q" value as the base 1 value necessarily assumes the electrical generation technology combined with it. Do we assume MSR? Do we assume LW? Do we assume TEG's? What happens when different sources assume different efficiencies? If you think plasma-Q is confusing for laypeople, imagine when Q=1 actually describes something different depending on the assumptions made about facility and electricity extraction efficiencies. Instead, using plasma-Q is clearly the superior choice, but it should be explained at every instance where a Q-value is mentioned that a Q-value of ~40, as a general rule of thumb, is the goal for commercial viability.
3
@circumsizedmind Considering the ITER project was born 42 years ago, but because of issues in maintaining interest, it's only just now getting completed, there's a good reason commercial fusion is always 20-30 years away.
1
plasma Q is the best figure as true Q has too many variables, 1 could mean something different every time you turn around, and that's even more confusing for laypeople. Instead, with every mention of plasma Q, make sure that a Q-value of ~40 as the target for a commercially-viable reactor is made clear with the content.
1
@circumsizedmind If the US can spend $750B a year on its military, we can manage several billion a year to fund fusion research. And when projects get completed in a timely manner, like ITER taking 10 years to get going instead of 45, then maybe we'll start seeing some better progress.
1
@circumsizedmind The problem is that nuclear fission has a very bad reputation with the general public thanks to second-generation reactor accidents and anti-nuclear propaganda like the Chinese Syndrome. I would bet that if you pulled a random person off the streets, asked where France got 80% of its power, the last thing they'd say would be nuclear fission. That's a major PR problem.
1
@circumsizedmind "at some point there might be a leak," A leak of what? Tritium that would almost immediately cease to exist (and it's just a beta emitter as well) and deuterium which is stable. A quenching event is indeed violent, but very localized.
1
@circumsizedmind I was wrong on the life of tritium. You're right. I was right that it is a beta emitter, however. It's neither an alpha nor gamma emitted. It does not cause damage. It's even used for glow-in-the-dark pips on the sights on guns. "Before Chernobyl nobody believed a such an event is even possible." This is 100% untrue. Scientists knew full well that cooling is critical to keep the rods from melting through its container. "But nobody thought it could blow away the reactors roofs." Of course they did. When you touch something extremely hot to water, it rapidly releases steam. We knew of the dangers of steam from steam engine trains. That was nothing new. "And yet we have got Fukushima." Because, like Chernobyl, it was a Gen 2 reactor. As has been intimated to the public, if something catastrophic happens, the nuclear processes merely stop.
1