13 thoughts on “Chasing Utopian Energy”

  1. Very good young man. You’re learning. Energy production is not utopian nor a slogan…

  2. He is still operating under the delusion that we need to reduce our CO2 emissions. There is little reason, if any, to do so. I certainly support using nuclear energy, but large scale solar and wind projects are not practical.

    1. And when you factor in the CO2 generated mining and extracting the rare earth materials for “renewables” counter-productive. Never mind end-of-life disposal.

  3. Joe Biden is just reading the script given him. The plain truth is that he doesn’t know he is lying, or in fact, even cares.

    1. My guess is, he doesn’t even know he’d speaking, much less lying. That his handlers can keep him from playing with his toes in public is a management triumph. I bet they wish he’d just go back to sniffing girls.

  4. The first is an example of outcome based altruism where it isn’t enough to just spend money on something but to evaluate the outcomes and change behavior.

    The second is an example of a death spiral. Biden is honest about what he and the Democrats intend to do to the country.

  5. Well if it is “Utopian Energy” your a wanting what about desk top fusion reactors?:

    “Avalanche Energy Funded to Developing Lunchbox Sized Micro Fusion Reactors”

    “Avalanche is a VC-backed, fusion energy start-up based in Seattle, WA. They are designing, testing and building micro-fusion reactors that you can hold in your hand. Their modular reactor design can be stacked for endless power applications and unprecedented energy density to provide clean energy and decarbonize the planet.

    Avalanche is developing a 5kWe power pack called the “Orbitron” in a form-factor the size of a lunch pail. The unique physics of the Orbitron allows for its compact size which is a key enabler for development, scaling, and a wide variety of applications. Avalanche Energy uses electrostatic fields to trap fusion ions and also uses a magnetron electron confinement to reach higher ion densities. The resulting fusion reaction produces neutrons that can be transformed into heat.”

    “No Giant Magnets or Lasers No Giant Magnets or Lasers

    Avalanche’s reactor design avoids the dangers, expense and complexity of high-power magnets or lasers.

    Avalanche’s reactor design is capable of fusing fuels like proton-boron-11 which practically eliminates internal neutron radiation, resulting in longer life and lower shielding requirements for a lighter power pack.”


    1. I think the point of the OP is that Utopian energy plans are not results based.

      Yep, fusion energy would be great, but again there is that minor issue of “results-based”. As has been said before, the old saw is: Fusion is the energy source of the future, always has been, always will be.

      Check out that “Radiation Vault”. I couldn’t fit those blocks into my basement without removing significant amounts of walls and flooring in my house. I don’t think the initial version of this is in any way shape or form aneutronic. It may be small enough to be modular with the added benefit of being lethal all at the same time.

      I find the article heavy on the buzzwords and light on the details. Should they be able to produce fusion neutrons, well good for them, they have caught up to 1950’s technology. Neutrons from controlled fusion under electrostatic confinement have been present ever since the Farnsworth Fusor was invented. It never achieved break-even, let alone over unity operation.

      As regards aneutronic fusion of p-B11 any idea how they get around the 481% power loss due to Bremsstrahlung optical radiation loss through the plasma? Note for D-T fusion the loss is .7%. (See Table 1.1).

    2. Yeah, and I got a slightly used bridge in New York I can let you have really cheap. When you eliminate the gobbledygook you have something sitting on a cart with a cute color scheme. If they really had fusion, you wouldn’t have to read about it on some sort of tout site. A VC and their money are soon parted.

  6. “I don’t think the initial version of this is in any way shape or form aneutronic.”

    Probably not the initial version would likely be a deuterium tritium copious neutron producing reaction hence the need for the shielding. It makes sense that they would shoot for proof of concept first with the lowest energy of activation et cetera burn of Tritium -Deuterium. Likely followed by De-De burn. But if the 2.0 or 3.0 version of it Burns boron 11 with hydrogen maybe it wouldn’t need nearly as much shielding that’s probably what they’re shooting for.

    1. Fusing boron 11, it wouldn’t need any shielding as it creates a free proton rather than a neutron (aneutronic) that can be electro-statically captured. Create a proton every 1/60th of a second through two ends of a charge trap and you have 60-cycle AC coming straight out of the fusion reactor. A boron gas cylinder, a hydrogen gas cylinder, a rechargeable starter battery to get things going, a helium exhaust vent and an electrical outlet makes your Mr. Fusion. HOWEVER, the optical losses due to the Bremstraahlung radiation from the aneutronic reaction suck 1.74 times the amount of power out of the reaction compared to the power from the fusion. In other words, that proton comes at a energy cost that is upside down compared to the energy you put into the reactor to free it. See Table 1.1 in the paper referenced above.

      Eventually your AC cuts out (or it had better) when it gets a few % cycles under 60, your battery dies, then so does your plasma and you start venting hydrogen and boron gas into your helium vent. Which had better be going straight outdoors to avoid an ignition source. Gotta love all that “green energy” Hydrogen.

      1. I would have to agree that the fact that they in their website make no mention of the ubiquitous problem with this kind of setup of “Bremsstrahlung radiation” is a red flag. They mention the issue of electrical arcing but nothing about that I could find.

Comments are closed.