Science & Environment

[CaaC (John)+]

VIDEO

Nuclear fusion reactor experiment to produce clean energy

On an industrial estate just outside Didcot in the south of England, an experiment is taking place that will create temperatures hotter than the Sun.

The BBC's climate editor, Justin Rowlatt, went to see the nuclear fusion reactor in action and to find out what possibilities the technology could hold for generating vast amounts of low-carbon energy.

Edited December 13, 2021 by CaaC (John)
Spacing correction

[CaaC (John)+]

Quote

NIF: US lab takes further step towards nuclear fusion goal

 

US physicists have confirmed that they achieved a stage in nuclear fusion called "burning plasma" last year.

There's a longstanding effort to crack fusion power because it promises an unlimited source of clean energy.

Burning plasma occurs when fusion reactions become the dominant source of heating in the process, rather than energy introduced from outside.

The stage was seen in experiments carried out at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California.

The achievement is described in two papers published in the academic journal Nature.

Existing nuclear energy relies on a process called fission, where a heavy chemical element is split to produce lighter ones. Fusion works by combining two light elements to make a heavier one.

Researchers have been working on the nuclear fusion problem since the 1950s. It's the process that powers the Sun, and the effort has sometimes been likened to building a star on Earth. However, turning nuclear fusion into a commercially viable energy source has proven elusive.

• US lab stands on threshold of key fusion goal
• Fusion milestone passed at US lab
• Man-made star to unlock cosmic secrets

Getting the reactions going is not the problem; the trick is getting more energy out of the fusion process than you put in.

To this end, NIF uses a powerful laser to heat and compress hydrogen fuel inside a capsule. The 192 beams from this laser - the highest-energy example in the world - are directed towards a peppercorn-sized capsule containing deuterium and tritium - different forms of the element hydrogen.

This compresses the fuel to 100 times the density of lead and heats it to 100 million degrees Celsius - hotter than the centre of the Sun. Heating the target in this way generates an electrically-charged gas called plasma. In the plasma, electron particles are stripped out of atoms, leaving the parts known as atomic nuclei. These can fuse together, generating energy in the process.

 

When fusion reactions become the dominant source of heating in the plasma, rather than laser energy required to start the process, the heat provides the energy for even more fusion.

"In these experiments we achieved, for the first time in any fusion research facility, a burning plasma state where more fusion energy is emitted from the fuel than was required to initiate the fusion reactions, or the amount of work done on the fuel," said Annie Kritcher, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) where NIF is based.

Her LLNL colleague Alex Zylstra added: "Experiments over decades have produced fusion reactions using large amounts of 'external' heating to get the plasma hot - now, for the first time, we have a system where the fusion itself is providing most of the heating.

"This is a key milestone on the way to even higher levels of fusion performance."

Previous attempts to reach this stage have been limited by challenges in controlling the plasma shape. But researchers at NIF came up with an improved experimental design involving the use of capsules that can hold more fuel and absorb more energy while containing the plasma.

Even when burning plasma is achieved, energy is still lost from the process. But this is one of the last remaining milestones before NIF's bigger goal of "ignition" and self-sustaining energy production.

During ignition, the energy released through fusion reactions exceeds that delivered to the fuel by the laser.

In August 2021, NIF reported that they had reached about 70% of the way towards ignition.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60148105

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I didn't know where to post this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60258620

but what a remarkable story and what a massive advancement for medical technology.

[Waylander]

If only Christopher Reeve was still alive.........

[Cicero]

25 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

I did nutrition at uni. We're omnivores. It's why we have an omnivorous set of teeth (for ripping meat and grinding plants) and such complex intestines. There are also essential amino acids we can ONLY get from meat, and the make up of vitamin and mineral intake we should be hitting daily favors a mixed diet. 

What you read in some foofy vegan journal aside,  we as a species are scientifically defined as omnivores. 

1. We have the same teeth as Frugivores. Since the dawn of time the human race never had canine teeth similar to true Omnivores and Carnivores. 

2. Humans are not anatomically Omnivores. I repeat, anatomically. Our bodies do not have the thyroid hormone that prevents our arteries from clogging up. Natural meat eaters have this.  

3. The are no essential amino acids found in meat that cannot be found in a vegan diet. Thy myth of Vitamin B12 has been debunked when its been heavily available in soy and now vegan cereals. 

4. I go off the basis of what our bodies are designed to do. Our bodies aren't designed to naturally digest meat and dairy the way carnivores and true omnivores can. If this was the case there wouldn't be the cardiovascular disease epidemic within the human race because of high cholesterol depriving from fatty foods. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

12 minutes ago, Cicero said:

1. We have the same teeth as Frugivores. Since the dawn of time the human race never had canine teeth similar to true Omnivores and Carnivores. 

2. Humans are not anatomically Omnivores. I repeat, anatomically. Our bodies do not have the thyroid hormone that prevents our arteries from clogging up. Natural meat eaters have this.  

3. The are no essential amino acids found in meat that cannot be found in a vegan diet. Thy myth of Vitamin B12 has been debunked when its been heavily available in soy and now vegan cereals. 

4. I go off the basis of what our bodies are designed to do. Our bodies aren't designed to naturally digest meat and dairy the way carnivores and true omnivores can. If this was the case there wouldn't be the cardiovascular disease epidemic within the human race because of high cholesterol depriving from fatty foods. 

Vitamin B12 isn't an acid  

Animal proteins are complete, plant proteins are not. There are at least 2 essential and a few 'pseudo essential' amino acids that either aren't found in plant proteins at all, or are so rare or in such small quantities it's near impossible to get enough in your diet without supplementation. 

You literally have 1 piece of information, that humans arteries can clog due to high cholesterol, and are using it as scientific proof that we shouldn't eat meat as a species, even though our WHOLE FUCKING DIGESTIVE SYSTEM FROM TEETH TO ANUS IS DESIGNED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. I'm done talking with you on this. It's clear you are entrenched in a position. I don't need to dig you out. It's enough for me to say you're wrong, that every scientific journal is on my side not yours (Unless PETA has one)

[Cicero]

1 hour ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Vitamin B12 isn't an acid  

Animal proteins are complete, plant proteins are not. There are at least 2 essential and a few 'pseudo essential' amino acids that either aren't found in plant proteins at all, or are so rare or in such small quantities it's near impossible to get enough in your diet without supplementation. 

You literally have 1 piece of information, that humans arteries can clog due to high cholesterol, and are using it as scientific proof that we shouldn't eat meat as a species, even though our WHOLE FUCKING DIGESTIVE SYSTEM FROM TEETH TO ANUS IS DESIGNED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. I'm done talking with you on this. It's clear you are entrenched in a position. I don't need to dig you out. It's enough for me to say you're wrong, that every scientific journal is on my side not yours (Unless PETA has one)

Vitamin B12 turns homocysteine into methionine in your body. Didn't realise I had to spell that out for you and didn't take you as one to run from a healthy argument. 

Since so you are bent up on only me proving data, below are research articles from the National Center for Biotechnology Information undergoing studies and research where it was determined there was no evidence of protein/amino acid deficiency among vegan and vegetarian diets. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893534/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8069426/

Here's research from Stanford University comparing Plant and Animal protein and determines that vegan diets provide more than sufficient protein/amino acid needs for daily intake, as well as providing enough for the elderly. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267218313972

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31690027

Quote

All plant foods contain all 20 Amino Acids, including the 9 Indispensable amino acids. 

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31690027

More research showing the metabolic benefits of plant based diets. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210121132300.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10687887/

 

1 hour ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

You literally have 1 piece of information, that humans arteries can clog due to high cholesterol, and are using it as scientific proof that we shouldn't eat meat as a species, even though our WHOLE FUCKING DIGESTIVE SYSTEM FROM TEETH TO ANUS IS DESIGNED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO SO

Explain to me the reasoning behind this claim. How are humans "designed" to eat meat, when humans lack the very components to break down low-density lipoproteins? What kind of inductive reasoning is that? Animals such as Carnivores/Omnivores are able to break down lipids because their bodies are structured to. If humans were "designed" to consume meat, as you say, why does it directly result to cardiovascular disease? If an organism is designed to do something, there wouldn't be any repercussions because what they are doing is natural. We aren't fucking designed to smoke cigarettes' are we? 

If you want more information as to why the human body isn't naturally designed to eat meat, here are references below. 

Oxford Academia and The University of Oxford presenting research how LDL cholesterol is the main component of cardio vascular disease. 

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/38/32/2459/3745109?login=false 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-07-21-red-and-processed-meat-linked-increased-risk-heart-disease-oxford-study-shows#:~:text=Overall%2C the evidence from the,coronary heart disease by 9%.

Natonal Institute of Health presenting research that eating meat triples your chance of heart disease

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-red-meat-daily-triples-heart-disease-related-chemical

World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Providing research that consuming meat products increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes and multiple types of cancers

https://www.sutterhealth.org/health/nutrition/does-meat-cause-cancer

 

And, inadvertently, here is an article from The National Center for Biotechnology Information providing research which shows that plant based diets drastically lower blood pressure, LDL cholesterol levels, and reduces the chance of getting chronic & cardiovascular diseases. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#:~:text=Research shows that plant-based,ischemic heart disease mortality rates.

 

One diet has potential harmful affects, the other provides long term health benefits. I wonder which one the human race is designed for. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Cicero

[Devil-Dick Willie]

I'm not quite as invested in this as you are as I stated above. But I'm sure you know that if you trawled through the same journals you'd find a million arbitrary articles that support my claim. So I'm not going to bother. 

Just do me a favor. Sit down and stop asking yourself the same question about heart disease over and over again, creating this self-righteous feedback loop. Instead, ask yourself

"Why does the dietary science team of  government on the planet, from America, to Japan, to Iceland to Chile, advocate a mixed diet of whole foods, including both meat and vegetables?"

"Why have humans been eating meat through the entirety of history"

"Why would we evolve from an omnivorous species to become herbivores?"

"Why the fuck do we have an omnivorous digestive system?"

"Herbivores can derive energy from cellulose, humans can't, because we lack the enzymes. Damn, makes me think"  

I'm done. This time for realsies. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

I'm not quite as invested in this as you are as I stated above. But I'm sure you know that if you trawled through the same journals you'd find a million arbitrary articles that support my claim. So I'm not going to bother. 

Just do me a favor. Sit down and stop asking yourself the same question about heart disease over and over again, creating this self-righteous feedback loop. Instead, ask yourself

"Why does the dietary science team of  government on the planet, from America, to Japan, to Iceland to Chile, advocate a mixed diet of whole foods, including both meat and vegetables?"

"Why have humans been eating meat through the entirety of history"

"Why would we evolve from an omnivorous species to become herbivores?"

"Why the fuck do we have an omnivorous digestive system?"

"Herbivores can derive energy from cellulose, humans can't, because we lack the enzymes. Damn, makes me think"  

I'm done. This time for realsies. 

This is completely off topic but...

I think your signature is funny as fuck for some reason & I've only just noticed it

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

I'm not quite as invested in this as you are as I stated above. But I'm sure you know that if you trawled through the same journals you'd find a million arbitrary articles that support my claim. So I'm not going to bother. 

Just do me a favor. Sit down and stop asking yourself the same question about heart disease over and over again, creating this self-righteous feedback loop. Instead, ask yourself

Lol where do you come off claiming I'm being self righteous when you've downplayed my arguments in such a condescending manner?  The cheek . "I studied nutrition at Uni" 

I'll indulge. 

15 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"Why does the dietary science team of  government on the planet, from America, to Japan, to Iceland to Chile, advocate a mixed diet of whole foods, including both meat and vegetables?"

 

Never disputed that.  The premise of the argument was which diet is natural to the human body. You don't have to worry about having too many vegetables on your plate. You do have to worry about having too much animal fats and protein on your plate. 

 

19 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"Why have humans been eating meat through the entirety of history"
 

I'd say appeal to tradition, but that's boring. 

Humans only started to eat meat due a lack of vegetation, to which science has showed that cooked starches began fueling brain development well before the first humans began to eat meat. Also we've evolved since then and in Western cultures in particular there is zero biological need to continue to consume animal products. Merely a commodity. 

33 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"Why would we evolve from an omnivorous species to become herbivores?"
 

We didn't. We ate plants and starches well before we started eating meat. 

 

34 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"Why the fuck do we have an omnivorous digestive system?"
 

We don't. Our digestive system is similar to Frugivores. 

Human digestive tract spans approximately 10 times the length of their torsos. A natural carnivore or omnivore’s digestive tract spans about 3 times the length of their torsos, allowing for quick digestion with pH levels that can dissolve bones.  

38 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"Herbivores can derive energy from cellulose, humans can't, because we lack the enzymes. Damn, makes me think"  

 

Carnivores & Omnivores can properly process and digest animal protein, casein, and trans fats. Humans can't because we lack the thyroid hormone true meat eaters have.  

[Devil-Dick Willie]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

 

Carnivores & Omnivores can properly process and digest animal protein, casein, and trans fats. Humans can't because we lack the thyroid hormone true meat eaters have.  

Damn. Way to address that argument

[Dr. Gonzo]

41 minutes ago, Cicero said:

We didn't. We ate plants and starches well before we started eating meat. 

I don't think that's true.

Our closest relative (in terms of anatomy, behavior, genetics, and how they've evolved), the chimpanzee, are omnivores. Archeologists state that the earliest sources of food domestication included animals and plants. Before plants & animals were domesticated, our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. So yes, early man definitely ate plants - but simultaneously humans hunted and killed their food.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that humans only ate plants and starches before eating meat, but plenty of evidence that we have been omnivores for as long as we've been around.

[Cicero]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think that's true.

Our closest relative (in terms of anatomy, behavior, genetics, and how they've evolved), the chimpanzee, are omnivores. Archeologists state that the earliest sources of food domestication included animals and plants. Before plants & animals were domesticated, our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. So yes, early man definitely ate plants - but simultaneously humans hunted and killed their food.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that humans only ate plants and starches before eating meat, but plenty of evidence that we have been omnivores for as long as we've been around.

Our earliest known ancestor is the Australopithecus Afarensis, who only ate grass, leaves, and fruits. 500,000 years later, Homo Erectus (lol) arrived where it was shown they included meat into their diets. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Cicero

[Dr. Gonzo]

30 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Our earliest known ancestor is the Australopithecus Afarensis, who only ate grass, leaves, and fruits. 500,000 years later, Homo Erectus (lol) arrived where it was shown they included meat into their diets. 

I don’t think that’s true either. There’s evidence Australopithecus (idk how to pluralise that word) has a varied diet that included meat.

But I’m not an expert and that’s just something I read somewhere once.

Also lol at your lol 

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don’t think that’s true either. There’s evidence Australopithecus (idk how to pluralise that word) has a varied diet that included meat.

But I’m not an expert and that’s just something I read somewhere once.

Also lol at your lol 

Going off what I read as well. Their fossilised guts showed only those foods mentioned, and concluded their teeth at the time were far too soft to eat meat as opposed to H.Erectus. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

2 hours ago, Cicero said:

Going off what I read as well. Their fossilised guts showed only those foods mentioned, and concluded their teeth at the time were far too soft to eat meat as opposed to H.Erectus. 

Too soft to eat fish? Pork? Poultry? 

[Waylander]

On 28/07/2021 at 20:37, nudge said:

The good news is that the rest of the rainforest across the Amazonian Basin still absorbs more carbon than it releases, and it is still able to offset the negative trend in Brazil. The bad news is, with deforestation, illegal logging, biomass burning, land grabbing, cattle ranching, dam-building and other similar activities continuing in combination with droughts, and drying soil, it's just a question of time when it turns into a savannah. 

I actually think this shrinking of the Amazonian rain forest via an unknown feedback mechanism has increased the devastation of hurricanes we see today.

If we look at it objectively increased rain forest destruction  has been happening for about 120 years.

Of course we are not just talking about the Amazon yet African, Central Asia and SE Asia.

Once it goes expect much more unpredictable whether if I am right.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

11 hours ago, Cicero said:

Going off what I read as well. Their fossilised guts showed only those foods mentioned, and concluded their teeth at the time were far too soft to eat meat as opposed to H.Erectus. 

I think there’s a lot of evidence out there that among the first plants early man ate, nuts were among them.

Idk how teeth could be hard enough to crack nuts but too soft to chew meat

[nudge+]

3 hours ago, Waylander said:

I actually think this shrinking of the Amazonian rain forest via an unknown feedback mechanism has increased the devastation of hurricanes we see today.

If we look at it objectively increased rain forest destruction  has been happening for about 120 years.

Of course we are not just talking about the Amazon yet African, Central Asia and SE Asia.

Once it goes expect much more unpredictable whether if I am right.

 

You are definitely onto something. There's a relatively new meteorological theory called "biotic pump" that suggests the same. Basically, cyclonic storms can only form and keep going if there's enough atmospheric water vapour available to sustain it. By importing atmospheric moisture from the ocean, rainforests deplete the vapour available, thus preventing devastating storms. Not to mention that massive rainforests act as an actual protective physical buffer against the storms.

[Waylander]

17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think that's true.

Our closest relative (in terms of anatomy, behavior, genetics, and how they've evolved), the chimpanzee, are omnivores. Archeologists state that the earliest sources of food domestication included animals and plants. Before plants & animals were domesticated, our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. So yes, early man definitely ate plants - but simultaneously humans hunted and killed their food.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that humans only ate plants and starches before eating meat, but plenty of evidence that we have been omnivores for as long as we've been around.

I do find it rather interesting that instead of chimpanzees we are looking at pigs for organ transplants in human.

If we are so close to chimps, why choose pigs........

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Waylander said:

I do find it rather interesting that instead of chimpanzees we are looking at pigs for organ transplants in human.

If we are so close to chimps, why choose pigs........

 

 

That's actually a really good question. I found this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/health/kidney-transplant-pig-human.html#:~:text=Pigs offered advantages over primates for organ procurement,been used as temporary grafts for burn patients.

They say that using pigs offers advantages over using primates for the organs because they're: easier to raise, the organs are ready quicker in the pig's lifetime, and it's viewed as a more "sustainable source" for organ procurement. That article also taught me that pig organs were used in transplants into monkeys and baboons before they were with people.

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 07/02/2022 at 11:01, Dr. Gonzo said:

I didn't know where to post this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60258620

but what a remarkable story and what a massive advancement for medical technology.

He died:

https://apnews.com/article/bc3b304de3c8d3bf3acbb3c221960ecf

[nudge+]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He died:

https://apnews.com/article/bc3b304de3c8d3bf3acbb3c221960ecf

Kinda expected, but it will nevertheless be a huge boost to medical research on transplantation. He also got two months that he wouldn't have had otherwise, so still a win, imo...

[CaaC (John)+]

Quote

Longer-lasting lithium-ion

An “atomically thin” layer has led to better-performing batteries.

Chemical engineers have figured out a way to more than double the lifespan of high-voltage lithium-ion batteries.

The international team of researchers, based at the University of Queensland, has developed a lithium-ion battery which has a higher energy density than conventional batteries, uses less precious metal, and can stay stable for over 1000 cycles.

They’ve published their technique in Nature Communications.

“Our process will increase the lifespan of batteries in many things, from smart phones and laptops to power tools and electric vehicles,” says senior author and UQ researcher Professor Lianzhou Wang.

The team’s discovery revolves around the cathode of the battery: the positive side, which attracts negatively charged electrons as they move through a circuit.

At the moment, for commercial lithium-ion batteries to work they need the costly and hazardous metal cobalt in their cathodes – otherwise the cathodes corrode too easily. Cathodes without cobalt can make higher-voltage and thus more energy dense batteries, but the corrosion problem means their lifespan and function is limited. 

Researchers are keen to find a coating that can protect the metals in the cathode without disrupting the battery’s performance.

Wang and colleagues discovered that an extremely thin epitaxial layer could protect a cathode made from lithium, nickel, and manganese. Epitaxy is a type of crystal growth in which the crystal’s atoms are aligned with the atoms in the substrate (the thing they’re growing on).

In this case, the researchers found that a specific material (made from lanthanum, nickel, manganese and oxygen) grown epitaxially on cathode particles could stop the cathode from dissolving.

The layer of crystal is only an atom thick – so it doesn’t require much material to have a big effect.

“This new approach features a minimal protective coating at a scalable process, paving the way for the deployment of these abundant high-voltage materials for next generation, high-energy batteries,” says Wang.

Wang says that other than being better performing and cobalt free, the battery operates very similarly to conventional lithium-ion batteries.

“The battery can be operated at higher voltage – about 4.5V, versus 3.7V for a normal lithium-ion battery – which means higher energy density can be delivered,” he points out.

The researchers are now planning to commercialise the technology.

“We are now in discussion with our industry partners to assess the scale-up production process and to evaluate the battery performance under various conditions,” says Wang.

He predicts that the battery could be ready for the market in two or three years. 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/materials/lithium-ion-batteries-coating-lifespan/

 

 

[Coma]