A grinding, pivotal year ahead

Fonte

I’ve been thinking a lot about this over the past few days in part because the Trump administration did yet another indefensible thing—they shut down all work on five offshore wind farms off the eastern seaboard. As the Times put it, the move

essentially gutted the country’s nascent offshore wind industry in a sharp escalation of President Trump’s crusade against the renewable energy source.

The decision injected uncertainty into $25 billion worth of projects that were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses across the Eastern United States, according to Turn Forward, an offshore wind advocacy group. The five wind farms were projected together to create together about 10,000 jobs.

The administration said there were “national security” reasons for the shutdown that they couldn’t explain but that had something to do with radar. You are forgiven your skepticism about this rationale. Retired naval commander Kirk Lippold said the Department of Defense had fully vetted the projects, and added “ironically, these projects will actually benefit our national security by diversifying America’s energy supplies, providing much-needed reliable power for the grid and helping our economy.” If you want more on this aspect, check out Peter Gleick’s fine essay. Or maybe just look at a map of Asian wind installations, offshore and on; the Chinese coast, by Trumpian logic, is apparently the most vulnerable place on planet earth.

No, everyone knows that this decision, like so many in 2025, results from a combination of two obvious things. One is the president’s detestation of windpower, because you can see turbines from the 18th hole of his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, a sight he has described as “disgusting.” (By the way, it’s a prejudice he shares with his sidekick Bobby “Measles” Kennedy—here’s the letter some of us wrote to him 20 years ago next week pointing out that he was being an ass for trying to protect the view from his Cape Cod compound). The second thing, of course, is Trump’s efforts to pay off his fossil fuel donors—they gave him half a billion in campaign help, and they are now reaping the largest return on investment in recorded history.

But there’s a third reason too, I think, and one that reminds us of the politics inherent in all of this. For New England, New York, and Virginia those now-halted windfarms offer something like a first stab at energy independence. And that’s anathema to the fascist mind, which values centralization and control above all. California has already begun to escape that control—it has so much solar and wind energy that it could, if it had to, increasingly make do on its own (and the hydro-charged northwest as well). But the northeast is the other center of resistance to Trump’s ugly project; it’s currently tied to the end of the gas pipelines stretching back to the Gulf, and Trump et al are determined to keep it that way.

And for now there’s nothing we can do about it (except go to court, which actually worked when Trump tried to shut down one wind farm in the fall). Without control of either the House or Senate, Democrats have no way to stand up to even something as egregiously stupid as this windpower ban. Getting a majority in either chamber would not rein in the MAGA project, but it would allow questions to be publicly asked, and it would allow at least a budget fight about such venality. It’s nowhere near what we need, but it’s not nothing. And nothing is what we have right now, which is why the last year has been so hard—those of us who care about, say, science and economics (or justice) have had to stand there and take it, our hands essentially tied behind our backs.

We’ve done our best in the circumstances—the No Kings Day protests, for instance, have been crucial in sapping support for what seemed at first like a juggernaut. But the reason to drive down Trump’s popularity is to make it harder for him to win elections (and harder to rig elections—the refusal of the Indiana GOP to go along with the president’s redistricting plan this month was a good reminder that Trump at 38 percent approval is less effective than Trump at 55 percent).

The elections will, of course, be a hard fight. Hard because MAGA has all the advantages of incumbency (including an ever-more-compliant media—the fact that the White House now controls CBS is a particular blow to those of us old enough to remember Murrow and Cronkite). And hard because in many places the Democrats we will need to support won’t be precisely the champions we’d most like. Prepare for a lot of tap-dancing around “climate,” for instance—what we need to hope for is that these candidates are sensible enough at least to seize on the popularity of solar and windpower and make a decent argument for energy both cheap and clean. Some Mamdanis will emerge, and we’ll treasure them, but the basic job is straightforward: beat MAGA everywhere we can, hopefully with margins sufficient to start reorienting our hideous politics.

I’ll obviously keep covering the energy marvels appearing in the rest of the world—reporting on the ongoing sunpower revolution keeps me optimistic enough to stagger on. But I think my main job over the next ten months is to do all I can to help the elections on Nov. 3 come out the right way; I’ll be writing, and through Third Act I’ll be organizing (look for the next rounds of the Silver Wave tour). Those hoped-for victories are the necessary first step to preserving both some of our democracy and some of our climate system. And remember how good it felt to take home some preliminary wins last month in New York, New Jersey, Virginia. Wiping more of the smirk off the presidential mug is our potential reward—that and a future.

In other energy and climate news:

+As they shut down wind farms, America’s energy czars are pledging billions on a particularly absurd scheme: big gas pipelines in Alaska designed for an export LNG market that almost certainly won’t exist by the time they’re built. Lois Parshley has some fine reporting in Grist

The cost is staggering: Official estimates put it at $44 billion, though independent analysts suggest it could top $70 billion. Experts say it has required substantial government support to develop and will require “a mix of public and private capital to move forward.”

The pipeline’s backers are already eyeing additional federal support, including $30 billion in loan guarantees. That backstop would leave the public on the hook if the endeavor falters, an outcome that has plagued previous state megaprojects. “Every taxpayer should be furious that the federal government is chasing this project,” said Cooper Freeman, the state director for The Center for Biological Diversity, which is suing the federal government over the proposed pipeline’s threat to endangered species.

Meanwhile, a wave of liquified natural gas development is expected to flood global supply by 2030, including from export projects in British Columbia that are closer to completion and share Alaska’s proximity to Asian markets. In a blunt assessment, independent energy market firm Rapidan Energy Group warned that investors “could incur substantial financial losses” and said the Alaska project is what happens when “politics overrides commercial logic.”

Prediction: the federal government won’t be able to find private parties to put up serious money for this project. It will be a taxpayer-financed boondoggle if it happens at all—which is the same dynamic affecting plans for Canadian tarsands pipelines. Perhaps Trump has the political muscle to make all of us pay for this folly; or perhaps the upcoming elections will provide a stumbling block (see above). By the way, a widely predicted the EU seems not to be living up to its pledges to buy more LNG in return for reducing its tariffs.

+Don’t miss David Roberts’ Volts interview with Saul Griffith from earlier today. Readers of this newsletter will be long acquainted with his basic arguments about how to make solar cheaper, but his comparison of putting solar on the roof of his home in Sydney and his office in San Francisco is truly breathtaking. (Spoiler: five times cheaper down under). Here’s how he describes the Aussie process:

You have to remember, this is a first world country where 40% of people have rooftop solar. At 40% of households having it, it’s pretty hard to commute home from work without seeing a truck that says on the side of it, “Hot Electric” or “Solar Hub Electric” or “Joe’s Mom and Her Dog’s Electric Solar and Water Heater Service.” You can probably call one of those on your commute. They will probably show up the next morning before 7 am and have a look at your roof. Depending upon their backlog, they’ll be on your roof within 48 hours. Or maybe it’ll be a week

+Robert Rosner has a comprehensive rundown on the prospects for nuclear power in the decades ahead from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Though I’m going to put in bold the question I think may actually turn out to be most decisive.

Whether a nuclear renaissance actually occurs in the coming decade or two will depend, to a significant degree, on the answers to three fundamental questions: Are these new designs safer than their predecessors? Do the new designs lead to changes in how one will have to deal with the inevitable waste products (including the “spent” fuel)? And do thee new designs raise additional (or new) questions regarding nuclear weapons proliferation? In posing these questions, I am willfully excluding from my analysis additional key questions that actually determine whether a true “nuclear renaissance” is now likely to arrive in the United States: Will the strong increase in assured 24/7-always available electricity demand continue? Will the cost of electricity from the new generation of nuclear reactors be competitive with that obtained from alternate electricity-generation technologies? And will we finally succeed in dealing responsibly with our high-level nuclear waste and move this material into permanent repositories?

+Kentucky is the absolute heart of coal country, of course—but a new study finds that if you started retiring aging coal-fired power plants and replacing them with renewable energy, Kentuckians would save immense amounts of money. As Liam Niemeyer explains,

“Here in Kentucky, coal was the least-cost way to produce electricity, but as our coal plants age and as the cost of renewable energy continues to fall, that’s simply no longer the case,” the head of the group that commissioned the report, said. “Continuing to rely on aging, uneconomic power plants simply leads us to less stable, less dependable and higher-cost electricity when compared to the other pathways that are modeled in our report.”

Using an open source electricity planning model, the report analyzes four pathways that Kentucky utilities could take. The analysis considered pending proposals to build new power plants and other planning documents filed by utilities. It found the least-cost pathway creates up to $2.6 billion in savings for ratepayers through 2050 by replacing coal-fired power with “clean energy resources,” primarily solar power paired with batteries to store the power.

+Americans have some company in our political misery. Czechia has a new environment minister, from the rightwing Motorists for Themselves party (admittedly, a great name that pretty much sums up all the forces wrecking the earth), and he is vowing that “green blood will run” as he makes policy changes. On assuming office, the new guy announced "the climate crisis is over today."

+Sadly, “enhanced rock weathering” does not seem to be as useful a carbon removal technology as some had hoped, a new study finds. “Integrating the pore water results with model analyses, we estimated that the average CO2 removal rate was 100 ± 30 kg CO2 ha–1 yr–1, which is 10 to 30 times lower than the upper rates reported in some previous modeling and experimental studies.”

+In much better news, check out these numbers: E-bike (and trike and rickshaw) sales are soaring across the planet, and doing far more than EVs to drive down oil demand. From Muhammad Rizwan Azhar and Waqas Uzair:

On the world’s roads last year, there were over 20 million electric vehicles and 1.3 million commercial EVs such as buses, delivery vans, and trucks.

But these numbers of four or more wheel vehicles are wholly eclipsed by two- and three-wheelers. There were over 280 million electric mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, and three-wheelers on the road last year. Their sheer popularity is already cutting demand for oil by a million barrels of oil a day—about 1 percent of the world’s total oil demand, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

As they point out, it comes down to money: far more humans can afford to buy these vehicles. And to operate them.

If you commute on an e-bike 20 km a day, five days a week, your charging cost would be about $20—annually.

+And one other delightful note on which to end the year. A new study is showing that growing crops in solar farms is not just good for the crops, it’s good for the farmworkers.

Agrivoltaics creates coveted shaded areas for farmworkers. That’s critical when you consider they are 35 times more likely to suffer fatal heat-related illnesses than nonagricultural workers.

Scientific data backed the workers’ instincts on the shade. Solar panels reduced the wet bulb globe temperature, a heat-measuring system, by up to 10 degrees.

Here’s an image from Shandong province, China.

The researcher, Talitha Neesham-McTiernan at the University of Arizona, interviewed lots of farmworkers. One of them confessed they found it hard to imagine ever going back to work on traditional full-sun farms — where, they added, their favorite crops had always been tomatoes, because of the shade the tall plants offered.

“By 9 a.m., in the summer, you’re just cooking,” Neesham-McTiernan said. “Being able to take that direct heat load off makes such a difference.”

Shade keeps drinking water cool too, the workers noted — a crucial benefit, given water’s role in mitigating heat stress. “They can pop their bottles under the panels and they stay cool all day,” Neesham-McTiernan said, “rather than it being, as one of the farmworkers described it, like drinking tea.”

Another worker said these benefits helped them feel less exhausted by day’s end, leaving more energy for social life and allowing a faster recovery for the next day’s work. Others said simply knowing shade was nearby reduced their mental stress.

On that note, I wish you too a week with reduced mental stress, the better to prepare for the important work ahead. See you in 2026!

Nuno Loureiro era referência mundial em fusão nuclear e o seu trabalho poderia mudar os rumos da energia limpa

A misteriosa morte de Nuno Loureiro é uma perda enorme para o futuro e para o combate à crise climática. O português trabalhava na criação de energia limpa e redução das emissões de carbono. Tinha sido nomeado diretor do prestigiado MIT - Plasma Science and Fusion Center.

Loureiro era uma figura central na pesquisa global de fusão nuclear, área vista como uma das maiores apostas para energia limpa e abundante no futuro. Seu trabalho ajudou a avançar o entendimento sobre reconexão magnética, turbulência em plasmas e confinamento de partículas, temas críticos para viabilizar reatores de fusão como o ITER e projetos privados ligados ao MIT.

O corpo encontrado morto e baleado em casa permanece ainda uma incógnita e as fake news

Nuno Loureiro não era judeu

After MIT professor’s killing, Jewish influencers spread unverified antisemitism claim

Nas redes sociais, logo a seguir ao trágico assassinato do cientista português Nuno Loureiro, surgiram de imediato alegações de que era judeu sugerindo alguma motivação que tivesse a ver com isso. Sabe-se agora que uma repórter foi junto do prédio onde mora a família Loureiro e verificou que estava enfeitado por ocasião da Festa das Luzes judaica (Chanucá ou Hanucá) deduzindo que fosse a dele. Não era; ele tinha vizinhos judeus, incluindo uma senhora de idade a quem por vezes ajudava a subir as escadas com as compras e que até já falou para a imprensa. Também vi a fotografia de uma janela com um letreiro de apoio a Israel, mas creio que nem era a mesmo prédio, embora na mesma rua. De qualquer forma não era o apartamento dele. Isso está tudo confirmado, incluindo por fontes americanas.

Também puseram a correr tweets de um tal Nuno Loureiro com referências ao Hamas, que não é ele, vê-se perfeitamente pela fotografia. Loureiros são aos milhares, não será difícil encontrar Nunos.

Posto isto, acabei de ver um artigo de opinião do Observador sobre o tema, assumindo investigações de Israel que já metem o Irão e tudo. Também vi contas israelitas e iranianas a citarem a pseudo- origem judaica desta mente brilhante que, tragicamente, se perdeu. Ou seja, uma reportagem com informações falsas deu origem a um sem fim de desenvolvimentos sem sentido. Entretanto, quer amigos próximos de Nuno Loureiro, quer colegas do MIT desmentiram quer a origem judaica quer que tenha emitido qualquer opinião pública sobre Israel ou Palestina.

As causas do horroroso assassinato são, até ao momento desconhecidas, mas há uma certeza: por ser judeu (ou militante pró-Israel) é que não foi e a sua esposa é Portuguesa. Por favor, não escrevam disparates nos jornais! Nuno Loureiro deixa mulher e três filhas, segundo notícia logo no 1.° dia, a mais nova terá assistido a tudo

Comoção internacional e impacto no meio científico

A morte de Nuno Loureiro repercutiu rapidamente entre pesquisadores, universidades e instituições científicas. Além de diretor, ele era visto como um articulador de ideias e projetos que buscavam avançar a compreensão da fusão nuclear, uma das grandes apostas para a transição energética do planeta.

A sua ausência deixa um vazio não apenas administrativo, mas intelectual. Projetos em andamento, colaborações internacionais e formações de novos pesquisadores perdem uma liderança considerada fundamental.

Um legado que ultrapassa fronteiras

Mais do que cargos ou títulos, o legado de Nuno Loureiro está ligado à construção de conhecimento em uma área decisiva para o futuro da humanidade. A fusão nuclear, estudada por ele ao longo de décadas, representa a promessa de uma fonte de energia limpa, segura e sustentável.

No meio da tragédia, permanece o impacto de sua contribuição científica, que continuará presente em pesquisas, artigos e na formação de novas gerações de físicos ao redor do mundo.

Reedição especial do podcast 45 Graus: o legado de Nuno Loureiro sobre o futuro da energia de fusão nuclear

6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world

Demolition of the two cooling towers of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant near the river Rhine. The site of the now decommissioned Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant is located in Philippsburg, near Karlsruhe, Germany. © Bernd Hartung / Greenpeace

Nuclear power is often hailed as a magic bullet solution for the rapid and large-scale decarbonisation of our societies which we all know needs to happen if we have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of the unfolding climate emergency. Among politicians and industry groups, it is consistently favoured over meaningful investment in renewable energy systems, bolstered with misleading claims of its safety, efficiency, stability, and speed of deployment.

With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six reasons why nuclear power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon future.

1. Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. And that for only 4% when we already need to reduce 100%.

2. Nuclear power plants are dangerous and vulnerable

Nuclear factories and plants are easy targets for malevolent acts: terrorist threats, the risk of unintentional or voluntary airliner crashes, cyberattacks or acts of war. The enclosures of plants and certain ancillary buildings containing radioactive materials are not designed to withstand this type of attack or shock.

Nuclear power plants present unique hazards in terms of the potential consequences resulting from a severe accident. Nuclear reactors and their associated high level spent fuel stores are vulnerable to natural disasters, as Fukushima Daiichi showed, but they are also vulnerable in times of military conflict.

For the first time in history, a major war is being waged in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. The war in southern Ukraine around Zaporizhzhia puts them all at heightened risk of a severe accident.

Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex and sensitive industrial installations, which require a very complex set of resources in ready state at all times to keep them operational. This cannot be guaranteed in a war.

This can’t be guaranteed in a time of climate crisis and extreme weather events either. Nuclear power is a water-hungry technology. Nuclear power plants consume a lot of water for cooling. They are vulnerable to water stress, the warming of rivers, and rising temperatures, which can weaken the cooling of power plants and equipment. Nuclear reactors in the United States and France are often shut down during heatwaves, or see their activity drastically slowed.

3. Nuclear energy is too expensive

To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt-hour (MWh), the World Nuclear Industry Status Report said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189 per MWh.

Over the past decade, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates levelised costs – which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. According to the same report, these costs have increased by 23% for nuclear.*

According to a November 2021 study released by Greenpeace France and the Rousseau Institute, power from the under-construction European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville in France would be 3 times as expensive as the country’s most competitive renewable sources.

4. Nuclear energy is too slow

Stabilising the climate is an emergency. Nuclear power is slow.

The 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) industry body of between 5 and 8.5 years.

The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution. The construction of a nuclear plant is a long and complex process that obviously releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned nuclear sites.

Uranium extraction, transport and processing is obviously not free of greenhouse gas emissions either. All in all, nuclear power stations score comparable with wind and solar energy. But this latter can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale. We cannot wait for another decade for emissions to go down. They need to go down now. With clean renewable sources and energy efficiency, we can do that.

5. Nuclear energy generates huge amounts of toxic waste

The multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce large volumes of radioactive waste. No government has yet resolved how to safely manage this waste.

Some of this nuclear waste is highly radioactive and will remain so for several thousand years. Nuclear waste is a real scourge for our environment and for future generations, who will still have the responsibility of managing it in several centuries.

Countries like France are pushing hard for nuclear power at the EU level, hoping that when it comes to waste, out of sight is out of mind. But nuclear waste will never go away, and will never be sustainable.

This is one of the obvious reasons why nuclear power shouldn’t be eligible for green funding nor marketed as ‘sustainable’, as pointed out recently by countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain, who spoke against the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU’s green finance taxonomy. This is also one of the reasons why, on 9 March 2020, the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEF) rejected nuclear energy because it did not meet the EU’s ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle and recommended excluding nuclear power from the green taxonomy.

Nuclear waste management is costing taxpayers absurd amounts of money, costs for storage projects reaching into the billions. This is true both for Europe and North America. In 2019, a US Energy Department report showed the projected cost for long-term nuclear waste cleanup jumped more than $100 billion in just one year.

6. The nuclear industry is falling short of its promises

 

The EPR nuclear reactor technology has been showcased by the French government and French nuclear operator EDF as a revolutionary technology announcing the dawn of a nuclear renaissance. The reality is that this technology isn’t any kind of technological leap. More importantly, the French EPR reactor located in Flamanville is more than 10 years overdue and nearly four times over budget.

This so-called “next-generation nuclear reactor”, has also sustained multiple problems, delays and cost overruns in France, the United Kingdom, Finland and China.

Hypothetical new nuclear power technologies have been promised to be the next big thing for the last forty years, but in spite of massive public subsidies, that prospect has never panned out. That is also true for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

And for nuclear fusion, an idea that is as old as the nuclear industry, which somehow always seems to be fifty years away. The cost and uncertainty of fusion mean investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available clean energy options. This technology won’t arrive in time, if ever, and the money would be better invested elsewhere.

Let’s exert the utmost caution when presented with pro-nuclear opinions coming from experts and organisations regularly working with stakeholders from the nuclear sector and potentially tainted by vested interests. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. It is more important than ever that we steer away from false solutions and leave nuclear power in the past.

Fonte: Greenpeace

Scientists: Nuclear Energy is a Waste of Time

Status Quo

It turns out that nuclear energy, which advocates say is a more feasible means of transitioning away from fossil fuels than solar or wind, might not actually be up to the task.

That’s according to research published Monday in the journal Nature Energy, which shows that countries that adopted nuclear energy didn’t actually reduce their carbon emissions a significant amount — but that countries with renewable energy investments did. It’s a compelling case that clean energy initiatives ought to focus on solar and wind, and perhaps skip nuclear as a stepping stone on the road to decarbonization.

Town Ain’t Big Enough

Looking at global data from the years 1990-2014, the University of Sussex science policy researchers also found that nuclear and renewable energy programs don’t play well together, in part since large, centralized nuclear plants require different infrastructure from more distributed solar fields, for example. Since one had a much bigger impact on emissions than the other, the team recommends being strategic.

“This paper exposes the irrationality of arguing for nuclear investment based on a ‘do everything’ argument,” study coauthor Andy Stirling said in a press release.

Least Resistance

With only so much time and money available, study coauthor Benjamin Sovacool argues that spending money on a new nuclear program might effectively block subsequent renewables programs from working and, as a result, continue to emit too much carbon into the air.

“Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments,” Sovacool said in the release.

Ler mais:

Two’s a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don’t mix [University of Sussex]

Reator de fusão nuclear da China atinge temperatura cinco vezes superior à do Sol

O ‘sol artificial’, que custou um bilião de dólares à China, acaba de bater mais um recorde, ao aquecer plasma a uma temperatura cinco vezes superior à do Sol durante 17 minutos.

O reator de fusão nuclear Tokamak Supercondutor Experimental Avançado (EAST no acrónimo em inglês) da China estabeleceu um novo recorde ao atingir 70 milhões de graus centígrados durante 1056 segundos, segundo a agência de notícias estatal chinesa Xinhua News. O projeto de um bilião de dólares da China aproxima-se assim da criação de uma fonte de energia limpa ilimitada. O anterior recorde tinha sido estabelecido pelo Tore Supra Tokamak, localizado em França, em 2003, que durante 390 segundos atingiu a mesma temperatura. Já em 2021, o próprio EAST estabelecera um outro recorde – 101 segundos a 120 milhões de graus.

Os investigadores procuram colher energia proveniente da fusão nuclear há 70 anos, através da fusão de átomos de hidrogénio, num processo semelhante ao que acontece em estrelas como o Sol.

O desafio de replicar as condições do interior das estrelas não tem sido fácil, conta a publicação Space.com, com a abordagem mais comum a ser a dos reatores de fusão, os tokamak, que superaquecem plasma dentro de uma câmara de reator em forma de dónute, com campos magnéticos poderosos. Até aqui, não se tem conseguido gerar mais energia do que aquela que se consome em todo o processo, com as necessidades a serem elevadas para lidar com o plasma que não está quente o suficiente para se fundir.

O projeto chinês termina em junho e, por essa altura, terá custado um bilião de dólares. O EAST está a ser usado para testar novas tecnologias também para o ITER, o International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, que está a ser construído em Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, França, e prevê uma colaboração entre 35 países, incluindo China, EUA, Reino Unido, Índia e membros da União Europeia – contando também com tecnologia e engenharia portuguesa.

A China continuará os seus programas de desenvolvimento de reatores de fusão nuclear e estima-se que os EUA completem uma primeira iteração neste campo em 2025. Também uma empresa britânica anunciou a intenção de comercializar energia gerada desta forma já em 2030.

Fonte: Exame Informática

Documentário - Journey To The Edge Of The Universe

A National Geographic apresenta a primeira viagem precisa e ininterrupta da Terra até aos confins do Universo, utilizando um único plano contínuo, graças à espetacular tecnologia de computação gráfica (CGI).
Baseado em imagens captadas pelo telescópio Hubble, "Viagem aos Confins do Universo" explora a ciência e a história por detrás dos corpos celestes distantes do Sistema Solar.
Esta espetacular e épica viagem pelo cosmos leva-nos desde a Terra, passando pela Lua e pelos nossos planetas vizinhos, para fora do nosso Sistema Solar, até às estrelas, nebulosas e galáxias mais próximas e mais além – até aos próprios confins do Universo.
Ao terminar este vídeo, terá uma consciência inédita do universo astronomicamente imenso e invisível em que flutuamos como um grão de poeira no oceano.
Este vídeo leva-o numa viagem pelo universo como se estivesse a assistir a uma aventura de ficção científica. No entanto, precisa de se lembrar constantemente de que o que está a ver é real.