Seems like if we can have nuclear fusion power that works, our energy problems will be solved forever (or for the next few million years, at least). And really solved, like, we should be able to generate tens or hundreds of times more useable electricity than is available in the world today. But will it ever happen, and if it does, will it be as good as it looks on paper?
When will we have fusion power? And is it the panacea?
There's a project to build a plant in France for about 10 billion euros, which is about the same as the cost of holding the Olympics. If nuclear fusion is as promising as they say, why is there only one product on that scale, and why was the project delayed by politicians wrangling about it for nearly 2 years?
| Quote: |
| "With 10 billion euros, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today." |
From a BBC news article
Is he right? Is it just a "dangerous toy"? Or is he worried about his shares in unreliable wind farms?
| BruceTheDauber wrote: | ||
From a BBC news article Is he right? Is it just a "dangerous toy"? Or is he worried about his shares in unreliable wind farms? |
He's probably right in that 10 billion euros can build a lot of ugly eyesores to generate electricity but ruin the landscape. (I hate the way those things destroy once beautiful countrysides. Where's Don Quixote when you need him?
)
However, I think he's dead wrong about investing in fusion research. We shouldn't conduct research because it may not pay a huge dividend for another 74 years? What kind of nonsense is that? If we all studied science with that mentality we'd all still be using clipper ships and buggies.
Then again, that would get rid of all of the problems caused by pesky technology!
A fusion reactor, if it works, will make all nuclear reactors obsolete. We could destroy them all. Fusion reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. They have far (and I mean far) less contaminated material to dispose of, because they do not use radioactive material for fuel. To my knowledge the only contaminated material would consist of the reaction chamber whenever it was replaced or dismantled. Furthermore they are extremely safe. If containment is lost, the reaction simply shuts down.
Greenpeace simply hates anything that involves the word "nuclear," even if it is a peaceful "thermonuclear" process and have very little credibility in my book.
Check out the ITER website if you're interested: ITER
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Seems like if we can have nuclear fusion power that works, our energy problems will be solved forever (or for the next few million years, at least). And really solved, like, we should be able to generate tens or hundreds of times more useable electricity than is available in the world today. But will it ever happen, and if it does, will it be as good as it looks on paper? |
We have the technology to make it... we just dont have the technology to make it big scale and with good security and reliability.
I´m quite sure though, that we will master it in the future... it´s hard (no... it´s impossible) to say when we will get the knowledge to actually make a fusion powerplant, but scientists and engineers are working hard on the matter.
If we could get it to work we could get tons of energy for a VERY cheap price. Even if it´s like you say
| Quote: |
| will it be as good as it looks on paper? |
Cheers
Energy.. let's look at the track record, first man burned wood, until he had used all the wood, and the world's once wonderful forests became a squalid field... then came coal, oil and gas, man burned them till the air became choked with pollutants that killed him and with CO2 that killed the atmosphere.. then came nuclear power, man burned it and spread radiation slowly around the globe... so now they are once again promising 'electricity too cheap to meter' .. WISE UP! just be content with what you have.. there's a nice saying i heard recently, 'history can repeat itself - but the cost goes up..'
| Quote: |
| WISE UP! just be content with what you have. |
Yes! Lets just continue to use what we have, lets continue to spew out toxins and green house gasses until the earth become uninhabitable and it kills us. Lets not try to make cleaner, safer, healthier, environmentally friendly and better sources of power that could replace the polluting, unhealthy, environment destroying and even dangerous power sources!
Last edited by The Conspirator on Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:01 pm; edited 4 times in total
We should definatly pump a lot of resources into fusion research. As mentioned it would solve power problems and also a lot of pollution.
| Josso wrote: |
| We should definatly pump a lot of resources into fusion research. As mentioned it would solve power problems and also a lot of pollution. |
The question is how safe you can make it... with so much power a small error in the system _could_ be devastating.
Fusion power would be very safe. If something goes wrong it just won't work, you can't have any run away reaction like in fission power and though it will produce some radiation, the wast will be less radioactive, have a far shorter half life and it would be less dangerous to living creturs.
| arkebuzer wrote: | ||
The question is how safe you can make it... with so much power a small error in the system _could_ be devastating. |
Look at the technology for Pete's sake and check out the link I provided earlier instead of making blanket, broad comments based on supposition.
Here is an internal link from the link I provided in my earlier post. From what I have seen, a fusion reactor would be safer than the most modern of fission reactors. Furthermore there is less radioactive waste and, like I said, the added advantage that they cannot be used in any way towards the development or construction of nuclear weapons.
http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_4.htm
| arkebuzer wrote: | ||
The question is how safe you can make it... with so much power a small error in the system _could_ be devastating. |
There is no security risk in the sense of a nuclear explosion aka Chernobyl or atomic bomb.
The problem is rather that to make fusion possible, the plasma needs to be put at a temperature of over 100 million of degrees celsius and to maintain that temperature in a vacuum chamber, sustained there by superconducting magnets. At that temperature, the gas moves a lot and risks touching the containment. Iter will only be able to sustain this for 500 seconds and produce 500MW of power during that time.
Touching the containment would cool down the plasma and cause the reaction to stop and most likely to severely damage the reactor. But this doesn't cause any special security risk.
Yes, it's supposedly very stable from prototype designs I've seen. Hell of a lot of energy but if we learn to harness that ammount of power safely at the same time as making it, we'd hit two birds with one stone. As pointed out previously nuclear power stations are very dangerous if precautions are not made. Radiations is quite horrible stuff in my opinion.
| Bondings wrote: | ||||
There is no security risk in the sense of a nuclear explosion aka Chernobyl or atomic bomb. The problem is rather that to make fusion possible, the plasma needs to be put at a temperature of over 100 million of degrees celsius and to maintain that temperature in a vacuum chamber, sustained there by superconducting magnets. At that temperature, the gas moves a lot and risks touching the containment. Iter will only be able to sustain this for 500 seconds and produce 500MW of power during that time. Touching the containment would cool down the plasma and cause the reaction to stop and most likely to severely damage the reactor. But this doesn't cause any special security risk. |
That´s pretty much the same as I have read in scientific magazines. But I´m not convinced it would be safe to loose controll over the reaction. If it goes too fast, wouldn´t that be the same as a hydrogen bomb (nuclear bomb)? Since fusion is what´s used in some nuclear bombs?
To make myself clearer: if you just loose the gravity field the materia would probably just damage the power plant, and not really be a huge risk to anyone but the people working there... BUT if the reaction is not controlled I thought the reaction could go too fast and pretty much result in a bomb. (just a though, not based on facts saying this would happend)
If someone knows exacly what could happend dont hesitate to enlighten me
| arkebuzer wrote: | ||||||
That´s pretty much the same as I have read in scientific magazines. But I´m not convinced it would be safe to loose controll over the reaction. If it goes too fast, wouldn´t that be the same as a hydrogen bomb (nuclear bomb)? Since fusion is what´s used in some nuclear bombs? To make myself clearer: if you just loose the gravity field the materia would probably just damage the power plant, and not really be a huge risk to anyone but the people working there... BUT if the reaction is not controlled I thought the reaction could go too fast and pretty much result in a bomb. (just a though, not based on facts saying this would happend) If someone knows exacly what could happend dont hesitate to enlighten me |
Well >.< It's hard to say "you're correct" or "you're wrong", partly because a hydrogen bomb is such a complex beast - you're actually both right and wrong. i guess i can say this much without going into waaaaay too much detail about how a hydrogen bomb works:
Assume you have a fusion power plant with a fusion reaction in progress that is generating power. Assume that, for whatever reason, you lost control of this reaction and it began to go out of control.
Would this be a disaster? Yes, it would probably level the reactor.
Would it be the equivalent of a hydrogen bomb? Not even close.
Why? Because the fusion reaction requires certain conditions - such as really high temperature and pressure - in order for the reaction to be sustained, and it needs fuel - fusionable material. Without those conditions, the reaction will peter out. Yes, it will release a tremendous amount of energy as it peters out, but remember that the amount of energy that was being released before the reaction went out of control was a small, controllable amount of energy. When the reaction goes out of control you will get a momentary burst of "vigour" as the reaction rate goes beyond the controlled rate and uses up all the fuel available - this would cause the explosion - but then the rate would drop very quickly as the fuel is used up (and there wouldn't be that much excess fuel, because why dump more fuel into the reactor core than is necessary to maintain the reaction?) and the temperature and pressure drop (when containment is breached). As far as nuclear weapons go, it would be a whoosh more than a bang - a slower, more tapered release of energy than an h-bomb.
(Think of it as letting the air out of a balloon by letting go of the spout - the balloon goes pfffft or pbbbbt and deflates quickly, but not explosively - as opposed to letting the air out by popping the balloon - the air is released explosively and creates a shock wave. Same volume of air, same pressure, same stored energy, different rate of release.)
An fusion bomb is actually a really difficult thing to achieve. Modern h-bombs aren't actually pure fusion bombs - they use an implosion to touch of a fission reaction, which is used to incite a fusion reaction, which is THEN used to start another, much larger, fission reaction. But even with a pure fusion bomb, you're talking about an entirely different thing as compared to a fusion reactor failure. A fusion bomb is designed to use up a large amount of fuel in a very short time, very quickly. A fusion reactor is designed to use up a small amount of fuel slowly. Even if a fusion reactor starts to go out of control and begin reacting more fuel faster than was intended, it's still nowhere near a fusion bomb. Not even close. And of course, the reaction will peter off very quickly once it no longer has the fuel, temperature and pressure that it needs to sustain it.
So could a fusion plant destroy a city? Nah. But you could sure do a number on the reactor, though, and maybe even take out a good-sized chunk of the plant.
But it is theoretically possible that a fusion plant could become a fusion bomb. But the following things would have to happen almost simultaneously:
1.) The reaction rate would have to be sped up, probably by several orders of magnitude. You could do this by increasing the temperature and pressure enormously, or by introducing some kind of shock wave, such as by an implosion of the reactor.
2.) A huge infusion of fuel would have to be injected into the reactor, far more than it is intended to run with.
3.) This situation would have to be maintained long enough for the fuel to fusion, before the reactor ruptures and the temperature and pressure drop.
In other words, in order to make a fusion plant explode like a fusion bomb, you would have to rebuild the reactor shell with charges around it designed to implode it, pump a shitload of fuel into the chamber at the precise same time as or JUST before implosion and pray that it all gets burned up before the reaction begins to peter off because the explosion separates the fusionable material and makes the temperature and pressure drop.
So... ya... nothing to worry about ^_^;
Moonspider: Stop flaming and look at Bonding´s and Indi´s well written posts and you´ll understand why I asked.
| arkebuzer wrote: |
| Moonspider: Stop flaming and look at Bonding´s and Indi´s well written posts and you´ll understand why I asked. |
I may have misread Indi's post, but it seems from his statements that, as I argued, a fusion reactor, if practicable, would be far safer than an atomic reactor.
Respectfully,
M
Perfectly correct.
The current form of fusion (inertial confinement) is extremely safe. In fact I cannot think of a scanario in which is could be dangerous since it fuses tiny amounts of light elements in a steady stream - the worst case scenario is it stopping as far as I can see....
C
The current form of fusion (inertial confinement) is extremely safe. In fact I cannot think of a scanario in which is could be dangerous since it fuses tiny amounts of light elements in a steady stream - the worst case scenario is it stopping as far as I can see....
C
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I may have misread Indi's post, but it seems from his statements that, as I argued, a fusion reactor, if practicable, would be far safer than an atomic reactor. Respectfully, M |
Just an misunderstanding then
The thoughts I provided was not based on any facts, and was more of an question to those who knows a lot more in the matter, such as You, Bondings and Indi.
Best regards
//Ark~
| arkebuzer wrote: | ||
Just an misunderstanding then
The thoughts I provided was not based on any facts, and was more of an question to those who knows a lot more in the matter, such as You, Bondings and Indi. Best regards //Ark~ |
Not a problem. I did come across a bit short, which is very rarely my intent. I had some lingering frustration over the comments by Greenpeace and my desire to restore the countrysides ruined by windmills.
Sorry about that.
Thanks for complimenting my knowledge, but I never know as much as I think I do!
Respectfully,
M
[quote="Moonspider"]
He's probably right in that 10 billion euros can build a lot of ugly eyesores to generate electricity but ruin the landscape. (I hate the way those things destroy once beautiful countrysides. Where's Don Quixote when you need him?)
However, I think he's dead wrong about investing in fusion research. We shouldn't conduct research because it may not pay a huge dividend for another 74 years? What kind of nonsense is that? If we all studied science with that mentality we'd all still be using clipper ships and buggies.
Then again, that would get rid of all of the problems caused by pesky technology!
A fusion reactor, if it works, will make all nuclear reactors obsolete. We could destroy them all. Fusion reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. They have far (and I mean far) less contaminated material to dispose of, because they do not use radioactive material for fuel. To my knowledge the only contaminated material would consist of the reaction chamber whenever it was replaced or dismantled. Furthermore they are extremely safe. If containment is lost, the reaction simply shuts down.
Greenpeace simply hates anything that involves the word "nuclear," even if it is a peaceful "thermonuclear" process and have very little credibility in my book.
dude you moan about wind farms ruining the country what about when gloabal warming really kicks in with these coal powerstations and the sea levels rise then your really screwd and you can say by to the beautiful scenary for good.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: | ||
From a BBC news article Is he right? Is it just a "dangerous toy"? Or is he worried about his shares in unreliable wind farms? |
He's probably right in that 10 billion euros can build a lot of ugly eyesores to generate electricity but ruin the landscape. (I hate the way those things destroy once beautiful countrysides. Where's Don Quixote when you need him?
)
However, I think he's dead wrong about investing in fusion research. We shouldn't conduct research because it may not pay a huge dividend for another 74 years? What kind of nonsense is that? If we all studied science with that mentality we'd all still be using clipper ships and buggies.
Then again, that would get rid of all of the problems caused by pesky technology!
A fusion reactor, if it works, will make all nuclear reactors obsolete. We could destroy them all. Fusion reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. They have far (and I mean far) less contaminated material to dispose of, because they do not use radioactive material for fuel. To my knowledge the only contaminated material would consist of the reaction chamber whenever it was replaced or dismantled. Furthermore they are extremely safe. If containment is lost, the reaction simply shuts down.
Greenpeace simply hates anything that involves the word "nuclear," even if it is a peaceful "thermonuclear" process and have very little credibility in my book.
dude you moan about wind farms ruining the country what about when gloabal warming really kicks in with these coal powerstations and the sea levels rise then your really screwd and you can say by to the beautiful scenary for good.
| andy26 wrote: |
| dude you moan about wind farms ruining the country what about when gloabal warming really kicks in with these coal powerstations and the sea levels rise then your really screwd and you can say by to the beautiful scenary for good. |
The Earth is more resilient than that. She has bested far worse climate changes than the current one and will probably face worse ones in the future whether humans are involved or not. We certainly had nothing to do with the previous cycles and the earth is still here with a vibrant biosystem.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of global warming, since that is another thread. However, I believe it the highest of arrogance to think that mankind is so powerful that he can destroy the earth entirely. The earth has been through many extremes, even an entirely frozen surface. Her atmosphere has even recovered from greater concentrations of CO2 than we currently find. Yet life survived and the planet recovered. 95% of the species that have ever existed are extinct and still the planet is quite diverse.
So, unless you have some religious reason to believe that humans are a higher form of life than any other creature, I see no logical reason other than arrogance to assume that our loss (even by our own negligence) is any greater than the extinction of the T. Rex. The earth, and life, will continue on.
And personally, I'd rather see clean rolling hills in my lifetime than hillsides peppered with monstrosity's. So any technology, such as fusion, which can prevent or at least limit the impact on my California vista's is welcome.
Besides, fusion technology would go a lot farther to preventing the release of greenhouse gases than bloody windmills! Windmills are nothing but a stop gap measure IMHO, just like hybrid cars. And if all you're concerned about is greenhouse gases, just replace all powerplants with nuclear reactors until the thermonuclear ones are available.
Respectfully,
M
| Quote: |
| I believe it the highest of arrogance to think that mankind is so powerful that he can destroy the earth entirely. |
The problem is (and I'm not talking about global warming here) at this point on time there are enough of us and we are advanced enough that we could destroy the earth. 7 billion people plus the advanced technology we have, its well within our range.
Fusion actually already works but at < 100% efficiency, meaning you put more power into it than it produces. I am confident it can be made into a useful energy source but I wonder if it will really produce as much energy as everyone thinks it will.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Fusion actually already works but at < 100% efficiency, meaning you put more power into it than it produces. I am confident it can be made into a useful energy source but I wonder if it will really produce as much energy as everyone thinks it will. |
Actually the ITER is planned to generate around 500MW I think. The main problems at present are concerned with contaiment of the plasma - too hot for ordinary matter to hold and either magnetic confinement or lots of small bangs in a stream (designed so that the explosions hold the tiny fuel pellet in place - Inertial confinement) are the two methods round this. Both have their own chellenges but are theoretically soluble and I'm sure that one or both will eventually yield results.
There is a nice briefing article on Fusion here for those interested
and there is a simple simulation here
A fission reactor simulation here
And a more complex fusion simulation of a Tokamak reactor here
Regards
Chris
That is true, but existing reactors have not yet produced energy (net) and ITER doesn't yet exist.
| Arnie wrote: |
| That is true, but existing reactors have not yet produced energy (net) and ITER doesn't yet exist. |
For sure you are correct. The containment problems are really difficult sums
It will need considerable investment and time before the technology begins to become commercial, let alone mature, and my own amateur guess would be a timescale around 20-30 yrs for real commercial kit to start being developed and maybe 50 yrs before we have a stable and maturing technology.
Nevertheless the potential gains are so huge that this should be seen as a price well worth paying - indeed perhaps an offer that we simply cannot turn down given the current power situation.
I have been doing a bit of research on Oil and the industry recently for a friend of mine. The conclusions I have reached at this early stage are quite alarming. I find a lot of reason to believe that Colin Cambell's analysis is probably valid and based on correct, or at least pretty accurate assumptions. If so then the world is in for a real shock in the next decades.
Anyway...personally I back fusion and see little alternative currently.
Regards
Chris
I agree, there's little alternative now so let's hope development will progess the coming years.
I am hopeful that one day (probably at least 50 years in the future) fusion power will become viable. This is assuming ITER (due to be completed in 2016) proves that fusion can be maintained without using more power than it produces. I have heard that a second plant is planned should ITER be successful, but it would be at least 30 years away.
How is the development of coldfusion progressing ?
the problem with fusion power is that the temperatures inside the reactor need to stay at the temperature of the sun's core which is very hot indeed. there is no metal or metal alloy in the earth yet found which can withstand such high temperatures. so it seems fusion power is a likelihood. but i'm pretty sure we can pull it off..i mean after all mankind has achieved things thought impossible before.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How is the development of coldfusion progressing ? |
It isn't, its imposable. You can not have fusion room temperature, you need immense pressure and heat to cause nuclear fusion.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
It isn't, its imposable. You can not have fusion room temperature, you need immense pressure and heat to cause nuclear fusion. |
I was reading something about Bubble fusion( sono fusion ??) where they bombard bubbles with sound waves.....but of cause if you say its impossible........
| Tumbleweed wrote: | ||||
I was reading something about Bubble fusion( sono fusion ??) where they bombard bubbles with sound waves.....but of cause if you say its impossible........ |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Cold fusion is imposable. Nuclear fusion is caused by the strong force, the strong force is what holds atoms together but it only works over a very limited range, the electro magnetic force works on a much larger range, the electro magnetic force causes two particle with like charges to repel each other (like protons in the nucleus of an atom). To cause nuclear fusion you need to overcome the electromagnetic force and bring the nucleus's close enough for the strong force to take over, for this you need a grate deal of pressure and heat (and the bigger the atoms, the more pressure and heat you need).
As for bubble fusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
Just read it.
Ok read it..........and the word impossible appears nowhere
Someone claims to have done it,and then is accused of some form of tinkering as no one can repeat his findings(its impossible), then someone repeats his findings , yay hes vindicated....well not quite...... is this a case of blatant scientific foolery , a genuine case of mistaken results , or is it just hard to (for some tiny nuance) repeat the experiment ?
There seems to be many many people seriously looking at the impossible
Someone claims to have done it,and then is accused of some form of tinkering as no one can repeat his findings(its impossible), then someone repeats his findings , yay hes vindicated....well not quite...... is this a case of blatant scientific foolery , a genuine case of mistaken results , or is it just hard to (for some tiny nuance) repeat the experiment ?
There seems to be many many people seriously looking at the impossible
Did you?
I'll summarise.
A guy claims to have done it
On replication of the experiment, no evidence of nuclear fusion was found.
Then some one else claims "I got it working".
Then the Nature points out problems and it turns out that the claims or fusion where unfounded.
In other words, its not real.
Cold fusion is imposable. Why? For the reasons I stated, you have to overcome the electromagnetic force and that requires immense heat and pressure.
I'll summarise.
A guy claims to have done it
On replication of the experiment, no evidence of nuclear fusion was found.
Then some one else claims "I got it working".
Then the Nature points out problems and it turns out that the claims or fusion where unfounded.
In other words, its not real.
Cold fusion is imposable. Why? For the reasons I stated, you have to overcome the electromagnetic force and that requires immense heat and pressure.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Did you?
I'll summarise. A guy claims to have done it On replication of the experiment, no evidence of nuclear fusion was found. Then some one else claims "I got it working". Then the Nature points out problems and it turns out that the claims or fusion where unfounded. In other words, its not real. Cold fusion is imposable. Why? For the reasons I stated, you have to overcome the electromagnetic force and that requires immense heat and pressure. |
And yet still no one at your link mentions impossibllity, allthough it does lead to claims of repeated results, and an investigation into the whole affair, I suppose we should be grateful the scientific institutes waste time and money investigating the impossible.....twice
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-1.html
Bubble fusion, doesn't work.
Our current knowledge of physics tels us that cold fusion is imposable. Until someone finds a loop hole in the laws of physics or achieves it and its repeated many times by many scientists. It will remain (to the best of our knowledge) imposable.
Bubble fusion, doesn't work.
Our current knowledge of physics tels us that cold fusion is imposable. Until someone finds a loop hole in the laws of physics or achieves it and its repeated many times by many scientists. It will remain (to the best of our knowledge) imposable.
 |