Nuclear fusion - The pandora's box to solving world energy problems

Dave · 25 Nov 2004

"Nuclear fusion has been touted as a long-term solution to the world窶冱 energy problems, as it would be low on pollution and use limitless sea water as fuel."

Japan is about to agree to withdraw its proposals for the planned ITER plant in Rokkasho as the EU says it would prefer the ground-breaking technology to be tested in France. Should the Japanese Government let this happen? Letting something, if successful, that would be recored in History forever pass it by.

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

mad pierrot · 25 Nov 2004

Interesting...

I've been trying to follow the JET programme, but lost track of it awhile ago.

(No, not the Japan Exchange and Teaching program, but the Joint European Torus programme, which was set to build a viable fusion reactor.

zeroyon · 26 Nov 2004

Hmm this will be awesome indeed if someone can finally develop a nuclear fusion reactor, it will be quite a marvel

Just incase anyone doesn't know... current nuclear reactors = nuclear FISSION recators (as in splitting of atoms), and nuclear fusion means joining of atoms basically. The Sun (or any star) is an example of a nuclear fission reactor

Ben W Bell · 26 Nov 2004

And a modern nuclear weapon is a good example of nuclear fusion.

mad pierrot · 28 Nov 2004

Not to nit-pick, but nuclear weapons are actually driven by the fission of uranium. The starter, so to speak. The fission reaction causes a shell of lithium to fuse. And in turn, that fusion reaction causes another fission reaction in an extra shell of uranium over the lithium.

Either way, it's overkill.

:frown:

Kei_Shugojin · 29 Nov 2004

finally... a nuclear fusion engine. We might finally be able to develope high-speed space travel and move out among the stars.

Set Course ensign, warp 9.
Course set, sir.
Engage.
*warp engines flash*

scotsboyuk · 29 Nov 2004

Nuclear fusion has actually been achieved, but only for very brief periods of time. The main problem, as I understand it, is the containment of the plasma used to transfer the energy produced in the reaction.

A more interesting prospect is 'cold fusion', already rumoured to have been achieved by some researchers.

Kei_Shugojin · 29 Nov 2004

actually, I thought it was because a fusion reactor couldnt' be cooled off well enough to use it as an effective energy source. In the end, with our current cooling methods and everything, you'd only be able to get a small precentage of the reactor's full power, and it turned out to be about as much as a steam engine.

acquiredtarget · 29 Nov 2004

China is working on Pebble-bed reactors , a safer design of fisson reactors. Edward Teller pushed for this design back in the '50's, but Hyman Rockover's design won and that's pretty much what we have today.

The key trick is a phenomenon known as Doppler broadening - the hotter atoms get, the more they spread apart, making it harder for an incoming neutron to strike a nucleus. In the dense core of a conventional reactor, the effect is marginal. But HTR-10's carefully designed geometry, low fuel density, and small size make for a very different story. In the event of a catastrophic cooling-system failure, instead of skyrocketing into a bad movie plot, the core temperature climbs to only about 1,600 degrees Celsius - comfortably below the balls' 2,000-plus-degree melting point - and then falls. This temperature ceiling makes HTR-10 what engineers privately call walk-away safe. As in, you can walk away from any situation and go have a pizza.

If China pulls this design off, I think its more likely that we'll see pebble-bed reactors as opposed to anything coming out of fusion tests. B

PaulTB · 29 Nov 2004

scotsboyuk said:
Nuclear fusion has actually been achieved, but only for very brief periods of time. The main problem, as I understand it, is the containment of the plasma used to transfer the energy produced in the reaction.

Just one of several main problems, unfortunately. My prediction is that Nuclear Fusion might pass the economic break-even point but it certainly won't be "Too cheap to meter".

scotsboyuk said:
A more interesting prospect is 'cold fusion', already rumoured to have been achieved by some researchers.

*pfft* The phrase 'cold fusion' has at least two major interpretations.
1. 'Colder fusion', if you like, where some sort of 'catalyst' particle or environment is present to allow fusion a bit below temperatures normally required. e.g. use of various muons etc. This is 'good science' and various things have been demonstrated but it's nowhere near energy break even point.
2. 'Cold fusion'. The original 'palladium in water beaker' type _truely_ cold fusion. This is plagued by kooks, frauds, mis-interpretations and plain bad science.

scotsboyuk · 29 Nov 2004

@PaulTB

I would agree with you regarding cold fusion, but it is still unfortunate that more resources haven't been directed at this area of research.

The problem in developing new energy sources is that there are very powerful business interests who do not want to see traditional energy sources being overtaken in the marketplace. Having said that, with the increasing problem of obtaining oil and other natural resources that the Western world needs in ever greater quantities, it is perhaps not all that long before we do see more exotic means of energy production become economical enough to at least suppliment traditional means.

PaulTB · 30 Nov 2004

scotsboyuk said:
It is perhaps not all that long before we do se emore exotic means of energy production become economical enough to at least suppliment traditional means.

A great deal could be done with energy efficiency methods and existing alternative energy generation technology. Tidal and wave power is underdeveloped for its potential but solar energy and wind energy are quite advanced to the point where if oil prices go up a notch or two they start looking pretty attractive. The big problem is that when oil prices _do_ start going up and oil availability drops - how much notice will we have to change over? We're talking big infrastructure here and if we don't get ready early there'll be nasty times ahead.

scotsboyuk · 30 Nov 2004

@PaulTB

Synthetic oil could become a viable alternative to crude if demand is great enough. Germany relied on large quantities of synthetic oil during WWII because they had little access to natural oil reserves. It isn't totally inconceivable that the oil industry might utilise artificial sources to keep itself going.

Changing our energy sources would be a mammoth task, as you say the infrastructure in place is already well established and it would cost a great deal in terms of both money and time to alter that infrastructure.

MWThomas · 30 Nov 2004

Even if fusion succeeds how much would it cost to make it a practical source of energy?

PaulTB · 30 Nov 2004

scotsboyuk said:
Synthetic oil could become a viable alternative to crude if demand is great enough.

Synthetic oil from coal dust just pushes the problem back a bit. It's still fossil fuel and it's still going to become less available and less economic given sufficient time. Synthetic oil also takes a big economic hit in comparison to current crude oil prices.

scotsboyuk · 1 Dec 2004

@PaulTB

Indeed, however, it is unlikely that the major players in the energy industry are going to embrace new forms of energy production with open arms until fossil fuels do become completely uneconomical. Even if and when fossil fuels are replaced by other energy forms as the dominant source of energy, I very much doubt energy will be any cheaper to the customer.

Kei_Shugojin · 1 Dec 2004

Well, I'll just be optomistic and hope that the human race advances at an exponentially increasing rate like it has in the last hundred years and gets to the point of space colonization by the time I die.

PaulTB · 1 Dec 2004

Kei_Shugojin said:
Well, I'll just be optomistic and hope that the human race advances at an exponentially increasing rate like it has in the last hundred years and gets to the point of space colonization by the time I die.

How long are you planning on living?
My estimate would be at least 40 years before anything approaching a 'space colony' is started, quite likely much longer. Unfortunately the launcher industry is one which has been advancing at nothing like exponential rates - more like two steps forward, two steps back.

scotsboyuk · 1 Dec 2004

@PaulTB

The main restraint on the development of space colonies, in my opinion, is commercial viability. Governments and investors will not want to set up colonies just for the sake of it, they will want some sort of return for their investment. Mining is feasible, but transporting it back to Earth isn't, at least not at the moment.

I wouldn't mind having a holiday home on Mars though.

Kei_Shugojin · 1 Dec 2004

well, I'm 17 now. So 17 + 40 is 57, right? I think I'll still be around then.

PaulTB · 1 Dec 2004

Kei_Shugojin said:
well, I'm 17 now. So 17 + 40 is 57, right? I think I'll still be around then.

You've got a better chance than me statistically ... but I'm not saying by how much.

Kei_Shugojin · 1 Dec 2004

Retirin' to da moon, baby! lol.

Actually, it'd just be cool to be able to fly around to different planets and marvel at the technological level at that time. I'd still probably live in Japan.

And don't worry about your chances of living til then. Just remember to eat your veggies, drink milk, get plenty of exercise, and sleep well.

Nuclear fusion - The pandora's box to solving world energy problems

後輩

I jump to conclusions

後輩

先輩

I jump to conclusions

先輩

先輩

先輩

Um...okay

Manga Psychic

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

後輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

先輩

Manga Psychic

先輩

Similar threads