Nuclear fusion
Discussion
http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/
Went on a guided tour of Culham fusion research centre last night. Really interesting stuff and good explanations from the scientists involved. It is certainly a potentially exciting technology, very safe and with effectively inexhaustible fuel supplies. But the engineering is somewhat tricky.
Recommended.
Went on a guided tour of Culham fusion research centre last night. Really interesting stuff and good explanations from the scientists involved. It is certainly a potentially exciting technology, very safe and with effectively inexhaustible fuel supplies. But the engineering is somewhat tricky.
Recommended.
Dogwatch said:
Simpo Two said:
I'm sure the Luddites, sorry Greens, have draft scaremongering literature about hydrogen bombs...
But you're right, fusion is what we need.
Oooooh no! It's nuclear innit? Wind power is the way forward man.But you're right, fusion is what we need.
With subsidies (and backup) of course......
And yes, I'm sure the Green Party would hate the idea, just because its nuclear. And they'd probably would use scaremongering tactics like 'but it can be used bombs!' because they're scientifically illiterate. The knowledge used/gained in fusion reactors is useless for H-bomb making. To make a H-bomb/Fusion-bomb you need knowledge of fission reactions - you need fission reaction (in the bomb) to 'trigger'/create the fusion reaction. As fusion reactors do not use any fission reactions whatsoever, the lessons learnt from them can't be weaponised.
If the Green party were really Green, they'd champion research and development into fusion. But the Green party is just really a socialist party that's jumped on the environmentally friendly (fluffy) bandwagon to try and attract voters. Putting green lipstick on a socialist pig does not give it 'green' credentials!
I agree Fusion is the way forward, but there are a a couple of issues.
1. Tokamak is a white elephant, current estimates reckon a working, power generating Tokamak reactor will be 30x the size of ITER. Not including the generation equipment (steam turbines BTW).
2. NIF has nothing to do with power generation, NIF is for Nuclear weapons testing.
1. Tokamak is a white elephant, current estimates reckon a working, power generating Tokamak reactor will be 30x the size of ITER. Not including the generation equipment (steam turbines BTW).
2. NIF has nothing to do with power generation, NIF is for Nuclear weapons testing.
Brother D said:
I wish that would hurry up... It's always been "30 years away commercially" for the past 30 years I seem to remember even as a youngster.
I often wonder if we had thrown the same level of cash at fusion as we have at other energy sources - would we be there yet.According to this website - global expenditure on wind and solar energy alone tops 170 billion euros per year. The total for all renewables is probably much higher when you consider wave, tidal, geothermal etc too and that's before we even get into talking about conventional energy production (coal, oil, nuclear fission). Globally it is estimated that we invested $1.6 trillion in 2013 on energy supply.
Fusion by way of comparison gets a measly 2 billion euros per year (less than 1/700th of the total spend).
https://www.iter.org/newsline/237/1304
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 25th May 00:17
Brother D said:
I wish that would hurry up... It's always been "30 years away commercially" for the past 30 years I seem to remember even as a youngster.
Then again, since the 1970s we've been told that "oil will run out in 20 years" - but it never has!Amusingly, one counteracts the other...
Quartz Ninja said:
The knowledge used/gained in fusion reactors is useless for H-bomb making. To make a H-bomb/Fusion-bomb you need knowledge of fission reactions - you need fission reaction (in the bomb) to 'trigger'/create the fusion reaction. As fusion reactors do not use any fission reactions whatsoever, the lessons learnt from them can't be weaponised.
Not strictly true I'm afraid. Basically the only reason that the inertial confinement fusion guys (like NIF) get funding is because the conditions in their target mimic the secondary stage of a H bomb. It lets the guys designing weapons validate their simulation codes now that nuclear testing isn’t an option. driverrob said:
I was so excited about the prospects of fusion power in 1965 that I started my degree in Physics. I've been retired several years and we really don't seem to be much closer.
Would have been annoying if you'd got it all sussed by 1971 and had to look for a new job.Unless of course you did figure it all out but didn't mention it to anyone
Simpo Two said:
Then again, since the 1970s we've been told that "oil will run out in 20 years" - but it never has!
Amusingly, one counteracts the other...
The oil that was said to run out in 20years in the 70's only lasted 10years... we just found more and learnt how to extract difficult deposits, currently we will also run out in 20years but may find more and learn how to extract it, doesn't stop the original statement being true.Amusingly, one counteracts the other...
We do however need to spend trillions on Fusion immediately, I am constantly baffled at what is basically just tinkering we've been doing with this for the last half-century, come on now and spend the f***ing money people! :-)
scubadude said:
The oil that was said to run out in 20years in the 70's only lasted 10years... we just found more and learnt how to extract difficult deposits, currently we will also run out in 20years but may find more and learn how to extract it, doesn't stop the original statement being true.
We do however need to spend trillions on Fusion immediately, I am constantly baffled at what is basically just tinkering we've been doing with this for the last half-century, come on now and spend the f***ing money people! :-)
Difficult to sell the idea of long-term costly projects (decades!) when you're so focused on getting re-elected in 4-5 years time... Symptomatic of the current short-termism and lack of ideology endemic in government/politics/life.We do however need to spend trillions on Fusion immediately, I am constantly baffled at what is basically just tinkering we've been doing with this for the last half-century, come on now and spend the f***ing money people! :-)
scubadude said:
The oil that was said to run out in 20years in the 70's only lasted 10years... we just found more and learnt how to extract difficult deposits, currently we will also run out in 20years but may find more and learn how to extract it, doesn't stop the original statement being true.
It doesn't seem to have been true whichever way you look at it!The other factor is price - the more expensive it is the harder people will try to find and extract it as previoulsy uneconomic reserves become viable. But yes, it's a finite resource so is only going to end one way. When/if nuclear fusion becomes the only viable option to power the world and is economic, it might happen.
Asterix said:
Can you burn glucose?
Should have been a bit more specific - I don't mean replicating what a plant does exactly, it's using sunlight to turn carbon dioxide and water into fuels like hydrogen or ethanol. The sun puts out enough energy in an hour to power the entire planet for a year.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff