We're all saved!

[G_T]

ctallchris said:

Can we claim energy independance from the sun yet. I want to turn if off as soon as possible in order to save energy

You should move up here to Scotland. The locals still refer to the Sun as "that wee orrrange baw that caem fae the gruund twice lass yearrrr".

They point to it in absolute surprise as well. True story.

Edited by G_T on Friday 29th January 14:06

[Davey111]

chimera40 said:

Davey111 said:

isee said:

since fossil fuel wont be in such deman anymore, the prices will drop drammatically and we could all fill up our tanks for a tenner each!

But surely fossil fuels are massively expensive to extract and then turn into useable petrol. I thought that the percentage that is used for cars is tiny.

Surely petrol would become ludicrously expensive as nations and general industry stop relying on it, meaning it is only being produced for individuals who want to use it for their hobbies. Unfortunately I think that if this were to happen petrol would become pretty much unaffordable.

Obvioulsy this is just my random thoughts and would never claim to be an expert in such things.

Not so, oil usage goes far and beyond that of power plants and cars, there is not a road or scrap of plastic/rubber that is built that does not require a large quantity of oil in various forms. The revenue that the oil companies actually make from petrol is tiny in terms of their total income, it is far easier and far more profitable to sell the raw product to the various industries than it is to run massive exercises in refinement/distribution for the petrol, this will continue though but on a far smaller scale as it is kinda hard to run ships, planes etc etc on batteries .

All that will change here is that the oil we have will last one hell of a lot longer as car production will turn to electric or whatever and no more fossil fuel power plants.

Very good point, obviously I have already switched off for the weekend. You will pleased to hear that I officially withdraw my concern and give full approval for fussion to go ahead!

[s2art]

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

[bob1179]

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

But aren't fast breeder reactors outlawed under the Non Proliferation Treaty? Plus they are quite 'dirty'.

I though the whole point of fusion power generation is that it is much cleaner compared to the good old fashioned fission reactor and of course the burning of fossil fuels in a coal/gas/mixed fuel or gas turbine power station.

[isee]

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

[s2art]

bob1179 said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

But aren't fast breeder reactors outlawed under the Non Proliferation Treaty? Plus they are quite 'dirty'.

I though the whole point of fusion power generation is that it is much cleaner compared to the good old fashioned fission reactor and of course the burning of fossil fuels in a coal/gas/mixed fuel or gas turbine power station.

Given that we had a working one less than 20 years ago, and that other countries are still researching them, I would say no, they are not banned.

As to being cleaner than fission, yes they are, but not clean. The neutron flux irradiating the container means that previously non radioactive materials are made radioactive by fusion reactors.

Regarding coal or gas burning, modern technology makes them very clean.

[s2art]

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Its not that clear cut, fusion reactors will be creating a lot of radioactive material.

BTW that bit about 'inherently unstable' is nonsense. There are plenty of inherently stable designs for breeders.

[chimera40]

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

[s2art]

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

[ctallchris]

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

[s2art]

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

[chimera40]

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

Thats rubbish, the radioactive isotopes produced by fission have a half life of 50 years and are negated in 100. Fussion is three thousand. They are far far safer, even if the reactor itself was destroyed the main element that feeds the process tritium is fed in tiny mounts and any radioactive fall out would be at background levels by the time it reached the outskirts of the plant itself. The strip down costs are also far far less as the material used in the reactor are not so susceptible to radioactive contamination and most would be clear in a very short time.

Containment is far far easier as well, the main problem with current plants is that the temperature must be maintained along with the magnetic field and pressure. The largest cost of the plant is in the fail safes that must be built to ensure the reactor does not exceed these even by the smallest margin. No such limitations exist with fussion as the heat is maintained for days even after a total failure and no excess heat can be produced after failure due the limits of the plasma. The whole plant could go tits up with no danger to anyone else other than the industrial workers in the facility.

When you have a process that is this safe as opposed to one where an accident can result in global disaster things get a tad less expensive to produce. As I said, Its not the process that costs the money to build these plants, its the containment measures and disposal costs that are the big ticket items. Very very big ticket items.

[s2art]

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

Thats rubbish, the radioactive isotopes produced by fission have a half life of 50 years and are negated in 100. Fussion is three thousand. They are far far safer, even if the reactor itself was destroyed the main element that feeds the process tritium is fed in tiny mounts and any radioactive fall out would be at background levels by the time it reached the outskirts of the plant itself. The strip down costs are also far far less as the material used in the reactor are not so susceptible to radioactive contamination and most would be clear in a very short time.

Containment is far far easier as well, the main problem with current plants is that the temperature must be maintained along with the magnetic field and pressure. The largest cost of the plant is in the fail safes that must be built to ensure the reactor does not exceed these even by the smallest margin. No such limitations exist with fussion as the heat is maintained for days even after a total failure and no excess heat can be produced after failure due the limits of the plasma. The whole plant could go tits up with no danger to anyone else other than the industrial workers in the facility.

When you have a process that is this safe as opposed to one where an accident can result in global disaster things get a tad less expensive to produce. As I said, Its not the process that costs the money to build these plants, its the containment measures and disposal costs that are the big ticket items. Very very big ticket items.

Nope. There are inherently safe fission plant designs, see 'Pebble Bed'. And there are disposal costs for the radioactive material generated by fusion.

I have no idea where you got those half lives from. They are not correct.

[chimera40]

s2art said:

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

Wrong again, in a fusion reactor you would not use the steel, vanadium can be used in these plants instead and that is far less susceptible to high energy neutrons, carbon fiber can also be used as there is no magnetic field requirement and again this is far less susceptible to neutrons. As mentioned above the radioactive life of this waste is almost nothing compared to exciting fission reactor waste.

[s2art]

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

Wrong again, in a fusion reactor you would not use the steel, vanadium can be used in these plants instead and that is far less susceptible to high energy neutrons, carbon fiber can also be used as there is no magnetic field requirement and again this is far less susceptible to neutrons. As mentioned above the radioactive life of this waste is almost nothing compared to exciting fission reactor waste.

Nope. Its true that there is research into using Vanadium alloys, but even then it merely mitigates the effect; they break down eventually. Not only that but they cost a lot more. Various forms of stainless steel look favourite.

see;

Radioactive waste
Fusion reactors would give rise to radioactive waste,
largely through structural materials becoming ‘activated’
(see box on left) or contaminated with radioactive tritium.
These materials would constitute waste when removed
from the reactor (at the end of the component or the
plant’s lifetime). The type and amount of waste will affect
both the economic viability and public acceptance of
future plants. Current studies indicate that if suitable
materials were developed, the radioactivity of waste from
a fusion reactor would decay faster than waste from
today’s fission reactors. It would therefore be less
hazardous, in the long term. However, the total volume
of waste from fusion would be comparable with fission,

From; http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf

[chimera40]

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

Wrong again, in a fusion reactor you would not use the steel, vanadium can be used in these plants instead and that is far less susceptible to high energy neutrons, carbon fiber can also be used as there is no magnetic field requirement and again this is far less susceptible to neutrons. As mentioned above the radioactive life of this waste is almost nothing compared to exciting fission reactor waste.

Nope. Its true that there is research into using Vanadium alloys, but even then it merely mitigates the effect; they break down eventually. Not only that but they cost a lot more. Various forms of stainless steel look favourite.

see;

Radioactive waste
Fusion reactors would give rise to radioactive waste,
largely through structural materials becoming ‘activated’
(see box on left) or contaminated with radioactive tritium.
These materials would constitute waste when removed
from the reactor (at the end of the component or the
plant’s lifetime). The type and amount of waste will affect
both the economic viability and public acceptance of
future plants. Current studies indicate that if suitable
materials were developed, the radioactivity of waste from
a fusion reactor would decay faster than waste from
today’s fission reactors. It would therefore be less
hazardous, in the long term. However, the total volume
of waste from fusion would be comparable with fission,

From; http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf

You take your research from government posts, no wonder you are so woefully wrong. A quick search of google may help you here, try this one for starters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Get the science right before you start spouting nonsense about containment and the life of waste, etc etc, the use of these materials is also far from theoretical and the costs involved negate to very little when you consider the saving accrued in building these reactors as outlined in my previous posts.

Unfortunately it is people like you that tend to cause the launch of the green brigade and scare the st out of joe blogs, get your facts straight before attacking your key board with unsubstantiated "facts" based on very little knowledge and ill thought out arguments. So far each of your posts have been blown out the water. Come back better educated before you try again.

[G_T]

chimera40 said:

You take your research from government posts, no wonder you are so woefully wrong. A quick search of google may help you here, try this one for starters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Erm... Pot, kettle, black?

[s2art]

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

Wrong again, in a fusion reactor you would not use the steel, vanadium can be used in these plants instead and that is far less susceptible to high energy neutrons, carbon fiber can also be used as there is no magnetic field requirement and again this is far less susceptible to neutrons. As mentioned above the radioactive life of this waste is almost nothing compared to exciting fission reactor waste.

Nope. Its true that there is research into using Vanadium alloys, but even then it merely mitigates the effect; they break down eventually. Not only that but they cost a lot more. Various forms of stainless steel look favourite.

see;

Radioactive waste
Fusion reactors would give rise to radioactive waste,
largely through structural materials becoming ‘activated’
(see box on left) or contaminated with radioactive tritium.
These materials would constitute waste when removed
from the reactor (at the end of the component or the
plant’s lifetime). The type and amount of waste will affect
both the economic viability and public acceptance of
future plants. Current studies indicate that if suitable
materials were developed, the radioactivity of waste from
a fusion reactor would decay faster than waste from
today’s fission reactors. It would therefore be less
hazardous, in the long term. However, the total volume
of waste from fusion would be comparable with fission,

From; http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf

You take your research from government posts, no wonder you are so woefully wrong. A quick search of google may help you here, try this one for starters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Get the science right before you start spouting nonsense about containment and the life of waste, etc etc, the use of these materials is also far from theoretical and the costs involved negate to very little when you consider the saving accrued in building these reactors as outlined in my previous posts.

Unfortunately it is people like you that tend to cause the launch of the green brigade and scare the st out of joe blogs, get your facts straight before attacking your key board with unsubstantiated "facts" based on very little knowledge and ill thought out arguments. So far each of your posts have been blown out the water. Come back better educated before you try again.

LOL! You criticise me for using a document from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, and then quote Wiki! You couldnt make it up. I believe many Universities have banned the use of cites from Wiki in any research or papers, and about time too.

And my facts are very straight, no nonsense at all. One of ITERs main purposes is to research in container material, as yet stainless steel looks favourite but Vanadium alloys hold promise. No guarantees, and as I said, even if they prove worthwhile that merely mitigates the problem.

[chimera40]

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

s2art said:

ctallchris said:

s2art said:

chimera40 said:

isee said:

s2art said:

Enough about the limitless free energy. Its not free, coal would be cheaper, and we already have limitless energy via fission reactors (breeders).
So, yes, its a step forward, but not world changing.

breeders carry a hefty downside: more radioactive, and more radioactive waste by vollume. They are also inherently unstable, they are what helictopers are to airplanes. Drop the helicopter's controls and it will be on a fatal collision with something within 20 seconds. Fall asleep at an airplane's controls and there is a good chance you will wake up 2 hours later still on the same altitude just quite a bit further away from where you fell asleep.

Yip , and the reactors themselves will be far cheaper to operate/run, one of the largest expenses in the production cycle of the current fission reactors in the conversion of waste and the all important containment for the reactor. Take these two elements away and hey presto, you have a far cheaper and far more repeatable solution.

Put it this way, would you trust the Nigerians to run a nuclear reactor.

Oh yea, and the Iranians can build as many as they want as well, no more worries about enrichment.

You have the same problem with the containment for fusion. And nobody has demonstrated cheaper running or operating for fusion either.

differnt kind of containment. Fission reactors need to be contained in an isolated environemnt with two or more layers of protection to prevent enexpected release. Fusion containment is more about creating conditions for fusion (ie containing and compressing the plasma. this however reffers to tokomak reactors and not laser ignition reactors where the fuel is cooled to a solid state and blasted with an immense ammount of power for a tiny period of time so that the fuel explodes (in the same manner as a hydrogen bomb except without the need for a fission bomb to act as a detenator

Nope. The container is irradiated by neutrons, which will turn it radioactive. Basically you end up with huge quantities of radioactive steel, as the steel containment walls deteriorate under the neutron flux and need replacing at regular intervals.

Wrong again, in a fusion reactor you would not use the steel, vanadium can be used in these plants instead and that is far less susceptible to high energy neutrons, carbon fiber can also be used as there is no magnetic field requirement and again this is far less susceptible to neutrons. As mentioned above the radioactive life of this waste is almost nothing compared to exciting fission reactor waste.

Nope. Its true that there is research into using Vanadium alloys, but even then it merely mitigates the effect; they break down eventually. Not only that but they cost a lot more. Various forms of stainless steel look favourite.

see;

Radioactive waste
Fusion reactors would give rise to radioactive waste,
largely through structural materials becoming ‘activated’
(see box on left) or contaminated with radioactive tritium.
These materials would constitute waste when removed
from the reactor (at the end of the component or the
plant’s lifetime). The type and amount of waste will affect
both the economic viability and public acceptance of
future plants. Current studies indicate that if suitable
materials were developed, the radioactivity of waste from
a fusion reactor would decay faster than waste from
today’s fission reactors. It would therefore be less
hazardous, in the long term. However, the total volume
of waste from fusion would be comparable with fission,

From; http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf

You take your research from government posts, no wonder you are so woefully wrong. A quick search of google may help you here, try this one for starters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Get the science right before you start spouting nonsense about containment and the life of waste, etc etc, the use of these materials is also far from theoretical and the costs involved negate to very little when you consider the saving accrued in building these reactors as outlined in my previous posts.

Unfortunately it is people like you that tend to cause the launch of the green brigade and scare the st out of joe blogs, get your facts straight before attacking your key board with unsubstantiated "facts" based on very little knowledge and ill thought out arguments. So far each of your posts have been blown out the water. Come back better educated before you try again.

LOL! You criticise me for using a document from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, and then quote Wiki! You couldnt make it up. I believe many Universities have banned the use of cites from Wiki in any research or papers, and about time too.

And my facts are very straight, no nonsense at all. One of ITERs main purposes is to research in container material, as yet stainless steel looks favourite but Vanadium alloys hold promise. No guarantees, and as I said, even if they prove worthwhile that merely mitigates the problem.

The facts remain the same, fussion is far far safer and far far cheaper than the current fission reactors. There are no heavy elements and the waste breaks down in a fraction of the time. Just what exactly do you se as the problem here and how can you possible compare a process where one has no significant impact on the environment or life in the event of failure and one where a failure results in a catastrophic impact to life and the environment.

[Parrot of Doom]

ffs stop quoting every post, and just edit the old replies out please!