We're all saved!
Discussion
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
s2art said:
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
The cost is obviously far less FFS. One will destroy an area the size of London and negate it being habitable for hundred of years and the other will do f
k all but kill a few folks in the plant. Tell me, which one do you want out side your back door. The cost is also astronomically expensive to build, decomm and up keep..chimera40 said:
s2art said:
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
The cost is obviously far less FFS. One will destroy an area the size of London and negate it being habitable for hundred of years and the other will do f
k all but kill a few folks in the plant. Tell me, which one do you want out side your back door. The cost is also astronomically expensive to build, decomm and up keep..And demonstrate that fusion power works out cheaper. (hint; if you can do this the world will beat a path to your door)
Edited to add; A fusion reactor is perhaps the best mechanism for breeding weapons grade fuel (including tritium). Would you be happy those things dotted around various African nations?
Edited by s2art on Friday 29th January 16:38
chimera40 said:
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.
Firstly that is shielding not a containment component. Within a tokomak the Containor is a vaccum chamber which surrounds the device as a whole confinement is produced by high powered magnets which surround the plasma. The shielding prevents the other components from being damaged by said high energy neutrons (mostly the magnets as they are the closest) they also form a cooling jacket to keep the magnetic coils at a temperature low enough to allow them to superconduct. the key difference is the container is an integral part of the system which cannot realistically be replaced as maintenance within the operational life of the system shielding can.that is however reffering to tokomak reactors. Laser ignition systems are slightly different as they tend to use a layered fuel which is self confining and containemnt is just there to keep the plasma in. As far as carbon fibre goes it not being magnetic has nothing to do with anything. In might be an advantage in a tokomak where magnetic fields interacting with steel shielding are a problem but carbon fibre doesn't transmit heat very well so you couldn't use it for cooling.
I would agree with the waste given that it is generally less radioactive than the fuel once processed
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.
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
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.
don't complain about govenrment sources when you use wikipedia as a sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Unfortunately it is people like you that tend to cause the launch of the green brigade and scare the s
t 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.I would expect there's a fair proportion of the world economy that relies on our use of 'fossil' fuels.
I can only imagine the tormoil when that economy collapses.
I do look forward to the day we can tell those countries/companies we buy our energy from, who have a stranglehold over us, to stick it up their arses. That is assuming we will use sea water as our source of deuterium. Then we can screw over the landlocked countries like Switzerland.
I can only imagine the tormoil when that economy collapses.
I do look forward to the day we can tell those countries/companies we buy our energy from, who have a stranglehold over us, to stick it up their arses. That is assuming we will use sea water as our source of deuterium. Then we can screw over the landlocked countries like Switzerland.
G_T said:
KANEIT said:
Then we can screw over the landlocked countries like Switzerland.
Absolutely. Damn the fking Swiss bds and their neutrality.With enemies you know where you stand but with these neutrals who knows!
"The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern[citation needed]. Although tritium is volatile and biologically active, the health risk posed by a release is much lower than that of most radioactive contaminants, due to tritium's short half-life (12 years), very low decay energy (~14.95 keV), and the fact that it does not bioaccumulate (instead being cycled out of the body as water, with a biological half-life of 7 to 14 days)[citation needed]. Current ITER designs are investigating total containment facilities for any tritium."
12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
isee said:
"The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern[citation needed]. Although tritium is volatile and biologically active, the health risk posed by a release is much lower than that of most radioactive contaminants, due to tritium's short half-life (12 years), very low decay energy (~14.95 keV), and the fact that it does not bioaccumulate (instead being cycled out of the body as water, with a biological half-life of 7 to 14 days)[citation needed]. Current ITER designs are investigating total containment facilities for any tritium."
12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
tritium based fuel at least has a relatively short half life and would tend to spend it's time in the upper atmosphere (essentially hydrogen so rises very quickly through the atmosphere. therefore it's impact would be limited to anyone trapped in a building with a leak which is dangerous but even a massive failure would probably never affect anything with the exception of a couple of unlikely people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. a tiny portion might react with oxygen on the way up high into the atmosphere but it would be a tiny ammount. 12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
isee said:
"The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern[citation needed]. Although tritium is volatile and biologically active, the health risk posed by a release is much lower than that of most radioactive contaminants, due to tritium's short half-life (12 years), very low decay energy (~14.95 keV), and the fact that it does not bioaccumulate (instead being cycled out of the body as water, with a biological half-life of 7 to 14 days)[citation needed]. Current ITER designs are investigating total containment facilities for any tritium."
12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
Hmm, 'Fission is better'......12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
Fusion might be, if it ever becomes commercially viable. But it will produce large quantities of radioactive waste.
isee said:
Harry Flashman said:
If this is really that significant, wow.
Can't see why it isn't front page news though, if it is.
The problem is that stories like who Jude Law is fCan't see why it isn't front page news though, if it is.
king now sell more papers. Most probably don't even know hoe fusion is different from fission and even more don't know what fission is.s2art said:
isee said:
"The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern[citation needed]. Although tritium is volatile and biologically active, the health risk posed by a release is much lower than that of most radioactive contaminants, due to tritium's short half-life (12 years), very low decay energy (~14.95 keV), and the fact that it does not bioaccumulate (instead being cycled out of the body as water, with a biological half-life of 7 to 14 days)[citation needed]. Current ITER designs are investigating total containment facilities for any tritium."
12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
Hmm, 'Fission is better'......12 years half life in fusion and no weapons grade waste. also much smaller amounts of waste. I say again: Fusion is better than fission on environmental and actual energy (3-4 time more) released than fission. Any negatives you may think of in fusion are worse in fission, full stop. therefore Fission is just better.
Fusion might be, if it ever becomes commercially viable. But it will produce large quantities of radioactive waste.
chimera40 said:
s2art said:
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
The cost is obviously far less FFS. One will destroy an area the size of London and negate it being habitable for hundred of years and the other will do f
k all but kill a few folks in the plant. Tell me, which one do you want out side your back door. The cost is also astronomically expensive to build, decomm and up keep..it should also be made clear that fissile materials do not explode in the traditional sense rather they generate a huge ammount of energy that causes the air around them to expand and explode. without ideal conditions in which to form a fast moving column of air and a shockwave the physica effects are greatly limited and would not destroy an area of say the size of london unles conditions were ideal especially not from ground level or ideally a bit below gorund level.
unless the material can form a column of hot air (as they can when detonated at 10,000 feet or so) it will not level buildings over a very large area. it will get immensly hot and radioactive. however the best shielding from Gamma radiation is matter. Set it in a 20meter hollow in the ground and set an exclusion area of 200m (gamma ray flux halves for every 10 cm of soil depending on the density of the matter). the shielding of 200m of clay would be sufficient protection from emmission even from a nuclear bomb. the fallout would be another matter.
Edited by ctallchris on Tuesday 2nd February 10:51
ctallchris said:
to be honest i would be happy with a nuclear power plant in my back garden as long as the reimbursed by for the drop in property price.
it should also be made clear that fissile materials do not explode in the traditional sense rather they generate a huge ammount of energy that causes the air around them to expand and explode. without ideal conditions in which to form a fast moving column of air and a shockwave the physica effects are greatly limited and would not destroy an area of say the size of london unles conditions were ideal especially not from ground level or ideally a bit below gorund level.
unless the material can form a column of hot air (as they can when detonated at 10,000 feet or so) it will not level buildings over a very large area. it will get immensly hot and radioactive. however the best shielding from Gamma radiation is matter. Set it in a 20meter hollow in the ground and set an exclusion area of 200m (gamma ray flux halves for every 10 cm of soil depending on the density of the matter). the shielding of 200m of clay would be sufficient protection from emmission even from a nuclear bomb. the fallout would be another matter.
The danger is not in the explosion but the core being exposed to the atmosphere with the radioactive fallout being picked up by the winds. Potentially making an rea considerably larger than london uninhabitable.it should also be made clear that fissile materials do not explode in the traditional sense rather they generate a huge ammount of energy that causes the air around them to expand and explode. without ideal conditions in which to form a fast moving column of air and a shockwave the physica effects are greatly limited and would not destroy an area of say the size of london unles conditions were ideal especially not from ground level or ideally a bit below gorund level.
unless the material can form a column of hot air (as they can when detonated at 10,000 feet or so) it will not level buildings over a very large area. it will get immensly hot and radioactive. however the best shielding from Gamma radiation is matter. Set it in a 20meter hollow in the ground and set an exclusion area of 200m (gamma ray flux halves for every 10 cm of soil depending on the density of the matter). the shielding of 200m of clay would be sufficient protection from emmission even from a nuclear bomb. the fallout would be another matter.
Edited by ctallchris on Tuesday 2nd February 10:51
ctallchris said:
chimera40 said:
s2art said:
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
The cost is obviously far less FFS. One will destroy an area the size of London and negate it being habitable for hundred of years and the other will do f
k all but kill a few folks in the plant. Tell me, which one do you want out side your back door. The cost is also astronomically expensive to build, decomm and up keep..it should also be made clear that fissile materials do not explode in the traditional sense rather they generate a huge ammount of energy that causes the air around them to expand and explode. without ideal conditions in which to form a fast moving column of air and a shockwave the physica effects are greatly limited and would not destroy an area of say the size of london unles conditions were ideal especially not from ground level or ideally a bit below gorund level.
unless the material can form a column of hot air (as they can when detonated at 10,000 feet or so) it will not level buildings over a very large area. it will get immensly hot and radioactive. however the best shielding from Gamma radiation is matter. Set it in a 20meter hollow in the ground and set an exclusion area of 200m (gamma ray flux halves for every 10 cm of soil depending on the density of the matter). the shielding of 200m of clay would be sufficient protection from emmission even from a nuclear bomb. the fallout would be another matter.
Edited by ctallchris on Tuesday 2nd February 10:51
Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
JB! said:
ctallchris said:
chimera40 said:
s2art said:
chimera40 said:
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.
LOL! Fusion cheaper? Lets see some evidence please.Stop emoting. Modern inherently safe fission reactors are no threat. And dealing with the waste is no big deal.
The cost is obviously far less FFS. One will destroy an area the size of London and negate it being habitable for hundred of years and the other will do f
k all but kill a few folks in the plant. Tell me, which one do you want out side your back door. The cost is also astronomically expensive to build, decomm and up keep..it should also be made clear that fissile materials do not explode in the traditional sense rather they generate a huge ammount of energy that causes the air around them to expand and explode. without ideal conditions in which to form a fast moving column of air and a shockwave the physica effects are greatly limited and would not destroy an area of say the size of london unles conditions were ideal especially not from ground level or ideally a bit below gorund level.
unless the material can form a column of hot air (as they can when detonated at 10,000 feet or so) it will not level buildings over a very large area. it will get immensly hot and radioactive. however the best shielding from Gamma radiation is matter. Set it in a 20meter hollow in the ground and set an exclusion area of 200m (gamma ray flux halves for every 10 cm of soil depending on the density of the matter). the shielding of 200m of clay would be sufficient protection from emmission even from a nuclear bomb. the fallout would be another matter.
Edited by ctallchris on Tuesday 2nd February 10:51
Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
Over the last centuary more radioactive emmissions of uranium and thorium have come from coal power plants than from chernobyl. I would be in favor of the UN having some balls and creating a group of nuclear safety experts and insisting that every plant has a team of safety experts (on rotation) moving from plant to plant. after all it's an international issue in the highly unlikely event that things go wrong.
JB! said:
as someone who is fascinated my the explosion at Chernobyl, i'd want a neuclear power plant as far away from me as possible... all the radioactive materials spewed out by a reactor meltdown or explosion are still very active in Prypiat(sp).
Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
I regularly visit a town that operates Chernobyl's sister plant and even went inside once. During winter half of the lake that is used for cooling is 30c whilst the other half has ice so thick you can drive 20 cars onto it. It's pretty fascinating, scary and exciting all at the same time.Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
isee said:
JB! said:
as someone who is fascinated my the explosion at Chernobyl, i'd want a neuclear power plant as far away from me as possible... all the radioactive materials spewed out by a reactor meltdown or explosion are still very active in Prypiat(sp).
Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
I regularly visit a town that operates Chernobyl's sister plant and even went inside once. During winter half of the lake that is used for cooling is 30c whilst the other half has ice so thick you can drive 20 cars onto it. It's pretty fascinating, scary and exciting all at the same time.Fusion on the other hand sounds reasonably safe, i'm sure the escaping titrium gasses could be captured in filters or made intert...
plus, wee are all talking about a technology in its infancy! i'm pretty sure there was outrage at the first steam ships!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff