We're all saved!

[isee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm

"Laser fusion test results raise energy hopes "

Looks like we might be on the brink of getting more energy out that is put in with fusion at last!

Though that will most likely that I won't have a job because of that, I can't help but feel really delighted with the news. How wicked would that be? More electricity than anyone really cares about, heating for everyone when they feel even slightly cold. Leaving a shed load of applianes on standby and not being vilified, we could even switch to hydrogen fuel if we really must, but 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! That would be a great world to live in.

I am sure somebody will come along and tax it all into oblivion, but I can't help but dream on about it, just lkke I do before I buy the lottery. Think the odds are about the same too.

[isee]

tamore said:

bet there's a few arabs and russians watching this with keen interest.

Russians are in on the ITER project though
but I see where you are coming from, do you think a few oil major might join forces and hire some MOSAAD to kill the scientist involved?

[isee]

andy_s said:

isee said:

but 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!

You forget about the terribly noxious, poisonous and villainous CO2, have you learnt nothing from the government? I will forward your details to the thought police for 're-education'.

Yes... Taxes are there to help our glorious society thrive. CO2 is vile and should be compeltely removed or at the very least taxed out of the atmosphere. The money gained through co2 taxation will ideally be used to improve energy efficiency or used by our glorious leader as we deem fit. All hail our wise leaders!

[isee]

jonnyb said:

If this does happen, and they get fusion to work (more out than they put in) the world will be a very different place, monumental change will be on the way and not all of it for the good.

]

of course. but still, eradicating our dependence on fossil fuels and the need of windfarms, etc should be a fookin massive leap for mankind!
No doubt there will be wars and political shifts of influene off the back of that.

[isee]

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 fking 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.

[isee]

cheap limitless power will make hydrogen fuel a very viable energy storage. so the planes, trains and automobiles will be running on those.

[isee]

Also, I am sure there are other thing the humanity could do bt isn't at the moment due to vast amounts of electricity needed.

So if we have a masssive surplus, we might even be using that energy to make gold out of lead, terraforming, creating materials with obscene properties that would be commerically viable (skylift perhaps?) etc etc. Getting limitless cheap energy with no ill effects is imho the next age, the next dimension!

[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.

[isee]

"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.

[isee]

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'......

Fusion might be, if it ever becomes commercially viable. But it will produce large quantities of radioactive waste.

Yes sorry. I mant, Fusion is better because the postives and the negatives are all better than fission.

[isee]

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.

Edited by ctallchris on Tuesday 2nd February 10:51

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.

[isee]

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.