Nuclear Fusion...

[Mercedes Benzene]

Controlled nuclear fusion would be the quintessence of human energy production...

It would be relatively cheap, extremely efficient, and could provide a limitless amount of energy for the future!

Unfortunately, creating the technology necessary for such a method of energy production is not easy. I do not doubt that we will get it eventually... but it may take quite a while.

What do you think?

 

***Are we close to harnessing the power of nuclear fusion for our own needs?

***What projects are currently underway to achieve this goal? International? Domestic?

***Is fusion even really all that important? or are we wasting out time and money?

 

Feel free to share any factual or personal views on this subject matter. :cup:

[sebbysteiny]

I used to (and still do) find fusion very interesting and I have done plenty of research on it. But I have got disillusioned recently.

 

The problem with nuclear fusion is that one needs to push two hydrogen atoms together to get fusion and this requires a lot of energy. But once you do it, the energy of the reaction can be used to sustain fusion reactions in other atoms.

 

This can be done in two ways: cold fusion or hot / normal fusion.

 

Most cold fusion methods involve using some kind of bubble that has exceptionally high energy on the surface of the bubble. This energy can be used to start the fusion reactions at a temparature not too far away from room temparature. This means it can be done cheaply. The problem is that every attempt to do it has been unrepeatable, fabricated or outright bonkers. There is one theory that hasn't been shot down fully yet, but again that experiment is unrepeatable.

 

So ignoring the crackpots, we are left with normal fusion. To give the hydrogen atoms sufficient energy, we just heat it up. Only problem is that it needs to be heated to about 200 million degrees C. At these temparatures, the hydrogen and all other known substances is a plasma (positive and negative ionic gas). So how to we 'hold' the plasma? The answer is to use magnetism. However slight fluctuations within the plasma gas (as there innevitably is) will distort the magnetic field and stop the fusion before it has even started.

 

This brings us to the current technology. They invented a system that can adjust the magnetic field on the micro level. This seems very clever to me. The result: a test plant that was, for the first time ever, able to produce significantly more energy than was inputted. The ratio of output / input was about 7 or something. However, that was on a prototype.

 

So now we have an international effort lead by France, USA, Japan and other nations to build a much bigger plant. The cost of the research is enormous and the plant should be build in France (since the French were arrogant and obstructive whiny pricks) by about 2010 or something like that. If it works well, as predicted, then they can build a full size power station probably by about 2030 or something.

 

So it's looking expensive (research) but hopeful.

 

But I have become disillusioned with fusion just as it is about to become a reality.

 

Firstly, it will be at least 20 years before anything actually happens. This could arrive too late to have any effect on global warming.

 

And secondly, this extremely complex magnetic field plasma container is not going to cost £4.99 from McDonalds with free fries and a drink. So it will be expensive and it will require a long period of time to build. I cannot see them even theoretically replacing the cheapness and ease of building a coal power station. Thus the whole third world, where tomorrows major greenhouse gas threat comes from, will be almost totally uneffected by the technology.

 

So what use is it? We might as well build more wind farms in my view since they might cost significantly less.

 

I don't know for a fact that it is definately going to be expensive even once discovered, but the thing is extremely high tech and complex. I can't see it competing with coal.

[Qfwfq]

True, there has been success with the tokamak approach and now it is considered a matter of working toward viability to commercial purposes. The problems are, however, still very challenging.

 

Just the other week I saw some of my old cronies from physics, including one that's working on research for the tokamak at the lab in Padova. She was telling me that this lab was assigned one of the really tight issues, how to cheaply inject neutrals into the plasma at about 1 MeV, on a scale sufficient for the needs of a power plant reactor. I didn't catch all the details but apparently its quite a formidable task.

 

We might as well build more wind farms in my view since they might cost significantly less.

Quite tru, this certainly should be done, but the barrel has just gone below $60 again so the cash ain't gonna be going that way, as it had been doing in the past few months. Many countries have been doing it for years though.

[sebbysteiny]

We might as well build more wind farms in my view since they might cost significantly less.

Quite tru, this certainly should be done, but the barrel has just gone below $60 again so the cash ain't gonna be going that way, as it had been doing in the past few months. Many countries have been doing it for years though.

 

Advocating wind farms was really not the point I was making. My point was that in my opinion, even if nuclear fusion becomes technologically achievable, wind farms will still be better as a cheap source of reliable, limitless, polution free energy. So what's the point of fusion?

[ronthepon]

If things go on as they are right now, nuclear fusion won't be really significant. I seriously doubt if it shall come in this century.

 

However, lets face it: wind power won't supply the world's needs, solar power ditto, fossil fuels will exhaust soon and fission waste can't be managed effectively. All have some problem or the other.

 

A few good links on this:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/dn8827.html

 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/fu/article_1122_en.htm

 

http://www.efda.org/fusion_energy/fusion_research_today.htm

 

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep94/anr9402.html

[Qfwfq]

It's a matter of how much wind and solar generating capacity gets installed. These are currently somewhat expensive to install and output isn't predictable.

 

If oil were to drop down to $1 a barrel, people would say "why bother?" about the other sources. If people let you get away with pollution and waste, costs reduce significantly. It all works by £€$...

[Mace]

If anyone think that Wind energy is Pollution free, they are mistaken, in the lifespan of a windmill it will create more energy than was used to create it, this is true, but...

 

The creation of the big glasfiber and carbonfiber constructions pollutes with other chemical waist than CO2, so the Global warming can be replaced by genetic mutations, due to hormone like substances used in production. And getting rid of the windmill when it is worn out will make us face yet another pollution problem.

 

With this in mind, I still think windmills are creating "Green energy". But the green energy could make your grandchildren unable to reproduce...

But no mater where you look for energy it will have an impact on nature when we consume the amounts the western world does today.

 

Nuclear Fusion is by far the most promising “green energy” but maybe the development is too expensive, too pollutive, and too late .

 

But to the question: Is it all that important?

My answer is: not to me, but it must be to mankind, if we plan to live for millennia. The energy sources we relay on today are like a battery in a toy, at some point, it will be depleted. And we need to get another one. Nuclear Fusion, and hydrogen society seems, for now a good way to go.

The political issue in replacing Oil with an alternative is also important. Today Oil means Money and power, and if you don’t have it, you are screwed. But if everyone could harvest the relative safe and cheap energy fusion offers (with some research to go), the resources in the underground will not decide a country’s place on the “power ladder” in the world, but rather their moral standards. (Assuming the fusion knowledge is shared, which it ought to be, thinking of the environment.)

 

To the question Who: I recommend checking this out.

iter.org (i am not allowed to make links yet... hope u get it)

I think this is the project sebbysteiny is referring to.

 

/Mace

[sebbysteiny]

My answer is: not to me, but it must be to mankind, if we plan to live for millennia. The energy sources we relay on today are like a battery in a toy, at some point, it will be depleted. And we need to get another one. Nuclear Fusion, and hydrogen society seems, for now a good way to go.

 

If oil were to drop down to $1 a barrel, people would say "why bother?" about the other sources. If people let you get away with pollution and waste, costs reduce significantly. It all works by £€$...

 

Am I allowed to sware on this forum? Just in case, I won't.

 

With respect, some people here are really missing the F***ing point. Who cares how much energy resources there are in the Earth in the form of Oil, gas and coal? What matters is how much CO2 can be released into the atmosphere before this planet is dead. Having enough energy to last 300 years will not help anybody if this planet dies after 100 years through global warming.

 

CO2 ommissions is really the only consideration regarding the amount of usable energy on this planet, not the natural resources.

 

There is a tipping point if the world moves up 10 degrees beyond which millions / billions of tuns of Methane will be released from the ocean floors. Methane is over 10 times as bad as CO2 is for global warming. If that tipping point is reached, the amount of Methane will be greater than all the CO2 already released into the atmosphere. The overall effect could be as much as an increase in 100 times the greenhouse gas levels as before the tipping point. When that happens, this planet is dead dead dead. The holocaust itself could be small scale compared to the amount of death that would occur then.

 

And at our current rate of increase of CO2 emmissions, this could happen within 100 years.

 

It is CO2 levels that is the only important factor, not natural energy resources. And I can't see the limitless but expensive power source offered by fusion doing anything major to stop it even if it is invented now.

[TheFaithfulStone]

due to hormone like substances used in production

 

Eh what?

 

You can build a Farnsworth fusor out of a few hundred dollars worth of materials in your garage.

 

But no breakeven. :naughty:

 

We're all doomed.

 

TFS

[Mace]

To TFS

 

....and how many modern windmils ar built in a garage?

Today you can not have a windmill production without carbon/glasfiber

 

as for sebbysteinys answer, i actualy agree, but the global warming is not enogh to stop the usage of oil, coal and gas. As stated elswhere in this thread, i all comes to $$$ It is sad but true.

 

so lets just hope that an "anti greenhouse gas" or something will be invented. Not that i think it would be a good idea to pollute with somethin else, but somehow we need to correct our mistakes, if you can talk about mistakes...

 

There is NO TURNING BACK, mankind can not go back to live in caves, and eat what the earth decides to grow, we must be in a more controlled state, or kill 99.99 percent of all people, and hope that the rest wil live like animals, and what point will that make, I for one belive that we ar here to evolve, and learn, despite the fact that we humans, are the worst enviromental catastopy for 65 million years. We still are able to go to the moon, play music, write books, see and(one day) understand the cosmos.

 

Nomatter what.. We gotta go all the way or die trying.

Lets just hope we lern things that will help us protect our fragile world, before it is too late.

 

/Mace

[Qfwfq]

Who cares how much energy resources there are in the Earth in the form of Oil, gas and coal? What matters is how much CO2 can be released into the atmosphere before this planet is dead.

I fully agree, but most people just count the money. Without a worldwide tax on emissions, a lot of folk will keep, uhm, "missing the point". I was only pointing this out, so don't loose your patience.

[Zythryn]

Lets just hope we lern things that will help us protect our fragile world, before it is too late.

 

Mixed feelings about this:confused:

 

First, we HAVE learned things that will help us protect our fragile world. Unfortunately the Oil industry is running their marketing/advertising very similarily to the marketing/advertising of the tobacco industry of the 80s (Very convincingly). We need more research much more quickly and we need to start taking advantage of the advances we have now.

 

For example, declare incandescant bulbs toxic and increase thier price to reflect that. While some people have switched to CFBs, many have not, this would help a lot.

 

I agree CO2 is the biggest issue here. However, I also see that the public has been confused about how critical global warming is. So, the fastest way I can see to convince people to conserve and switch to greener power is through money and political reasons (eliminate our dependance on mideast oil).

[Mace]

As to hov far we are..

 

I just stumbled on this today

 

english.people.com.cn/200609/28/eng20060928_307241.html (i cant post links yet, copy to browser)

 

China seems to have ignited a Fusion reaction for 3 secs. 200 kilo amperes does not seem as much though

 

/Mace

[sanctus]

And Mace you forget the energy used to start the process!

 

Someone said that solar energy wont do it, but why two solar cells are more than enough for a mountain house? Agreed, it wouldn't be enough for a fridge and a washing machine, but then why not putting 20 cells on the roof?

If we would switch to make all roofs in solar cells wouldn't it work? A football stadion covered with only solar energy gives a non-negligible energy!

The other problem is also that we don't really try to safe energy, because we could even mantaining our standard of living. As an example, I heard somewhere that all the stand-by lights (from TVs, Stereos, etc) of Switzerland (around 7 millions of inhabitants) are enough to give energy for a year to a small town of the size of 15 000 people .

[Zythryn]

If we would switch to make all roofs in solar cells wouldn't it work? A football stadion covered with only solar energy gives a non-negligible energy!

 

The issue with solar is it isn't yet affordable and the efficiency is awful.

To put 12 panels on a house costs about 25K. The payback time is measured in decades (15-20 years).

 

Once the costs come down and/or the efficiency goes up (both will happen) they will be much more feasible.

[sanctus]

The more people use the more the cost would come down no?

[Zythryn]

In the case of solar, I don't think so.

 

The cost of the silicon pv cells is a big part of the issue. As I recall, they are only about 17% efficient as well.

 

What is needed is advances in the manufacturing of the pv cells.

Now, indirectly, greater demand may spur research. However I think the incentive to come up with a better solar 'mousetrap' is already there.

We already have quite a demand (more every year). California recently announced their million solar roof initiative.

 

Many states offer rebates for solar power as well. This is probably responsible for solar being as popular as it is now.