Slashdot Mirror
Fusion Plasma Plant in The Future
NightWulf writes "The BBC reports that Europe and Japan are currently looking to host a new JET power plant. This new plant creates plasma, which is akin to creating a star on Earth. Interesting to note that 1kg of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000kg of fossil fuels."
In the same sense, my logging on to slashdot today is akin to designing TCP/IP.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Step away from the car... This is a fusion research reactor, not a reactor to be used as a power source...
does this solve the energy problems?
Do you need a website upgrade?
One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel.
How much energy do they estimate it will take to create (and control?) that one kilogram of "fusion fuel"?
Casual Games/Downloads
Wow, I had no idea fusion power was so far along.
It would be the first fusion device to produce thermal energy at the level of conventional electricity-producing power stations, and would pave the way for commercial power production.
This is awsome. Expensive for the amount of power though. Anything that can reduce our dependency on oil, deserves some research in my eyes.
Of course, fusion is better than fission in this regard, but the same arguments hold in either case.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Well taking that you get left with helium its obvious that a by product will be a market for baloons
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
you idiot. Fusion can not go Chernobyl, and the only radio activity is the Neutron bombarded walls of the chamber which dissipate quickly enough to not be a big problem
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Slashdot has a strange fascination with potential energy solutions. Ah...so much energy wasted thinking about potential energy.
...is how much energy it will take to maintain that 100 million degrees Celcius temp for 500 seconds or longer. Sure, 500 megatwatts sounds awesome, but fusion reactions are historically extremely difficult to maintain as the plasma constantly bumps into the container and kills efficiency. That being said, more research into the field is a Good Thing(TM).
A fusion reactor can't "go Chernobyl".
The owls are not what they seem
why? vented Plasma is not toxic.
read about Fusion from Wikipedia please and cure your ignorance before you start some crazy anti-fusion lobby
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I would have thought that decision to build the project in Japan would have been unanimous. How else could Gozilla be resurrected?
Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
That's a lot cheaper than the plasma I was looking at (for a TV). In both cases, though, the engergy involved is much lower. Would someone care to comment on the actual physics here? Are those TVs and balls really based on matter that is in the plasma state?
Actually the residual radioactive materials last 50-100 years so we'll still have a waste problem with decommissioned plants.
The owls are not what they seem
50-100 years is way better than tens of thousands of years, as with fission waste. That won't outlast the containers it's in.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
If anyone is interested there is a wealth of information on JETs website
Including some pretty cool pictures of their kit.
Why was this modded Funny? It's the truth. A fusion reaction is hard to keep going, and if just about anything goes wrong, the reaction will die. Somebody detonates a bomb next to the reactor? Fine, so the thing gets jolted. The worst that could happen is that the reaction is disrupted slightly---and it stops. There is not much excess reactivity in a fusion reactor. Just because something uses a process used in bombs doesn't mean it is a bomb. Gunpowder contains sulfur; does this mean that rotten eggs are an explosion just waiting to happen?
On the other hand, I don't know enough about it to confidently say it's crap. So - anyone out there able to tell me what, exactly, this "kg of fusion fuel" is made up of? And, if possible, provide support/debunking for the 10,000,000x as much energy claim?
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Remember, there is not that much overall energy in this system. Chernoble etc were so bad because Uranium and other fissionable material CONTINUE to react after they have left the reactor. They continue to release radiation as they material is vaporized. So now you have a radioactive cloud...etc
Fission plants (at least the current ones) only have as much free energy as is in a large, hot pot of coffee. This energy is just consentrated on a very small ammount of matter, and therefore that matter gets VERY hot. But once it leaves containment, there is nothing to maintain the temperature and pressure, therefore the reaction stops and all you get is a warm cloud of hyderogen gas (not very much hyderogen either.)
So in the event of a catastrophic failure (someone taking a sledgehammer to the reactor) not much will happen. I would not want to be standing next to it when it opened, but the people in the room next door probbably wouldn't notice anything.
Now the only radioactivity is essentially from Tritium. This is a neutron emmiter, it is relativly safe (compared to fission radiation) and is short lived (half life of 12.3 years instead of 20,000 years).
So, long comment short, there is no way this set-up could explode, leak large ammounts of radiation, or cook anyone.
50-100 years is nothing, and it's not the fuel or exhaust that you need to worry about, only the parts of the reactor itself that become radioactive from neutron bombardment. So, we only need to store retired reactor parts for 50-100 years, which is much less mass and much less duration than what we currently produce from nuclear plants, and massivly less environmental impact when compared to the equivilent fossil fuel usage.
People were talking up electric cars ten years ago... nevermind that the coal power plant that was buying and selling pollution credits to generate the electricity to charge the batteries was pulluting 10x what the engine in a normal car would've polluted.
Goodness -- I was surprised by the number of wildly incorrect postings about nuclear fusion. Some I could have tried to clear up myself, but a better recommendation would just be to read up for five minutes before posting some misinformed comment.
Wikipedia has a good article on Fusion Power. Read it, then post.
Not much. The waste produced by a fusion reactor is helium - probably the most harmless stuff you can get. The process of fusion produces neutrons, so the fusion container itself will become mildly radioactive, but nowhere near the kind of nastiness you get with fission.
In addition, fusion is inherently fail-safe. If something goes horribly wrong with a fission reactor, you can get a runaway reaction. Meltdown. Not good. But in a fusion reactor, you have to carefully maintain the right conditions for the reaction to happen at all. Screw up and the light goes out, that's about it.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Nope - helium isn't toxic.
But helium at 100,000,000 degrees celsius might have slightly different effect if you tried to use it to make yourself sound like a munchkin...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
I would hope these same scientists would also be looking for a way to tap the energy off the reaction vs superheating turbine water. How much energy is wasted in the conversion process that could be better tapped through other methods.
Only on slashdot can you be called an idiot if you don't know anything about nuclear fusion.
But since when do we power our power plants with oil?
We will always depend on Arab oil in some way or another.
Oil is used to make plastics, and from what I see it seems like everything is made out of plastic.
American cars for one.
So the Arabs will find a way to still charge $100.00 a barrel.
I think perhaps you don't grasp the fundamentals of what a magnetically confided burning plasma reactor really means. While a reactor of this sort aims at providing net power production via nuclear fusion, you have to be aware that a significant amount of energy is used to create the magnetic fields, and other auxillory control mechanisms like nuetral particle beams and radio/microwave power used in controlling the plasma to get the very precise conditions under which net power can be achieved. You turn off any of these control systems..the plasma start under performing. Unlike fission, you aren't trying to control a run-away process by slowing it down. In terresterial magnetic confinement fusion reactors..you are doing everything you can think of to produce the very specific conditions that maximize the amount of nuclear reactions. And if the plasma conditions change or your control system fails, plasma performance quickly degrades on its own because of naturally occuring instabilities in the magnetohydrodynamics that govern bulk plasma behavior.
Nothing like a world ending 'meltdown' can happen, a magnetically confided plasma has so many different ways to dissipate energy. The trick has always been and always will be to get enough nuclear reactions out of this plasmas to make it worth while to build them as an energy source, becuase running them invovles using lots of energy just to create the plasmas conditions at all.
Eugene Mallove (RIP) had some pretty cool ideas about fusion:
h tm l
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/05/21.
Wikipedia has a solid list of the containment types. This helps illustrate way it's just so hard to keep the reaction going.
"The most advanced test reactors, the Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) in the U.S. and the Joint European Torus (JET), use the tokomak design and have come close to break even conditions. In fact, in November, 1991, the British-based Tokomak reported break even conditions. This occurs when the energy given off by the fusion reaction is equal to the energy input required to sustain the reaction. In order for a fusion reaction to generate useful amounts of electricity, the energy given off must be many times greater than that required to sustain the reaction. Even the most optimistic researchers feel that it will be well into the next century before this stage is reached." (from This site)
You say that, but just try putting one in a microwave and you might change your opinion! ;)
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
What's that? It's a Mirror!
and the only radio activity is the Neutron bombarded walls of the chamber which dissipate quickly enough to not be a big problem
What do you think happens to the Neutron bombarded materials? (Hint: They can become radioactive.) Fusion produces a tremendously strong neutron flux. So strong, that very few materials survive being near the process. Obviously, your choice in containment materials can make all the difference in HOW radioactive we're talking.
Personally, I don't think we'll quite get the hang of fusion inside Earth's gravity well. Once in space, we can allow the Fusion to bleed off its neutron flux like the Sun does. Thus it might be very useful for space-based power generation and propulsion. But here on Earth, fission is a much more viable energy source. Our biggest problem is that most of the reactor designs are from the 50's and 60's, when we were just starting to understand nuclear power. With hindsight firmly in place, plus ~500 commercial reactors, a hundred or so military reactors, and a few hundred research reactors currently in service, we have the knowledge and technology to create very safe reactor designs. Hell, just removing the 19th century boiler design out of the equation makes something like Chernobyl impossible.
The real problem right now is government fear over terrorism. The U.S. government forces plants to keep potentially useful materials sitting in pools of water or buried in the ground instead of being used in commercial ventures. Some of that stuff can be reprocessed into nuclear fuel, and some of it has uses in medical, electronic, and aerospace fields. None of it is useful to "terrorists" until it's reprocessed into fissionable fuel. (Don't get me started on the uselessness of a dirty bomb.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The plasma is VERY thin... and there's a reason why they have to try very hard to keep it away from the reactor walls. Not because the walls will melt but because the plasma will instantly cool down and stop doing its fusion thing.
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
Iter - latin for "road" - is the next stage, but not the final.
It will produce more energy than put in, will will not create electricity as such.
"Creating" electricity, as a normal powerplant does, will be the next stage. As in DEMO.
So another year before knowing where to build iter, it should have been decided long ago. A few years to build it. 20 to 30 years of research. A few years op political maneuvering for deciding demo, building and doing research for another generation.
So 50 or 60 years before we have an electricity producing fusion plant.
If they have to vent tritium (used in the reaction) and you are are you are near enough to breath it in you will be somewhere between deeply fscked and completely fscked. This is why everyone stays inside when they are running experiments :)
Pressure issue; the pressures at the center of the sun are insane.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
For a brief primer, read this article.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
50-100 years is way better than tens of thousands of years, as with fission waste.
Did you ever consider that the stuff that lasts thousands of years isn't very radioactive? You still have a conservation of mass and energy issue. If it lasts 10 seconds, it's radioactive enough to kill you were you stand. If it lasts 10,000 years, then it's probably not much more radioactive than the potassium in your bones.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
One of the problems with previous attempts to build a fusion reactor is that they couldn't keep it running for more than a few seconds. The holy grail of fusion physics is to build a reactor that can maintain a sustained reaction; and, does so without requiring more energy input than the amount of energy produced in the reaction.
Actually, I would say "Chernobyl on steroids" implies "like Chernobyl, but much larger and nastier" not "like Chernobyl, but cleaner and more environmently friendly"...
I would say that a coal, oil, or natural gas plant has a hell of a lot more fire potential and if the reactant leaks it isn't really that big a deal. The quantity of reactant used in this type of system is miniscule, deuterium isn't a problem at ALL and tritium isn't really all that bad either. I would say that a leak of ANY of the reactants or products would be better than the overwhelming majority of chemical spill type problems, then when the quantity of reactants and products is considered it becomes almost a non-issue. COOLANT leaks would probably be a lot worse than reactant leaks and that sort of thing happens at almost EVERY type of industrial facility.
But whats the possible damage if one of these plants pulls a Chernobyl on us?
Well, the most significant damage would be to our understanding of physics, since there is no possible way that a fusion reactor can "run away" like a fission reactor can.
Think about it this way: for a fusion reaction to happen, the outside control is critically important: in typical designs, the control is provided by huge electromagnets (magnetic confinement) or by powerful lasers (intertial confinement). If the reaction did somehow get "out of control," the first thing that would happen is that the control systems would be destroyed, and there would be no way to keep the reaction going.
Compare this to a fission reactor, where the reaction can proceed without any outside control whatsoever (for example, the natural uranium reactor in Russia or wherever that was). That is why there is so much effort currently put into designing "passive safety systems" for fission reactors - which are basically hacks that make a fission reactor behave as if it could not work without outside control.
Honestly, if it were so easy to get a runaway fusion reaction (in non-bomb form), don't you think we would have achieved one by now?
After the slashdot story a few weeks ago on the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (sorry, I'm too lazy to go look up the original Slashdot reference, but at least I'm honest about it), I started reading a lot of their proposals and most of the ones regarding how to handle interstellar travel involved anti-matter.
;-)
I started thinking about that and the two biggest problems with that are: A> It takes a huge amount of energy to create anti-matter, a hell of a lot more goes into the production than comes from using it. B> We don't really have a system for containing significant amounts of anti-matter.
So I started thinking about alternative energy sources and one of them was fusion. Pound for pound, fusion produces about 1/27th of the energy of anti-matter (based on my naive calculations, so I may be way off) whereas other types of fuel are several orders of magnitude less efficient.
To me, that makes fusion a pretty good option. The only problems I have encountered so far with the idea are:
1: Fusion isn't quite ready for real applications, though by the time we're capable of sending an interstellar craft, I believe it will be.
2: For an interstellar journey, you'll need a power plant that can survive for no less than decades, if not centuries, without maintenance. That's a serious issue given the harsh environment it would be operating in.
I'm sure there are additional problems I haven't thought of yet, but I'm still thinking it might be a good option. Perhaps some sort of self-repairing reactor could be built to solve #2.
But another huge advantage of hydrogen is that you could collect fuel along the way using the Bussard Ramjet idea. You'd just need a way of separating out deuterium and tritium from the hydrogen that doesn't suffer from problem #2 as well, but it should be doable. As most here are probably aware, fuel mass is a serious issue for space travel.
Anyway, I think fusion has a great deal to offer in a number of ways. Maybe I ought to work on my NIAC proposal
It's an OO thing. The attraction of moving to electric or hydrogen-cell cars isn't so much that these are more environmentally friendly *right now* as that it provides a potential for a vast environmental-friendliness advantage because it decouples the method of energy production from energy use.
Yeah, at the moment this electricity or hydrogen would be probably just generated using fossil fuels. But the catch is it doesn't *have* to be. You could substitute a nuclear power plant for that coal-burning one and the electric cars would continue to run just the same... it makes productive change much easier. Whereas if you buy a gasoline-based automobile, it's going to be running on burned fossil fuels forever*.
* Unless you are Doc Brown and you do some retrofitting.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
A long time ago I asked my physics instructor about such a scenario. He gave me the most concise explanation I've ever seen.
The sheer weight of the atmosphere would simply kill the fusion reaction the moment the vaccuum needed to maintain the reaction is offline.
This puts the environmental hazard of fusion plants at pretty much perfect.
Aside from the initial jumpstart of energy required could it not sustain itself afterward using its own energy, perpetually maintaining itself once stability has been established?
Keeping the plasma hot enough for fusion to be possible is only part of the picture; you also have to solve the confinement issue. You not only have to keep the ionized plasma confined (and no, a material "containment vessel" similar to what's used in fission reactors doesn't work; you need something nonmaterial, such as strong magnetic fields), you also need that confinement to be within a very small volume for reaction rates to be sufficiently high (for any kinetic "collision"-ish process, reaction rates are proportional to the square of the density). Heat is necessary for the nuclei to be moving fast enough for fusion to take place; but heat is also the enemy of keeping the plasma at high density.
Yes - but only just and only in small volumes and for a short time - the glow in the balls is the plasma recombining. Those plasmas are created in small volumes at room temperature by stripping the odd electron of a heavy molecule using electric fields. The plasmas for fusion are at millions of degrees, well above the point where thermal effects knock the electrons off. Comparing these with a fusion reactor is like comparing the forost on your car on a cold morning with the Antarctic Ice cap. Sure, they are bot ice - but that is about all they have in common.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
*(Yes this is meant to be at least a partly humorous post, you insensitive clod moderators. However I am not kidding about the "buying from Japan" part, since it is my understanding they are waaaay ahead of us and everyone else in fusion research.)
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I think you are way off base. Fusion power would not end energy companies. I doubt it would even end fossile fuel exploitation. Oil gives more bang for the buck then any other fuel source which is why we are so addicted to the damned stuff. Bonus points for the fact that it is cheap and easy to make an engine that will run on it.
Now, fusion offers a great deal of possibilities, but there are two very large problems with it even when it is 'worked out'. First, it will be expensive. It is a major task to build such a plants. Building enough to power the world would take many decades and cost far more then I imagine most nations would be willing to spend. I am not saying that it couldn't eventually be done, but don't expect it to happen over night. Further, even if the world was covered in fusion plants, that energy would not be free. You still need to pay for all the parts and labor it takes to keep such a plant going. Sure, you might cut costs on material expenses, but they would rise everywhere else. Electricty wouldn't suddenly become cheap, just abundent. Second, fusion is large. You can't throw a fusion engine in your car and electric motors just don't have the capacity of a gas engine. If electricity was free tomorrow we still wouldn't hav electric cars.
I doubt energy companies are cowering at the prospects of fusion. Even if fusion was to completely upset the need for oil and coal, there is still the fact that people need energy and in a nation like the US that energy is going to be brought by a corportation. An energy company is in a perfect position to fill that need. At worst it means they have to shift their bussiness to focus less on oil and coal and move to fussion. The world won't end for them.
My understanding is that not only will the *net* energy output not be very significant, if at all (yet!), the reaction won't be expected to be sustained for more than a few minutes, even at this new facility. All these figures here are *gross* values- I haven't seen any *net* energy figures yet.
;)
That said, this is the stuff that sci-fi dreams are made of. Maybe now that less geeks are going for CS degrees, they'll take some hard-science classes- that stuff is still sorely needed. As well as cool.
I was once a physics major who couldn't cut it because of a lack of discipline to be able to master the difficulties of engineering calculus. Props.
Let me point you to the sun as an an example of what it takes to keep fusion conditions viable over long timescales without extra energy input. Thats a hell of a lot of mass to produce the gravitational energy to keep a burning plasma self-confined, not to mention the large scale bulk motion of the solar plasma that is still not completely understood that allows the sun to create its own magnetic field via a dynamo effect. Regardless of what the open scientific questions about how our sun and other stars operate, few if any competent researchers will argue that a self-sustaining magneticially confined plasma is something that can be created on earth, simply because of the scales invovled to produce a dynamo. Earth's core for example, is probably a good example of the amount of material needed to produce a dynamo..and thats not even a fusion plasma..just a magnetic dynamo..getting to the much higher pressure/temperature conditions required to produce a self-sustaining magneticlly confided plasma will require stellar mass.
-jef
JET is the joint european taurus. But there used to be a project called ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). ITER was supposed to be the next big fusion reactor, and was supposed to achieve sustained burn. It's costs started to look like that of the SSC, so it was scaled down.
The ITER website has lots of useful info on fusion...
... how much energy it takes to find, gather, concentrate, etc., one kg of "fusion fuel".
- Steve
Would you want this venting on Wall Street?
Better there than many other places I can think of.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Another way of stating what you have said is that plasma fusion requires intervention to sustain the reaction, whereas the current generation of fission based power plants require intervention to restrain the reaction.
Fission is a stable reaction, fusion is very unstable. The difficulty in sustaining fusion is due to the fact that it is so hard to sustain the conditions under which it will occur.
The implications for safety are obvious: current generation fission designs require all kinds of redundant safety systems to prevent an ongoing and very dirty accident. Such systems would not be needed in a fusion reactor, becuase the least hiccup, such as weakening of magnetic containment or the leaking of tiny amounts of contaminants into the reactor would cause the reaction to collapse. There is no possibility of anything like the reactor catching fire driven by the heat of a runaway reaction.
That said, I'm skeptical we're going to see practical fusion in my lifetime, because it is so difficult to sustain, although you can always hope. A more promising technology would be a stable fission designs, that would require intervention to maintain fission, or which would only output heat at a limited rate.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Correction, we are addicted to oil until such point that is becomes uneconomical to do so. At which point, it would probably be natural gas for a few years until we realize we hadn't built enough refineries for that either. And the fission people will be saying, if you had only built any plants in the last 30 years... but noone will listen. The whole time, there will be thousands of other people pointing at all the resources buried in the ground and off the coasts, untouchable due to self-imposed regulations.
By then, I wouldn't be surprised if we switch back to coal, given the advances in plant designs over the last 30 years. That's a fuel that the eastern US has an overabundance of, yet is frowned upon by the environmentalist lobby because of the tendancy of existing plants to just vent the waste products into the atmosphere. Good thing the DoE is already working on it. It's amazing what the free markets can provide, when you let them work...
I remember in the 80's people were afraid too many nuclear warheads going off would burn off the atmosphere
I think you are confusing different things. In the 80s, people worried that an all-out nuclear war would blast the atmosphere off. In the 40's, when designing the first bomb, somebody suggested they should check that tbe bomb could not start a chain reaction in the atmosphere. They chacked, and it wouldn't.
The amount of energy in the reactor at any time is going to be small. If it gets out of control, it may make a mess of the plant, but it shouldn't do any harm to even local housing. It is at a very high temperature, but it is very thin. Not much total energy - probably only a few seconds worth of the output of the power station.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Finally, somebody has come up with a factory that can create the plasma needed for all of those big, flatscreen TV's. I just hope this drives the price down.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
Exactly. Let me spew some physics for a moment.
The temperature of a gas is related to how fast the particles of the gas are moving. The hotter the gas, the faster the average kinetic energy. However, not all the particles move at the same speed. There is a distribution of speeds, with most of the particles at or below the average speed. However, a very thin "tail" of particles travels at speeds much, much higher than the average. In the Sun, it is these very high-speed nuclei, way above the average kinetic energy of the plasma, which collide and fuse.
So, why can't we get fusion with temperatures equivalent to the center of the Sun? Pressure. We can't hope to achieve pressures anywhere near that in the Sun. In the sun, the pressure is so immense that the particles are squeezed extremely close together. Imagine these particles moving at insane velocities, in such close quarters. They will collide with each other extremely often. This extremely high collision rate allows fusion to occur, because it brings the super-high-energy nuclei together more often.
On Earth, at very low pressures (at least relative to the core of the Sun), the particles are moving fast enough to fuse, but they just don't collide often enough. They aren't close enough together. Thus, to make up for this, we must increase the temperature so that a larger fraction of the particles are in the kinetic energy realm where fusion can occur. In other words, we make up for the lack of pressure by increasing the temperature.
"On a bright, sunny day, the sun shines approximately 1,000 watts of energy per square meter of the planet's surface"
blah blah blah....
drightler@technicalogic.com
Well, considering the risk for a Chernobyl
At the risk of being redundant... there is no risk of a fusion plant going "Chernobyl". A fusion plant requires active control in order to maintain the reaction. Meanwhile, a fission plant requires active control to suppress the reaction from getting out of control. In other words, a fusion plant cannot experience a runaway reaction; it is "fail-safe".
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Irresponsible as this reasoning may be, there is a point at which it becomes very desirable to have one huge pollution-belching monstrosity outside of a city as opposed to ten million tiny pollution-belching ants at the heart of a city. For example, Los Angeles, which has this horrible "bowl" effect that traps smog inside the city during the day. Were the pollution being generated outside of the city and not by the city's cars, life would be better in Los Angeles at least.
... and how would it explode, exactly?
The plant is trying to *uphold* a process, not *restrain* a process.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Seastead this.
Maybe surprising, but most christians are not witch-burners, and the luddites a) are the minority and b) have their own reasons.
If you went to a church to you really think they're all praying that nuclear fusion never happens, or do you think that they're praying for the victims of chernobyl?
Or maybe it was a sick joke, but to be honest, I don't think branding the whole of a religion anti-useful is a good way of life.
im in ur
"Depending on who you ask"? Power doesn't work "depending on who you ask". It either works or it doesn't. Cheap thin film cells will get you around 12%, but they cost almost nothing to build. If space/weight are at a premium, you can already get cells which involve metals like gallium that get you ~30% efficiency. I mean, come on, they launched a satellite with 10% efficiency cells back in 1959 (Explorer 6). And there are other easier ways to do mass power generation - you use heliostat mirrors to boil water.
However, there is this big fundamental problem. Earth is ~6,380km radius. That means that its cross sectional area is ~1.278e8 km^2 diameter. It is ~1.496e8km from the sun. A sphere of that radius has 2.812e17km^2 surface area, meaning that Earth intercepts ~4.544e-8% of its energy. So, creating our own "star" here, even if a tiny fraction of the sun's energy, would be very beneficial, because we intercept such a small amount of the sun's energy.
Lets say you have a 10th of a square kilometer needed for your average fission power plant complex (really big!). Depending on latitude/cloudcover/etc, you can generally get between 2 and 32 MWh per square kilometer per hour. So, in the best locations, you could, with a whopping 30% efficiency solar power center of the same size, get only ~10MWh/h produced in the best locations. One *unit* of one plant in one year (Unit 1, Vogtle plant (Georgia), 2000) produced 10,337,818 MWh of power - over 1,100 MWh/h. Try that comparison out.
Solar power has some serious problems, and there's only so much improvement we can get from more efficiency (ignoring that the higher efficiency cells cost a whole lot more - some of the metals used cost almost as much as gold).
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I suck at math, but here is my best attempt.
Average solar power high in a winter month (I think it was from a winter month) = 6 KWh/M2/Day taken from here
Should equal 2190 kwh/M2/year
1 acre = 4046.85642 M2
Should equal 8862615.5598 kwh/acre/year
High (maybe overstated based on PDF?) of 20 thousand megawatthours (MWh / year) from coal taken from here (Specifically this pdf)
or 20,000,000 kwh / year total
vs 8,862,615 kwh / year (for one acre of cells)
So, the question that I think it hangs on, which I couldn't find an answer for, is how many acres on average is a coal facility (including coal storage)? Then we can multiply the 8,862,615 by the size of an average coal plant and then determine which is better in theory. Assuming my math is correct, which I am not, 4 acres of cells at peak could (theoretically) far out produce a coal plant.
But, I also think a "greener" solution should score bonus points. I'm not a tree hugger, but I do like to breath clean air on occasion.
Disclaimer: This post was based on VERY QUICK research. I'm not suggesting that these claims are real-world or even really possible, esp. if my math, which you may have gathered, could be utterly wrong.
Actually, you have it backwards on fission. Fission is also an unstable reaction; the difference is the following:
Fusion reactions occur at an energetic peak. Basically, for fusion, we're trying to balance a ball on top of a hill. If we lose our balance, the ball rolls down the hill and the energy production ceases.
By contrast, fission reactors operate at an energetic low (this is simplifying, but true for illustrative purposes.) We're trying to stay in the bottom of a valley, while the reaction tries to force us to climb up the walls. If we lose our balance, the reaction can shoot up a wall and then you get meltdown.
notes on this: fission reactors can be designed to be negative coefficient, such that an increase in output leads to a cycle that will decrease output, but the reaction itself is still positive coefficient.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
The possible ressurgence of coal isn't because of pure market pressures. As you said yourself, the DoE is working on it. That is to say, the government. And the coal industry itself has invested in new technology because of government regulations like the Clean Air Act, not the "invisible hand" of the market place. Or perhaps, better to say a combination of both (not investing in cleaner tech would basically cause the invisible hand to wipe them out of the market place, b/c of the external [to the market] pressures created by government).
my pet machine
I think the correct plea is please, please, please, nobody tell the environmentalists about it.
This has the word nuclear in it. The nuclear boogieman will derail this a lot faster than anything else.
For example, the correct term for and MRI is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The nuclear here has nothing to do with nuclear power, it just means that the magnets make the nuclei of the atoms move in certain ways and that the images are created by iterpreting those movements. The Nuclear part was dropped because people were worried about radiation.
It really won't matter to the fanatic environmentalist how safe this is, it has the word nuclear in it, and thus is to be fought.
Forty years later, there's still no useful fusion power technology.
The US Department of Energy is terminating all work on fusion effective September 30, 2004. That's probably a good thing; it will free up activities in the EU and Japan from US interference.
I'm confused on two points here. First, why this was deemed, "insighful", and second, what christians have to do with the subject at hand.
Last I heard, "christians" mainly get negatively involved in life sciences. I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand or why it would even be a concern. Especially since this is heavily a physics topic and not a life sciences topic. Worse, even if it were a concern, why would it matter. Unless you have proof that fusion creates souls, no one but zealots are going to listen to these crackpots anyways.
This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the christians about it.
Now, for some karma whoring. Since his comment was deemed karma worthy, surely my comment will make as much sense and someone with reward me accordingly. So, here goes. This could be a useful technology, please, please, please, nobody tell the inanimate carbon rods about it. We all know how involved in physics they are.
Was his comment supposed to be a joke which simply missed its target?
Oh, and as an added bonus for geeks in that area, they have a public open house coming up on June 12!
I'll add that the reason a star can sustain fusion is because of the immense gravity involved, it keeps the hydrogen (well, there are others, but those are later in a stars lifetime) compacted, and the force compressing them generates the heat needed for fusion.
As we can't create miniature stars at the moment, we have to compensate by supplying the heat and containment ourselves. One of the major barriers to a useful fusion reactor is getting it to produce more power than it draws.
The part that becomes radioactive from neutron bombardment is called the "reactor vessel". It weighs about 1000 times as much as the fuel in a fission reactor. The irradiatted iron/nickel/chromium/cobalt/whatever-else-is-in-yo ur-alloy-of choice has a much shorter half-life, and this is far more radioactive than the spent fuel rods.
You'd probably get more irradiated metal in a fusion reactor than a fission reactor, though this no doubt depends on design details. But the neutron flux will be higher, per watt, so expect it to tend toward more radiatted metal rather than less.
In other words, don't expect fusion to be cleaner than fission. There'll be a different mix of radioactive byproducts, but it is by no means clear that there will be less, or that said byproducts will be easier to dispose of.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It would probably be devestating but only for a very short range, with no lingering radiation or anything.
It would also probably cause objects to projectile towards the reactor rather than away from it (think MRI machine)
A magnetic field of that strength, thrown out of balance, could probably do nifty things like diflect electron orbits, and magnetize non-magnetic materials. However, since strength varies with the inverse cube of distance, the effective radius would be very small.
Nothing more to worry about than a coal-burning power plant exploding, except for the direction the shrapnel moves.
"Helium causes death??? Come on; get real. Helium is an inert gas (if you don't know what inert means, look it up). It is not a poison and it cannot hurt you by breathing it. Divers use a mixture of helium and oxygen when they go deep because pressurized nitrogen is poisoness. The only way that helium could hurt you is if you were breathing pure helium (no oxygen). You would pass out and eventually die from a lack of oxygen not from any property of helium. This is true of any gas that you might breath that does not contain oxygen.
If you are sucking on a helium filled balloon and start to get light headed, just pull the balloon out of your mouth and take a breath of normal air. If you don't stop sucking on the balloon when you get light headed, you will probably drop it when you pass out and the problem will fix itself."
Please stop spouting Urban Legends that have no validity.
You have to tell us: what superpower you developed??
"I think this line is mostly filler"
But my point is that it isn't dangerous if it lasts 10,000 (or even 1,000) years. The radioactivity from such substances is so low that it doesn't add much of anything to the existing background radiation. You can literally count minutes to hours between each radio-particle release.
Don't believe the media FUD. The scary stuff lasts anywhere from a few seconds to a hundred years. The media intentionally confuses this stuff with the thousands of years stuff so that you'll freak out and make more news about how you don't want that "thousands of years" of stuff in your backyard.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Please don't paint all environmentalists with one big brush!
I like to consider myself a "green" kinda guy. I recycle, don't drive a SUV, etc. However, that said, bring on the nuclear power plants (provided we can properly secure them from whoever may want to crash a small plane into them... another story tho). Nuclear power is much cleaner than coal power, and the waste, while icky, isn't produced in huge quantities.
Some environmentalists will agree with me, some will disagree. But don't paint everyone with the same label. That'd be like me saying that most republicans are christian conservatives who want to turn the United States into a Christian version of Iran.
See how annoying that is?
Currently, the DOE has so many clean up sites, not because the nuclear energy projects were not successful and profitable, but the fact that the DOE is required, COME WHAT MAY, to take care of any finality issue with a nuclear based energy company. So the companies have a whopping zero cost for failure or liability, and remember, we're talking nuclear.
So, when they think their operating costs get too high, or they just don't want to do it anymore, the nuclear companies can literally drop what they are doing right there, walk out, and it is all a Department of Energy (DOE) problem from then on. Guess what? DAMN NEAR EVERY ONE OF THEM DOES. That is their little perk. This stuff is too dangerous without permanent government supervision. The US doesn't want some weird Iranian group that they don't trust buying up their workplace (because if anyone is going to sell something to Iranians we don't trust, by god, it should be bought direct from the US government), and after all, businessmen don't care what they have to do as long as they get the cash for doing it. So, as a protection, they have no responsibility for their nuclear actions.
"We leaked some sludge? WHOOPS. That's it, it is now too expensive with the lawyers. Close shop. Call the DOE. It is their child now. Thanks for the BILLIONS, and see ya later, suckers!"
The best analogy would be that the government would now be responsible for auto manufacturing recalls. "Sorry we made some bad cars. Call the government, it is their problem now."
There are some fission designs that require active intervention to remain active, and have been in active production in Germany and South Africa.
c to r
My understanding is that these designs have been ignored in the US due to the costs to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commision are too high.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pebble_bed_rea
plus-good, double-plus-good
I don't think that was the question the poster asked at all. Its a very complicated process to turn the nuclear energy released in a plasma back into electricity, and requires a metric buttload of human effort.
The goal of course of any fusion reactor is to get enough energy out than it takes to produce the fields and other things...to produce net energy that can be put to use. The point at which this happens is called break-even, there is a handy dandy ratio called Q=power-out/power-in that gets used to describe the reactor power. Q=1 is break even...the reactor produces just enough energy via nuclear reactions to make up for the energy needed to be spent by humans to power the reactor. Of course what goes into defining Q is sort of dependant on who you talk to. The efficiency of turning the energy released in the nuclear reactions into electricity is a matter of debate. The process we do most efficiently is turning steam into electricity...turning fast moving energetic nuclear particles into steam is something we aren't really good at doing. Anyways...i digrest.
The point at which a plasma is self-sustaining is Q=infinity and is called ignition. Plasmas that ignite, don't need external power sources to continue their fusion processes. They go about their business all by themselves if given a supply of fuel.
Production reactor designs aim between something like Q=5 to Q=20. At first glance a higher Q value would seem to be a better thing. But actually it isn't. Q isn't just a measure of how much net power your are getting out, but its also a measure of how much control you have over the plasma itself by external means. It could very well be the case that the most economical reactors long term are ones that can be better controlled at Q=5 than higher performing Q=20 reactors.
-jef
Careful predicting, you never know with technology. 50-60 years is a LONG time. Before then we may have a computer that could design such a plant in its spare time, leaving us monkeys just the job of implementing it.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
The ultimate proof!
Bot Assisted Blogging
http://www.nrel.gov/geothermal/geoelectricity.html
Nucleii have nuclear forces binding them together -- there is energy there. When you fuse nucleii together you release energy that is bound up with these forces.
Mass is energy. E=mc^2 remember.
When they say "generate more energy than is required to make the reaction" they don't speak of the energy that is bound up in the fusionable mass as part of that "required" energy. That required energy would be referring to the energy required to bring the mass to the reactor, keep the mass in there, keep the reaction contained(magnetic fields), etc.
I was a software wonk at D3D (General Atomic; D3D is a slightly earlier machine than JET) for a while. It was pretty cool to sit in the control room with about 500 monitors and watch when the big betatron magnetic field ramped up. The picture on every single screen would move simultaneously as the magnetic field from the machine (about 75 feet away) would steer all the electron beams at once.
I don't understand the details of how the reactor vessel works, but I'm wondering: do you care if it gets heavily radiated? I mean, let's say it's heavily radiated, does that mean it's no longer suitable as a reactor vessel? How often would you need to replace that, as opposed to the rods in a fission reactor.
ALso, I don't know about you, but if my choice was between a waste product that was lower volume but took thousands of years to decay, and a waste product that was higher volume and took 50 years to decay, I'd favor the latter. I mean, right now, if you bury the waste from a fission reactor, that land is totally useless, in essence, forever. But if it only takes 50-100 years, that means the land is safe again within one person's lifetime.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
That depends. Fission reactions usually produce neutrons, which are very hard to turn into electricity. About all we can do is put something heavy in front of them to turn the escaping neutrons into heat, which we then turn into steam, etc, etc.
But if a reaction produced, say, free protons? Much easier! They have an electric charge, so we don't need old-fashioned matter to capture their kinetic energy. We can use magnetic fields, and converting forces applied to magnetic fields to electricity is something we do even better than steam. Isn't there a form of fusion that does exactly that?
Magnetohydrodynamics is sort of a cross between the two. Use heat to propel an electrically conductive fluid through a magnetic field. It's like a steam generator but with (theoretically) no moving parts.
Dyolf Knip
"Well, behind every joke there's some truth."
"What about that Bavarian cream pie joke I told you? There's no truth to that. Nobody with a terminal illness goes from the United States to Europe for a piece of Bavarian cream pie and then when they get there and they don't have it he says, 'Ah, I'll just have some coffee.' There's no truth to that."
- Sheila and Jerry, in "The Soup Nazi"
And how much energy would it take to manufacture 10 square miles worth of solar cells? The "ways that have already been proven" you cite have been proven to be helpful for low-demand and cogeneration situations but don't yet have the efficiency, capacity, and low cost needed to meet our power-hungry economy. Besides, pure research is ALWAYS a good idea.
Except:
1: Fossil fuels aren't necessarily fossil. It's possible that oil is produced in a way that doesn't involve life. Abiogenic theory might turn out to be correct after all. Remember how in the 1960s everyone believed "the oil is going to run out in forty years"?
2: We're not choking as much as you think.
3: There were despots in the middle east before the Oil Age began.
4: If TMI was (if you will excuse the pun) blown out of all proportion, what about Chernobyl?
I agree that the anti-nuclear lobby can be mischevious, but that's one of the aspects of lobbies. At the other extreme, arguing that if we embraced nuclear power then we would be living in paradise is also well, I mean, hello?, look at France. They have totally bought into nuclear power and they still can't come up with a good pop song or a decent car.
ITER is a proof-of-concept research project that is not expected to reach break-even, let alone produce any usable energy for 25-50 years. It may not even be possible to achieve ignition (a self-sustaining plasma fusion reaction) with ITER technology.
Canada has had an ITER team since the early 1990s. The plan was to put the project out near Oshawa and bring in some research dollars, but it was a bit of a lame horse politically. Our elected representatives were too busy lining their pockets , so Canada is apparently out for the running as a site for the ITER project.
Just for my reference...a metric buttload is 1.83 Imperial buttloads, right?
I'm American, so I don't really use metric units that much.
bkr
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The US already has at least one of these already.
The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Princeton, NJ has been experimenting with fusion since 1951.
I've toured the reactor, in addition to working there one summer, and it is a very fascinating technical achievement. Basically you have a large magnetic containment device (big donut) which contains a vacuum. The vacuum and the magnetic field keep the plasma from melting the containment device. Tritium (used to be deuterium) is placed inside and a huge amount of energy is pumped into the donut converting the gas inside to plasma with a temperature hotter than the interior of the sun allowing fusion to take place. Currently the amount of energy released is less than the energy needed to generate the fusion.
To give you an idea of how much energy is needed. The energy from the localpower company is used to get a bunch of giant dynamos spinning. To get the dynamos up to full rotational speed takes, IIRC, about 10 hours. All this stored energy is then released all at once.
... and about 75 years until "Heat Pollution" becomes a household phrase.
Endless energy will not solve our problems. It will merely exchange them for new ones.
Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
It takes me 5 minutes to fill up my car, most of that time is spent paying for it. I can put 330 miles on my car before I need to refill. I drive 70 miles a day to and from work. I probably average 65-85 miles per hour, but spend at least 20 minutes in traffic under 20 miles per hour. When I park my car at night I park it on the street as I have no garage access.
There certainly are electric cars, but none of them could do what I need them to do. I can't recharge my car unless the street is fitted with charging stations or I feel like waiting at a charging station for my car to recharge. The electric motor does not have the range nor the ability to handle the range of speeds that I need. Simply put, an electric car can't do the job that a car run off of gas can. Certainly they exist, but for someone who uses their car to do more then drive around town and return to a garage, an electric car simply doesn't cut it. Further, my needs are pretty slim compared to the needs of a truck used for hauling goods.
I am all for R&D into electric cars, but the simple fact of the matter is that they need a hell of a lot more work before they are going to a staple. Electric cars are not going to overtake gas powered cars any time soon. As I said, for many uses nothing tops a gas powered motor.
Now, hybrids do offer some promise, though they still have a long way to go. They still are too costly and it remains to be seen how well they maintain once the warranty is out. Further, if you want people to buy them it is going to take more then just a warm feeling one gets when they use less. They are going to need to justify their added cost in the long run.
Of course, OPEC could make all of these arguments moot. If oil prices climb high enough then hybrids will justify their costs without further engineering. I think we are a ways away from that point. Oil prices are at an all time high... if you ignore inflation. Include inflation and the black stuff is still relatively cheap. The only reason to buy a hybrid is to be trendy and help the environment. There isn't an economic force behind it yet.
The vast majority of their power is Nuclear, I was suprised .
77% Nuclear
14% Hydro
8 % Fossil
1 % Other
Thanks,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Every one of those except the last one indicates that cause of death was from inhaling Helium directly from a commercial canister, not from the Helium per se. The last one was an injury caused by passing out from oxygen deprivation - again the Helium itself is NOT to blame.
Moral of the story? Don't stick your lips on a machine designed to fill a balloon to capacity within a couple of seconds!
Culture is more than commerce
Comparing the 1kg to 10million kg is kind of misleading. Yes, it DOES give an idea of the differences. However, everything will boil down to economic costs. If 1 kg of fusion costs way more than 10million kg of fossil fuel, fusion would have a hard time taking off*. The "size" and quantity don't really indicate anything. For instance, 1 gram of gold typically costs way more to mine than 50 grams of silver. Clearly you cannot compare 1 gram of silver to 1g or gold. Similarly, 1kg of fusion source cannot be directly compared to 1 kg of fossil fuel.
Obviously I'm ignoring the environmental costs. Fusion would be FAR more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
(* Let's not get into the case of where fossil fuels are depleting and hence costs will skyrocket in the future (oil prices are expected to skyrocket over the next 15 years))
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places