Slashdot Mirror
Biggest Obstacle of Nuclear Fusion Overcome?
Yetihehe writes "Nuclear fusion could become a more viable energy solution with the discovery of way to prevent super-hot gases from causing damage within reactors. The potential solution, tested at an experimental reactor in San Diego, US, could make the next generation of fusion reactors more efficient, saving hundreds of millions of euros a year."
but I guess it makes me wonder if such a thing would ever be possible? Can a car run purely off of garbage? Or does the fusion process require a more specific substance to begin with, like water or carbon or something?
The first post related to fusion on /. without declaring that cold fusion is only a few months away!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Well... What do you think they burn in these things? (kidding... put away the flamethrowers junior economists)
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
saving hundreds of millions of euros a year
You misspelled dollars.
Oh, right. That's not how you spell 'dollar' anymore.
Are that many foriegners being killed annually by fusion? I knew stuff was bad out there, but this is amazin
The potential solution, tested at an experimental reactor in San Diego, US, could make the next generation of fusion reactors more efficient, saving hundreds of millions of euros a year."
It will save even more in US dollars.
Here I was thinking the bigger problem was returning enough net energy to make it worthwhile relative to the astronomical upfront costs. Silly me.
Still nifty, though.
So, nuclear fusion has finally got serious backing from politicians and the R&D budget to go along with it?
My gallery: www.estiasis.com/modules.php?name=gallery2&g2_ite
The technique is not about preventing the gas from causing damages, but just to avoid the magnetic field leaking it in the first place. Kinda cool improvement anyway.
Hemos, Where did you get this "Biggest Obstacle" from? The researcher didn't claim it in the article, and it isn't true. IANANP, but from what I've heard, the biggest obstacle to nuclear fusion is maintaining the reaction for long periods of time, and doing so with relativly low energy input.
This is a cool development, but unless I read incorrectly it doesn't solve those problems.
Like with space travel.
First rule is, there is always someone opposed. There will be some doom and gloom environmental group that comes out opposed to fusion. They won't even have to make sense, when they fail to sway public opinion they will use the courts to delay. They will buy a politician or two to stall as well.
Hell, if the environmentals don't get it the rich NIMBYs will.
So while we have overcome another technical hurdle its the legal, disinformation, and fear, hurdles that will be harder to get around
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"...could make the next generation of fusion reactors more efficient, saving hundreds of millions of euros a year"
There's a current generation of fusion reactors?
FTFA, "...the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER) - which is to be built in Cadarache, France, from 2008 at cost of 10 billion Euros." The experiment was completed in the US. The reactor's use will be in France and probably service, oh, I don't know...Europeans.
Where's the current generation, apart from research laboratories?
It's another small step forward. This is good, but that's it.
In fact, far more interesting, is how this article is an example of the effect television has had upon the reporting of news in all mediums.
The medium through which a message passes shapes the message being transmitted.
You can't discuss philosophy using smoke signals; looking at a picture is utterly different to reading a discription of a picture, being in a church for a ceremony is entirely different to watching it on TV in your kitchen.
Television as a medium can only show entertainment.
As such, all messages shown on television are shaped into entertainment.
Unfortunately, where TV *is* our culture (do you remember back when the debate was merely if TV would reflect culture or shape it?) it strongly influences all other mediums as well.
As such, we *cannot* have an article which simply says: a researcher has made a small step forward, solving a possible problem with fusion technology.
No. What we get is "BIGGEST OBSTACLE OVERCOME!!? NUCLEAR FUSION NOW ON THE TABLE?!"
It has to be exciting. It has to grab the reader. It has to be *entertaining*.
From TFA
"I think it's a very interesting solution to a very important problem," says William Dorlund, a plasma physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park, US. But he warns it will be difficult to apply the solution to functional reactors until the theory behind the technique is well understood.
Translation:- Vapourwear
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
...as they do with any new energy source. Wind turbines kill birds and look ugly. Dams flood areas. With fusion, they new complaint will be: "It still uses radioactive particles."
Isn't this very similar to designing airplane wings with some holes (pardon me for improper use of language) to avoid creation of turbulences? basically, you drain out the fluid that has slowed down enough because of friction with the walls 'cuz otherwise it will create vortexes.
Captain, we are losing magnetic confinement.
we have started venting plasma from the core.
30 seconds to warp core breach.
liqbase
Or more accuratly it will be paid for by Europeans... they are years from fussion being able to service anyone.
Having said that this is a big step forward in making it a economical and safe way to produce power.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
FTFA: Curiously, however, Evans notes that the theory behind the effect does not precisely match the results. According to their calculations, the perturbations should have released both particles and heat from the plasma. Instead, the heat was not bled off with the plasma but remained mostly contained within the magnetic field.
So it works, but they're not sure it works for the reasons that caused them to create the effect in the first place. Sort of a scientific shrug. Good news, but they're going to figure out why it really works (not just that it works) before they put it into practice.
Kind of frustrating to think that for the cost of the military action in Iraq, we could have built 8 Tokamac reactors. (I know, you could say the same about welfare...it doesn't make the money thrown at Iraq any less irritating)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
More importantly, how stupid is that headline? "Biggest problem" my ass. This is just one maintenance problem... hardly the "biggest problem".
Daniel
Carpe Diem
...in 20 years.
Trust me. The fusion folks can be counted on to be consistent.
the biggest obstacle is public perception of anything with "nuclear" in the name
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
You expect me to read the article AND get first post without subscribing? Who do you think I am?!
I'm not a scientist but is testing Nuclear Fusion in a very populated area a good idea?
Couldn't they have done this in some place a little less populated? Like North Dakota or in the area near Area 51?
What's fascinating to me is that much of the science behind fusion is now well understood. Instead, people are focused on improvements in efficiencies and such.
With luck, people will get to the point where they can build relatively cheap fusion reactors instead of having to rely on something big and unwieldy . . . like the sun.
LOL
Is there somebody who has something +5 to say about his?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Do I want my future powered by corn or fusion? I choose the latter...
Always be polite.
Don't we need a viable first generation before we can have a next?
(H-bombs and fusion-capable energy sinks (reactors that have failed to achieve break-even) don't count as generations.)
And just as they started their massive energy-saving campaign, it turns out we don't need it after all.. .. At least in 20 years time.. or 50..
Will program for karma.
huh... I always thought the biggest obstacle to overcome would be... you know... getting a positive energy return from the damn thing!
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
Nuclear fusion could become a more viable energy solution
This is what mankind needs to be sustainable, a cheap and clean energy source. Lets face it, we are adicted to energy and burning all that oil and natural gas is not sustainable. Plus it is costing a fortune. So hopefully they can find more solutions like this and put this technology to widespread use. 5 cent a KWH anyone?
What happens when the power goes out and you suddnely have to somehow contain the energy of a small sun without a magnetic field?
It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
prevent super-hot gases from causing damage within reactors
We need more.... space? *lightbulb moment* It's just a matter of time before someone in power decides we need to start inducing supernovae or something like that as a power source. Then we'll be in trouble!
Actually, it's the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor . It'll service no one with power (just science), and is being paid for by a lot of different countries.
TFA used euros because it was written from a European perspective. It's generally customary to quote price in the local currency of the audience you are writing for.
Once fusion becomes a reality, they will most likely use the technology to,
Here it goes
BOIL MORE WATER, just as they have done with fission.
It sounds like a stirrer circuit in a microwave. Microwaves without a turntable have used these for a long time, to prevent that (awesome, but definitely undesirable) effect of boiled water exploding onto your hand when you grab the mug. They work by causing a standing wave in the radiation, which agitates the liquid on a very small scale and allows it to circulate.
This is a good application of existing principle to a new problem, but I hardly think this was the biggest obstacle we had to Nuclear Fusion.
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
What's the "next generation of fusion reactors"? Is there a current generation which I was hitheto unaware of?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
How can there be a "next generation" of fusion reactors that are going to be "more efficient", when the aren't any viable, net-energy-producing fusion reactors AT ALL? To have a next generation, you first have to have a *first generation*. It's still an entirely open question whether functional fusion reactors (with postive energy balance) can even be built.
Brett
"Do I want my future powered by corn or fusion? I choose the latter..."
Now for the million euro question.. why?
Using AI -controlled extra metal arms seems like a much cooler way to fix this problem of controlling the reaction to prevent outbursts. Plus you can beat up superheroes.
-Ben
I did this about 10 years ago, and I've never looked back. You can't imagine how much time you would have for other pursuits if you stopped wasting time in front of the box. With the time I've saved, I've: spent countless hours engaged in interesting conversation with my wife, read 100s of books, gone biking regularly, built a MAME cabinet, remodeled my house, learned Linux, and enjoyed time with my daughter.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Technically you can fuse iron - ask an astrophysicist for the gory details.
But it takes more energy to fuse than is released. So iron fusion is pretty much the last fusion reaction to be expected from an end-of-life reactor (of the thermostellar variety)
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
If this new reactor design was tested San Diego, would it end up saving millions of US Dollars, rather than Euros?
The biggest obstacle on nuclear fusion is neutrons. Fusion produces a lot of neutrons and the idea of neutron free fusion using He3 is so far over the horizon that it isn't worth thinking about.
Fission also produces neutrons.
Since both reactions produce neutrons they have the same issues - namely dealing with radioactive wastes.
Fisson is easy to create. A team of boy scouts can do it in their own back yard. Fusion is very difficult.
Fission can be totally safe. It can also be very dangerous. It depends on the reactor design but the issue is that the technology is already on the shelf. IE. We can do it now and we have been able to do it for 50 years.
Now the issue is that with the USA designed high pressure reactors, they only use about 2/10 of 1% of the uranium that is mined. What this means is that with a better design we can get about 475 times the milage from our uranium.
There is so much energy available to us that it is almost beyond our imagination. Consider that there are about 114 reactors in the USA which have been running say about 50 years. 50x475 = 23,750 years. There has literally already been enough uranium mined for almost 24,000 years for a well designed reactor like the IRF (Integral fast reactor - look it up in the wikipedia). If we wish to produce 100% of our energy from uranium we have enough uranium mined already for over 2,000 years. Of course the best solution is to use this energy to free up hydrogen which we can combine with carbon to produce synthetic oil (syncrude!). We need about 75 GWe reactors right now here in Alberta. We have a terrible hydrogen shortage. The price of gasoline at the pumps is a symptom of this problem.
Yet - we keep reading stories about the holly grail - Nuclear Fusion.
Yes, some day will will build a fusion reactor. The research is a good idea. But the idea that it will be problem free is a false idea. The biggest obstacle is not wear and tear due to plasma - the biggest obstacle is neutrons flying around and these are difficult to control. In fact - the best solution might be to pack a bunch of thorium around the plasma and use the neutrons to transmute it into U233 which we can cart off to a fission reactor. As an alternative we can pack U238 around the plasma and cart of the Pu239. These are viable fuel cycles - unfortunately at present they are not politically correct.
Prepare ship, prepare ship for ludicrous speed.
From TFA
"We were very pleased to find out that we can actually use fairly small currents in these coils"
Yes, but we need more current.
And we need to install the coils under the seat of every Congresscritter.
After all, if these coils can handle the heat produced in a fusion reactor, they ought to be able to prevent the damage done by 536 hot air windbags.
Then we will save Trillions
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
(obligatory) I always thought it was Canadian money. (/obligatory)
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
This is a bit off topic, but the Trojan nuclear power plant's cooling tower was demolished yesterday. Our local paper's web site has a nice spread of photos covering the event.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
I suggest calling nuclear fusion "Natural Organic Save Our Animals Power," or NOSOAP. Something tells me hippies would love to have NOSOAP.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First off: The sun, on a gram for gram scale, releases energy SLOWLY. Please read
... cools down. There might be some materials damage, but because of neutron flux issues, we are expecting materials damage anyways. Relative to the rest of the challanges surrounding hot fusion, this is a non-issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
Now, realize that the containment structure and underlying tech is providing all of the force to maintain the conditions for the fusion to take place. The power goes out, and fusion stops. You are left with a reactor full of hot gas, that just
Fusion power has been Just Around the Corner. For the last fifty years or so. There is always some new technical breakthrough that is about to overcome the biggest obstacle.
And we are always told that fusion power will be safe because, uh, well, because, well, it's not fission. It's completely new and totally different, so it must be safe. (Not that fission isn't safe, mind you, but fusion will be even safer). And it won't produce any radioactive waste. To speak of. Not from the actual fusion reaction. Well, sure, the neutron flux may make a lot of other things radioactive, but that's big deal. Why, in fact, the government has promised that Yucca Mountain will be ready by 1998. If you want to pick nits it isn't, uh, actually in operation yet, but it's Just Around the Corner.
Also Just Around the Corner: helicars and moon colonies.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Right and most "A'mur'icans" think they are the only ones who read the internet. Honestly I am very ashamed of my countrymen on a consistant basis anymore.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
The above links, read in order, should step through nicely outlining the fusion process, and some of the major challanges that are to be overcome in making it a viable power source for use on Earth.
Today, I will have understanding of fusion. Tommorrow I will understand Subscriber trunk dialing, and then, computers. Once I have an understanding of computers, I will rule the world!
My apologies, Terry.
Wait, you mean the French people aren't already protesting this?
"But this one goes to 11!"
... why it's so helpful to reduce occasional pounding from hot thin plasma when everything in the vicinity is getting torn apart by 14 MeV neutrons. That problem is so bad I've seen discussion of in-place annealing to do repairs.
There is, in fact, a fusion reaction for hydrogen-1, but it is entirely impractical for terrestial power production. Feels good when sunbathing, though.c hain.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/pp
Too bad the link on their front page is broken (and requires giving zip code + age before you can get to the "Oops! Page not found" result).
r -power-plant-demolition/
I Googled and found this, it's got some links to some cool amateur photos of the implosion:
http://laughingsquid.com/2006/05/11/trojan-nuclea
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This could be called "the other slashdot effect."
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Someone else must think "Hmm...recipe for fusion?" when they hear this song.
Anyone....?
Anyone...?
Bueller?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Hold the phone. In a tossup between booze and neutron radiation, you chose neutrons? You, my friend, are sick.
From TFA
"Curiously, however, Evans notes that the theory behind the effect does not precisely match the results. According to their calculations, the perturbations should have released both particles and heat from the plasma. Instead, the heat was not bled off with the plasma but remained mostly contained within the magnetic field."
The experiment answered one question, but left another. Science in motion.
Corn IS fusion. Its energy comes from sunlight, and the sun is the biggest fusion reactor in the solar system.
The heat coming from your fireplace? Fusion energy, stored in your wood.
I thought that the current biggest problem was political. ITER is being built in the south of France, at a site with nuclear licenses etc., but just happens to be in middle of the mountains. The Japanese are building the parts, so ITER will be manufactured in Japan then transported in pieces to France. The french have to build a six-lane motorway through the Alps to transport the electromagnetic coils on lorries which use all six lanes all around the mountains to the site. So before ITER can be built, Japan has to build a factory and some boats to carry the parts to France while France has to build a motorway and some lorries to carry the parts to the site. And they have to build the machinery required to put the whole thing together (although due to political and funding reasons that may be built elsewhere and transported to the site).
So, politics rather than brains is dictating the speed of advance in this field.
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
Honestly I am very ashamed of my countrymen on a consistant basis anymore.
Huh?
I think I know what you are trying to say, but...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
the trouble with fission is you have a big block of highly fissable (not as fissable as weapons grade stuff but still pretty nasty) fuel that can run away all too easilly.
with fusion you don't have that. If containment is lost then a tiny ammount of plasma hits the reactor vessel and thats pretty well then end of it.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Do you mean for the cost of Iraq we could have a true welfare state with universal healthcare? But why would you want to do that? Iraq creates jobs at Hummer, Halliburton, Black Hawk security and a host of other small businesses who are the life blood of America. It also generates work for Doctors and Nurses at VA hospitals who just sit on their bums during peacetime. At the end when we rebuild Iraq with their oil money it will also generate jobs . Also we the taxpayer paid for the college education of all these snot nosed kids who went to college on ROTC scholarships. Now we are getting our money's worth. They thought they were getting a free ride . Just turn out for drill a few times a week and the government picks up your college bill. Same for the reserves who had no problem taking the reserve pay when they were not being activated. I say to all the anti war mothers of soldiers pay us back all the money your kids took from us to get through college and for being on the reserve with interest before you protest the war. There is no draft . Everyone being sent there is doing it for the money. When will these people stop whining?
For the Republicans out there THIS IS MEANT TO BE SARCASM
**Life is too short to be serious**
Which is governed by operating temperature.
Which is governed by availible material technology.
-
Well all organic garbage contain CH chains. Technology could break down these chains and use the H relesed for fusion. Given that my hand held calculator is more powerfull than the 2 room large ENIAC of yesteryear I would not be surprised if in the future fusion reactors could be minituarized to fit in cars. Of course noone would really use these as most cars would run on the pavement embedded electric network and charge their batteries by induction.
Maybe camping equipment manufacturers would sell it to the yuppies of tomorrow who would like to go off the grid during vacations.
**Life is too short to be serious**
I'm sure fusion is now only 5 to 10 years away....
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
The euro started trading at an artifically specified U$1.18, dropped quickly to just over $0.82 in actual markets, and has climbed from that natural valuation to $1.27. That's an over 54% increase. The euro's superiority is clear, defining supremacy over the formerly supreme dollar.
You can't be "sarcastic" simultaneously about both a false euro introduction rate of $2.00, and predicting the imminent supremacy of the euro. Especially when getting the intro rate wrong isn't sarcasm.
--
make install -not war
What is Geordi's answer to everything?
Modulate the frequencies.
Modulate the field.
Modulate the servo.
Modulate the resonance.
Modulate your mom.
Somewhere, there is a bit of irony to all this...
You mean we have a current generation of fusion reactors? And here all along I thought we had a smattering of fusion flashbulb energy sinks that only run for moments and consume more power than we're able to extract back out of them. Boy have I been missing something.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sorry, too busy to respond to this properly right now but you would actually blanket a fusion reactor in something that would breed Tritium (something like Lithium). You can actually do a little research before blindly claiming that thorium is our only hope and come across the abstract to this article:/
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0029-5515/43/8/306
by googling "fusion blanket material"
My only problem with your comment is that you mix some true with some half truth (which could lead someone to believe your blanket comments).
What you do say that is very important is: fusion is hard. Fission works great and new ideas for reactors are making it even better (pebble bed reactors make for a nifty solution too). The problem right now is that ignorant people are good at keeping the public afraid of fission because so many lies about its dangers have been spread.
If fusion can be made possible lets not ruin it in the same way before it even starts by spreading misinformation about what exactly its problems are.
(disclaimer: I'm a grad student in applied physics with a plasma physics focus... so i'm pretty biased)
The problem is that I think that certain people in the US and other places would like to reserve these certain byproducts as evidence of intent to make nuclear weapons.
It's like guns. In the US, guns are legal, so having guns and just transporting them cannot really be punished. However, this hinders catching people who have an intent to use the guns to do harm ("bad things"). Because just having the gun isn't an indication of anything.
Now imagine if guns were criminalized. In theory, anyone who had a gun could pretty much be automatically assumed to intend to do harm with it. Because those who didn't have such intent wouldn't go out of the way to break the law in having them.
I think these people think that keeping a lid on breeder reactors means that you can assume that anyone who builds one and has the enriched results of one is going to make a bomb with it. That has both an effect of reducing the amount of highly enriched fuel available and also helps you find the potential wrongdoers.
Now, I'm not saying this is actually practical (nor the guns example), but I think that is how the people involved in the regulations think it can be done. I would presume they would re-enrich the used fuel in fewer, more secure locations. And those locations would presumably never highly enrich it so that it could be used for bomb.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
We already have a working fusion reactor.
It is called THE SUN. The only problem with the Sun is that you cannot charge people for using its energy. This is why they are trying to put it (the sun) into a proverbial bottle, so they can sell it to you for big ca$he.
Nah...
They surrendered five minutes after the announcement.
ba-dum-bum!
I once read an Isaac Asimov novel (I can't remember its title) where beings in a parallel universe established a connection with our solar system and tried to send our sun supernova, so as they had a plentiful energy source.
... because it is!
If we had a practical fusion reactor - then we might want to use lithium as a blanket material. However we do not have one now and we will not have one for at least 25 years.
A fusion reactor that runs at a net energy loss can still be used as a breader for a fission cycle. This is why I suggested using U239 or Th232 as a blanket material.
Of course there are other alternatives in the fission cycle. IFR for instance uses the neutron flux from fission to transmute U238 to fissile material. But we don't have any IFR reactors running and this is because Clinton's administration cancelled the program in 1994.
I wouldn't say this was the biggest obstacle of Nuclear fusion, all this will do is save a few hundred million a year.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Typo - sorry.
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Hill.html
Spherical reactor.
The savings may be what the article focused on, but the real news is in ability to produce net energy.
The ELM's are effectively "bubbles" of plasma that "impacts" the wall. This leads to erosion of the wall
and significent heat loss. First, the plasma cools from the contact. Second, the wall erodes and atoms,
beinging significently heavier, never really get up to temperature. Third and most important, the atoms
from the wall cause brumstrumalung(sp) radiation. Each of these is a major energy loss and principle
reasons why fusion has never really worked.
The irony hear is that a "breader" reactor has the strengths of both, and fewer weaknesses. You know what's even more hillarious? Nuclear Fision sights (such as San Onofre aka "The Dolly Partons") have lower yearly nuclear radiation than all the coal plants of the area combined. In fact acording to local folk lore that was one of the deciding factors. The environment on the surface is cleaner. The pisser though is that as soon as you mention this to anyone they say: what about ____ nuclear accident. I say: What about coal explosions? Their used to be a coal plant ~20km up the road.The darn thing blew up. How many Fusion/Fision or 'Breader' plants have done that? Oh well, it's the in thing to hate them.
Corn should be classified as a petroleum product, given the amount of fertilizer needed to produce it. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why do so many shit on environmentalists by saying "they'll be against it"? Some will be against it. Some won't. Then again, some oil barons will be against this, as will some fission advocates. Are *they* anvrionmentalists because of this?
In fact, the oil barons against this will use enviro-talk and smoke-and-mirrors to get this issue dropped so they don't have to say "It will be terrible for my paycheck".
The euro's superiority is clear, defining supremacy over the formerly supreme dollar.
Doc Ruby's satire is clear, defining sarcasm over the formerly sarcastic sarcasm.
And I'm ashamed of Americans with a nickname that contains the word "gundam". But who's counting?
Fusion is probably the #1 overrated research area. They started to promise that it would work "in the next 5 years" sometime in the 40ies. Since then, the reasons why it probably won't work in the next 100 years or longer pile up. Containing the plasma is just one of many problems that are all nearly equally difficult to solve. Thing is that the scientists who are depending on billion dollar investments prefer to spread the news about tiny things being solved and keeps silent about the giant issues still unsolved.
This is too far down for anyone to really see...pity.
Disclaimer: I am a fusion scientist.
The result mentioned in the article has been around for about a year in the fusion community. It is very good work, and opens up further areas of study. However, it is specific to a single Tokamak, and so far has not yet been repeated. Furthermore, the result has not yet been fully understood. (This is linked to it not being repeated.)
This may be sensational news, but it shouldn't be, due to claiming to solve a problem, which so far they haven't fully done. Don't take anything away from the guys who did this. Like I said, excellent work. But until the result is confirmed and understood it should stay out of mainstream media.
There are many big problems for fusion, like plasma instabilites, neo-classical tearing modes, ELMs (as mentioned), ohmic heating in transformer coils. The list goes on, it's a complex subject. Thankfully with all countries signed up, and more than enough money for ITER's budget (even if America pulls out again), the politics can be minimised and the physics can continue.
We already had this months ago! Remember? Superbowl? Five blades?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned focus fusion yet. It's a method of controlling the fusion plasma by twisting filaments of it back in on themselves at a single focal point and actually has a very efficient direct electricity feedback that relies on inducing a current to slow particles as they exit the reaction. This is where we should be spending our money on research. Tokamak reactors are just far too inefficient to be of much use.
Do I want my future powered by corn or fusion?
Why choose?
Fusion for appliances/etc...
Ethanol for people!
I'm not so sure this is the biggest problem. This is the first time I've heard of edge-localized modes being a huge problem (granted, I am not a plasma physicist). Most times I've seen people raising practical concerns about large tokamaks for energy production, the "biggest" problem cited has been neutron bombardment of the reactor walls. Energetic neutrons have the nasty habit of making the vessel walls radioactive and - worse - making them brittle and prone to mechanical failure.
I think we all perhaps need to revisit the idea of "self sustaining"
good points though, on the scale of damage possible given a circuit failure, ie if something in the loop fails, stopping the generated electricity from powering the generator. that sounds really silly.
A guilty conscience means at least you've got one.
I think that if you actually took the time to understand the environmentalist movement, and environmentalists specifically, you'd find that very few of them just take what their "leaders" say at face-value. By and large, they're a well-educated bunch who are against things because they really believe they're bad for the environment in one way or another, not because they're sheep who follow some rich leader.
Just because the opposition to environmental groups (big business, largely) is out for profit, that doesn't mean that such groups are themselves. And just because the opposition would like to believe that it's so, that doesn't make it so.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
"Most anti-nuclear types"? We've come full circle with the strawman.
Natalie Maines!
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
The biggest problem comes from where the hell are we going to put all the crap that comes out as an end result of these reactions? Nuclear waste storage doesn't seem to be going over to well.
Saving the World: One Drink at a Time
But they're not that big of a problem.
You got lots of neutrons in a fusion reactor? Do two things.
1) Say who cares about a bit of radioactive copper or stainless steel that has to be buried for a few decades. THAT's much better than the hundreds of thousands of years of most fission by products.
2) If you are really concerned about neutrons hitting the walls, flow some liquid lithium or sodium around the conductive shell of your reactor. Keep the liquid aligned on the container with the proper magnetic flux (you'd only need several centimeters of liquid lithium for example). Then use it in a thermal cycle to capture the nuetron heating of the copper or stainless steel shell and carry the heat away for extracting that much more energy.
You don't even need ignition to build a power plant. What you do need is a large enough supply of deuterium or helium. Don't think about tritium, it's way too dangerous. The only time you need tritium is in startup. And if it's a power plant, you'd only do that once.
In fact, the hardest part about generating power from a fusion reactor is a CONTINUOUS CYCLE. Bringing in a new plasma, mixing it into the current plasma for burning, and exhausting the old plasma are going to be difficult. You'd have to stage the exhaust so you could capture energy to slow the exhaust products using magnetic nozzles, as well as capture unburned fuels and redirect them to the inlet. You'd have to force current sheets to interact with each other inside the reactor (very hard to do). And you'd have to have enough reserves of fuel to continously pump fuel in.
In The Palm of My Hand!
Doctor Otto Octavius!
The french stopped protesting nuclear projects long ago. Nowadays, it's only us and the UN.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Just in time for vistas launch, they will make a viable way to power the mainframe you need to run it! M$ should subsidize this.
At the risk of sounding relevant, what obstacles remain? I mean, don't we have to figure some other details out, like how to get more energy out than in, and how to run the reaction for at least a whole second at a time? This "solution" is only to extend the lifetime of one of the parts in our current fusion reactor technology, which is decades away from being anything near usable commercially or otherwise.
Currently hooked on AMP
Realize that sustained nuclear FISSION was first demonstrated as a viable concept in Chicago during WWII (Reference: The Making of the Atomic Bomb, R. Rhodes), by the legendary Dr. Enrico Fermi and his team at CP-1 (Chicago Pile-1) graphite-moderated reactor.
For the "experts" who weighed in below about non-limiting fissions - DO NOT GENERALIZE - it makes you look terribly ignorant. U.S. reactors are designed such that the fission reaction rate (and hence, power excursions) from either moderator or fuel temperature transients are inherently self-limiting. Consequently, U.S. reactor accidents culminate in sub-critical cores (Yes! even TMI-2 ended up this way).
An approach to critical is a carefully planned evolution; one can mis-predict the critical reactivity worth and end up with - nothing - no sustained reaction, and a mess of paperwork to explain your screw-up to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
What makes fissions practical for generating electricity is going past critical to the Point of Adding Heat (POAH); this is when the heat generated by the fissions are sensible above the contributions from reactor coolant pumps, and other sources. Only then can serious power production begin.
BTW - the terms are "fissile" as in U235, and "fissionable" as in U238. If you're going to speak about something you know little about, at least qualify your statement (e.g., IANAL, IANANEOP - I Am Not A Nuclear Engineer Or Physicist).
I guess I was wrong, I thought the biggest obstacle to fusion was the Coulomb force which cause the atomic nuclei to repel each other. You know, similar to the problem they had trying to create fission by firing alpha particles at the nucleus.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Why not you giving us a stellar link?! blink-blink... ;)
The biggest problem with nuclear power is that people freak out about it. The moment you say, "Hey, nuclear power." The response is always, "But, that's like Chernoybl. There will be a meltdown and everyone in 100 miles will get cancer. Why do you have children so much?"
Then, once you explain the design flaws in the Chernoybl accident, they say, "But, terrorists will get the waste killonium. Those dirt farmers - they could build a fusion bomb that would wipe out western civilization using only a goat, three grams of killonium from the Russian black market, and one centrifuge!"
So the biggest problem facing nuclear power is PR. If you get enough people demandin nuclear reactors, then the funding to solve the logistic problems will appear. Then, remember the formula:
money + example + determination + time = success.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
That's the goal.
I always thought that the extremely small amounts of Tritium and Deuterium were a bigger obstacle.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Finally they make somthing capable of powering quad sli graphics and the cooling system neccessry to stop it burning though the floor!
The only beer ordered by name? Er... Lager?
What crappy marketing.
That said, I did manage to buy a Sun server for a case of it once...
What would the intrinsic dangers of a runaway fusion reaction that would cause the rapid shutdown of the plant to fail? Imagine if the magnetic feild bubble used to constrain the hot plasma gasses collapse. The resulting explosion would make Chernobyl or three mile island took like nothing. I would prefer the reactors be run from the moon or orbit and the power generated can then be transported in super high capacity batteries by rocket lander/shuttle.
Go read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
It's a lot easier to do that on the moon than on earth as the energy requirements to make lunar escape velocity are only 5% of what it takes from Earth.
Plus friction from the Lunar atmosphere is negligible
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
"saving hundreds of millions of euros a year"
Who cares about saving play money. How many $US?
Then why isn't iron the most abundant element in the universe and how do other elements come to exist? I don't find it practical that fusion stops at iron, but more likely our understanding of natural fusion is flawed. Maybe thats why we suck at making fusion reactors eh. Where does nuclear fission occur naturally since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Or did god just make it all like this.. ha. You'd think billions of years of nuclear fusion would have made iron pretty damn popular in space, but perhaps the vastness of space hides this. Or perhaps there is much more to eletromagnetic field interaction that we are aware and hence our understanding of the required temperature for fusable elements is flawed.
Karma Whoring
Yeah! Du can have all 10 million billion trillion megawatts under your hood in processing one glass of
water. Now can you put all dat rubber to da road?