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."

Comments

Biggest obstacle?

[chinobis]

So, nuclear fusion has finally got serious backing from politicians and the R&D budget to go along with it?

Re:Biggest obstacle?

[ConceptJunkie]

The current plan 'yeah, we'll have first real plant producing electricity by 2040' just sounds so damn unambitious. *34 years*. People went from 0 to moon in less than 10... and that was in the sixties!

Well, since they've been trying to develop fusion power since the 50's, that sounds about right. If it was so darn easy to make, we'd have one by now. Fusion power would have all the advantages of fission power, but far fewer disadvantages. Even the environmentalists could like it.

Interesting factoid: Philo Farnsworth, widely recognized as the inventor of electronic television in the 20's was a bigshot in fusion research in the 50's. He helped develop a device called the "fusor", but as we all know, while they did get fusion, they were never able to reach the break-even point.

The medium shapes the message

[Toby The Economist]

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*.

Re:The medium shapes the message

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Well, you have to bear in mind that Slashdot has a tendency to filter for that kind of sensationalism.

I'm sure there are plenty of minor breakthroughs in all sorts of fields that get reported responsibly, or not at all. But nobody pays attention to those stories enough to submit them to Slashdot. And if they DO, no doubt Zonk or whoever passes over them as small beans compared to the big stories Slashdot has to tell, like "Linux text editor you've never heard of may fork, says analyst!" The only stuff that makes the grade is the stuff with nice, attention-grabbing headlines.

SO all we see on Slashdot is the sensational stuff, which leads to lots of complaints like yours.

Huh...

[spankey51]

huh... I always thought the biggest obstacle to overcome would be... you know... getting a positive energy return from the damn thing!

Re:Tested in San Diego?

[PhoenixFlare]

I'm not a scientist but is testing Nuclear Fusion in a very populated area a good idea?

I'm not a scientist either, but I have read a little on the subject....And from what I understand, the reaction would peter out and die very quickly - very little fuel is used in comparison to a fisson reactor, and the reaction itself requires very precise control to happen at all.

Comments like yours are part of the reason there's so much nonsensical backlash against this sort of technology - "I have no idea what i'm talking about, but it must be bad just because! Nuclear bombs are evil, so this must be the same!".

Couldn't they have done this in some place a little less populated? Like North Dakota or in the area near Area 51?

I would have one of these reactors in my backyard (well, if I wasn't in an apartment right now, anyway) with no reservation whatsoever.

Re:you are wrong

[Jeremi]

the biggest obstacle is public perception of anything with "nuclear" in the name

Nah, that's not such a big obstacle... you can fix that simply by choosing a different name. For example, when everybody was having a snit about "Food Irradiation", they simply relabeled it "cold pasteurization", and presto, problem solved.

As for what to call this technology? I think "hydrogen power plant" would be a fine name. But this all assumes it can be made to actually work... that is the big obstacle.

1.54350997

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:And still people will complain...

[Politburo]

Who modded this pile of strawman crap as 'insightful'?

Re:Garbage -Hydrogen-Energy

[timeOday]

Besides, individuals will never be allowed such a powerful, compact energy source. It's inevitably too useful as a weapon. Even fertilizer sales are tracked by the FBI now. For cars, maybe we'll wind up with hydrogen -> fusion -> electricity -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> electricity.

Re:OT: Trojan cooling tower demolished

[jdray]

Another one of the lesser-known reasons for closing Trojan is the high cost of fighting the annual barrage of lawsuits from said environmentalists. It takes an army of lawyers to keep their army of lawyers at bay. Also, paying the small army of people who's only job it was to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of federal regulations. Trojan was designed to be run by a very small staff, maybe 250. By the time it closed, there were at least that many in the group responsible for keeping up the documentation on the place, let alone making it squeeze out power.

But yes, nuclear power plants are all one-off designs with no "off the shelf" replacement parts available, unless you count the doorknobs and lightbulbs. Toshiba seems to be testing a novel new approach to distributed nuclear power that makes a lot more sense. It'll do battle with the NIMBY crowd, but you can't please everyone.

One advantage to designs like Toshiba's is that they're small. Yet another issue with Trojan was that if it was cranking out power at it's peak (1100 MW) and it suddenly went offline, the whole Western U.S. felt the hit. Smaller plants cause less havoc when they trip. Furthermore, economic right-sizing for plants seems to be at about 500 MW. Power traders seem to like to manage plants of that size, though I can't say I completely understand why.

In all, I hope to see something of a resurgence in popularity of nuclear power, particularly as we see rising fuel costs for gas fired plants and continued environmental issues around the existence of hydroelectric dams. I don't think we know much at all about the long-term impacts of wind farms.