NationStates Jolt Archive

Now Im not expert on this subject by far. But this sounds like a good idea. Building a reactor that doesnt produce nuclear waste. Chinese are currently in the works to build one. But this article mentions that its part of the multi country group that was searching for a clean and cheap power source. Interesting stuff.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/30/content_3161718.htm

Sounds good to me.

Europe has been busy on fusion for a while http://www.jet.efda.org/

http://www.jet.efda.org/images/gallery/images/jp2001-367.jpg

Nuclear fusion is the only hope for sustainable energy in the future. It's the only process that can produce enough energy to supply a growing population while having essentially no environmental impact and a fuel source that will last basically forever (there's at least enough deuterium on Earth to supply even an exponentially more energy-hungry population until after the Sun goes dark, which is more than long enough for our purposes).

I wish the US would fund this kind of stuff more. Like, to the tune of several tens of billions of dollars.

I wish the US would fund this kind of stuff more. Like, to the tune of several tens of billions of dollars.

You know that's not going to happen, what with the oil trust and all.

Now Im not expert on this subject by far. But this sounds like a good idea. Building a reactor that doesnt produce nuclear waste. Chinese are currently in the works to build one. But this article mentions that its part of the multi country group that was searching for a clean and cheap power source. Interesting stuff.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/30/content_3161718.htm
Colleagues of mine at Georgia Tech were leading the way in the discovery of cold fusion. Congressional funding was allocated, an article in Nature was planned, big things were going to happen because sustainable cold fusion at room temperature was a reality.

Not so fast. The thermometers weren't calibrated and there were some other experimental errors that exceeded the magnitude of the results.

The Congressional funding was cancelled, the Nature article was pulled, and cold fusion became passe. I'm skeptical that any economical fusion reactor is right around the corner.

I believe they had something on the news about the first fusion reactor to be built in Southern France.

The project is a joint-venture of the E.U., China, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan.

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID4474756_REF1,00.html
(Sorry, found it only in German, has a couple of pics though).

The US is already throwing billions at it. Really the title of that article is misleading, they are building an expermental reactor which means it isnt known if it will work yet.

Now Im not expert on this subject by far. But this sounds like a good idea. Building a reactor that doesnt produce nuclear waste. Chinese are currently in the works to build one. But this article mentions that its part of the multi country group that was searching for a clean and cheap power source. Interesting stuff.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/30/content_3161718.htm

There is no question about nuclearization being the way of the future. Fusion reactors mimic the reaction in the sun, which means that no waste will be produced like fission.

Due to China's current energy shortages, which the Three Gorges Dam may not be able to solve entirely, it is expected that China's expansion of it's nuclear industry, will turn it into the world's biggest market for the fission reactors in the next century (there's already plenty of fission reactors across Europe, Japan and the U.S.).

About the Three Gorges Dam, it cannot be sabotaged by destroyed by conventional explosives as the concrete is just so thick. It would require a low yield atomic bomb to cause damage.

The US is already throwing billions at it. Really the title of that article is misleading, they are building an expermental reactor which means it isnt known if it will work yet.

Only through experimentation will development and improvements be made. All fusion reactors are build on theory.

The Congressional funding was cancelled, the Nature article was pulled, and cold fusion became passe. I'm skeptical that any economical fusion reactor is right around the corner.

Cold fusion probably won't be perfected by the 2030s and it would be at least 2050 before they become feasible.

Interesting, it would be worth keeping an eye on this, developments in this field could radically change how we live and work in the future.

Why is it always the US that has to give 70billion $? The US is not made of money, ne more than the UK or China. It should be a collected effort to raise that money, the World Bank?

Isn't it for the sake of humanity that the fusion reactor in South France is being jointly developed by the world's leading scientific nations? I do agree that organizations such as the world bank should fund this as the future of energy consumption depends on it.

Why is it always the US that has to give 70billion $? The US is not made of money, ne more than the UK or China. It should be a collected effort to raise that money, the World Bank?
At least in the international project in France, it is mainly about who wants the rights to get some info out of it. The French are paying huge amounts, the EU as well - I'm not sure about the US and others.
If you don't fork up the money, you run the risk of being left out of the loop, and the US certainly wouldn't want that.

Interesting, it would be worth keeping an eye on this, developments in this field could radically change how we live and work in the future.

Why is it always the US that has to give 70billion $? The US is not made of money, ne more than the UK or China. It should be a collected effort to raise that money, the World Bank?

I believe that the article states that the US will really pick up 5% of the total cost of the multi-nation project. EU would supply 50% as a whole. The rest split in 10% chunks with S Korea, Japan, Russia, China and the US

yeh guess that makes sense, still, thats an awful lot of money the EU has to pay and thats my taxes! Oh well...guess we will bask in the glory of being the inventors of the technology!!!

Colleagues of mine at Georgia Tech were leading the way in the discovery of cold fusion. Congressional funding was allocated, an article in Nature was planned, big things were going to happen because sustainable cold fusion at room temperature was a reality.

Not so fast. The thermometers weren't calibrated and there were some other experimental errors that exceeded the magnitude of the results.

The Congressional funding was cancelled, the Nature article was pulled, and cold fusion became passe. I'm skeptical that any economical fusion reactor is right around the corner.
Cold fusion was part pseudoscience, part bad science. There are real cold fusion plans, but they're only theory.

"Hot fusion" is a reality. It's just that the technology hasn't been developed yet to a commercial stage.

Time to evaluate our long-term reserves in deuterium and lithium.. :D

I think the first thesis on the possibility of "fusion on an Earth environment" was written by an Italian professor of physics in 1953. Please note that he did not term it as 'cold fusion'.

I think the first thesis on the possibility of "fusion on an Earth environment" was written by an Italian professor of physics in 1953. Please note that he did not term it as 'cold fusion'.
I wasn't trying to pull this around to a discussion of cold fusion. I just like to get a dig in at Tech and the great discovery. Plus, it makes for a cute story.

I do think hot fusion will be economical some day, just not in my lifetime. But then, I'm old.

I do think hot fusion will be economical some day, just not in my lifetime. But then, I'm old.
Well, if this experimental ractor actually works, then it could be economical almost immediatley, don't you think?
The money is put in, the thing stands - so that is a sunk cost.
And then the sheer amount of energy you can get out of the thing is enough to shut down a number of fission reactors - that saves a lot of money.
Plus you save on all the nuclear waste management.
And the French will have invented it, more or less, and then they'll rule the world :p

Well, if this experimental ractor actually works, then it could be economical almost immediatley, don't you think?
There is a huge difference between running well in an experimental environment and running well in a commercial one. The Chinese reactor is
supposed to produce only a limited amount of power and at a great cost.

The EAST, which costs 200 million yuan (24 million US dollars) and is scheduled for completion late this year, could operate at over 100 million Celcius degrees and produce electricity in a consecutive 1,000 seconds, which will be a world record.

A thousand seconds isn't much use in commercial terms. I'll be the first one to cheer if it ever becomes practical to run a fusion reactor, but I'm going to be skeptical until it happens.

Probably be a French scientist who was born in Poland, like my namesake, hehe.

Seriously, controlled, safe fusion deserves a place of priority in research, I believe.

And the French will have invented it, more or less, and then they'll rule the world :p

It's located in France, but scientists from all over the world are working on it. The funding also comes from all over the place.

Seriously, controlled, safe fusion deserves a place of priority in research, I believe.

It would certainly be much less hazardous than fission. I think the fusion reactor only requires heavy water. Fission reactors will still have their place in the future as it would also be very costly to shut them down.

I have a teacher that does research on containing fusion reactions using magnetic fields. He says they've made a lot of progress in the last few years. But, that progress amounts to maintaining the reaction for, like, 2 seconds rather than 2 milliseconds. That is a very long way from commertial reactor. Unless there's been some huge breakthrough that I'm not aware of, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Technically, considering the H-bomb, as a fission reactions is used to trigger a fusion one, that can be counted as fusion on Earth. LOL!

Cold fusion was part pseudoscience, part bad science. There are real cold fusion plans, but they're only theory.

"Hot fusion" is a reality. It's just that the technology hasn't been developed yet to a commercial stage.
You realize that's the same as saying antimatter generation's a reality, it's just that it hasn't been developed to a commercial stage yet.

You realize that's the same as saying antimatter generation's a reality, it's just that it hasn't been developed to a commercial stage yet.
That's a non-sequitur. Antimatter is a curiosity of physics, but large-scale fusion has been implemented already.

ITER would have a power production of a regular fission reactor. It would be used for testing the concept.

This is awesome. Once this is up and running, the oil empires of the Middle East nations will collapse and there will be one entire new world order - hopefully leaning towards peace. Oil really determined the international relations for the 20th Century. In the 21st, we could eliminate this!

This is awesome. Once this is up and running, the oil empires of the Middle East nations will collapse and there will be one entire new world order - hopefully leaning towards peace. Oil really determined the international relations for the 20th Century. In the 21st, we could eliminate this!

We may have a new source of energy to power our homes and facories but oil will still dictate the cars, tanks and aircraft. Whoever controls oil, holds the world by the balls.

-snip-
Once ridiculous amounts of energy can easily be generated, it really won't be that much of an issue to transfer that energy to things like cars.

If only life were like a Sid Meier game, like Civilization or Alpha Centauri...

You get a research screen that tells you all possible discoveries, what their impact will be, how many years it will take to develop them (which can be adjusted with a funding slider), and you pick one...

Once ridiculous amounts of energy can easily be generated, it really won't be that much of an issue to transfer that energy to things like cars.

Sending and receivin energy by waves was first talked about in the '80s by NASA futurists as means of harvesting solar energy by space stations and beaming it back to Earth for power. We're still a long way off.

Sending and receivin energy by waves was first talked about in the '80s by NASA futurists as means of harvesting solar energy by space stations and beaming it back to Earth for power. We're still a long way off.
If we have unlimited amounts of energy, then it really isn't as important how much is lost on the way, is it?
One could build better storage devices as well...but I'm just imagining things here.

One could build better storage devices as well...but I'm just imagining things here.

I'm sure you are. No one would prefer the endless queues of people lining up to the fusion reactor to charge up their uber car batteries.

The Russians have been experimenting with fusion long before anyone else. They came up with the Tokomak (doughnut shaped) design (the one that is currently being used). To say the united states hasn't gotten into fusion is bullshit. Until recently, the US was the largest researcher of fusion tech. California, Illinois, and most of the large universities pour billions of dollars into this.
The problem with fusion is that it takes in insane amount of inital startup power (10-100 million degrees celcius and incredible magnetic forces). It practically would take one nuclear plant's power to start the reaction.

I'm sure you are. No one would prefer the endless queues of people lining up to the fusion reactor to charge up their uber car batteries.
How is that different to a fuel station?

How is that different to a fuel station?

Probably because a gas station is much cheaper to build and maintain than a fusion power plant. But I suppose you could build some high tension wires and transmit it to the stations. The feasibility of it though. I'm not too sure on that.

-snip-
Obviously you would have a transformator station. But I don't see why it couldn't be done - by the time we have working Fusion reactors we'll surely have better wires as well.

We may have a new source of energy to power our homes and facories but oil will still dictate the cars, tanks and aircraft. Whoever controls oil, holds the world by the balls.

But we're now also coming up with hydrogen and solar cell cars too.

That's a non-sequitur. Antimatter is a curiosity of physics

It has also been produced. It just hasn't been produced in quantities large enough for, well, anything useful. The same thing can be said of fusion: the intiation energy is larger than the energy we can currently get out of it.

It has also been produced. It just hasn't been produced in quantities large enough for, well, anything useful. The same thing can be said of fusion: the intiation energy is larger than the energy we can currently get out of it.
You can do something useful with stuff that explodes and destroys everything around it?

About the Three Gorges Dam, it cannot be sabotaged by destroyed by conventional explosives as the concrete is just so thick. It would require a low yield atomic bomb to cause damage.


Someone hasn't seen "The Dam Busters".


"Every time one of these Lancasters fly over, my chickens lay premature eggs."

But we're now also coming up with hydrogen and solar cell cars too.

Hybrid technology will be the first step of weaning ourselves from oil, but that only works for cars as heavier vehicles and aircraft would require much more power and hydogen may not be able to deliever that. Hybrid technology is also expensive.

Someone hasn't seen "The Dam Busters".


"Every time one of these Lancasters fly over, my chickens lay premature eggs."

No conventional explosive would do it. Period.

Because of that, it is suspected that the USAF would supply nuclear arms to the Taiwanese separatists in order to diffuse their responsibility for a potential attack on the Three Gorges Dam.

You can do something useful with stuff that explodes and destroys everything around it?

Uh, 1:1 conversion of power means an anti-matter generator could be up to 14 times more powerful than even the most efficient nuclear equivilant.

I'm kind of amazed that noone's bothered to point out that the plant is going to be built on a fault line.
The technology is going to produce nuclear waste, just not in the volume of a conventional fission reactor. It is environmentally friendlier than a nuclear power plant insofar it is friendlier to shoot someone in the foot than in the knee cap. What's more, it takes gas over 100 million degrees celsius hot to properly use this kind of energy. Now where is that kind of energy to heat the gas going to come from in the first place?
Fusion power is the technology of the future, literally: It's going to take about 50 years for us to approach anywhere near economically feasible energy production, if it's at all possible. It's a heck of a lot of money to spend on a project that won't be near completion in the life time of the people deciding to spend it.

Uh, 1:1 conversion of power means an anti-matter generator could be up to 14 times more powerful than even the most efficient nuclear equivilant.

The hard part? Harnessing it for anything but explosive (Or something similar to explosive) force.

Uh, 1:1 conversion of power means an anti-matter generator could be up to 14 times more powerful than even the most efficient nuclear equivilant.

Producing anti-matter is one of the most inefficient processes in science. To produce one anti-particle they have to run the particle accellerator at night since in the day there isn't enough energy. it consumes way more energy than it produces.

I'm kind of amazed that noone's bothered to point out that the plant is going to be built on a fault line.
The technology is going to produce nuclear waste, just not in the volume of a conventional fission reactor. It is environmentally friendlier than a nuclear power plant insofar it is friendlier to shoot someone in the foot than in the knee cap. What's more, it takes gas over 100 million degrees celsius hot to properly use this kind of energy. Now where is that kind of energy to heat the gas going to come from in the first place?
Fusion power is the technology of the future, literally: It's going to take about 50 years for us to approach anywhere near economically feasible energy production, if it's at all possible. It's a heck of a lot of money to spend on a project that won't be near completion in the life time of the people deciding to spend it.

For a starter setup, yes, it does seem that the proverbial spark for fusion power will be through fission. But beyond that, I wonder what nuclear waste you are talking about. Fusion in the same way that the stars do it produces no physical waste.

Now Im not expert on this subject by far. But this sounds like a good idea. Building a reactor that doesnt produce nuclear waste. Chinese are currently in the works to build one. But this article mentions that its part of the multi country group that was searching for a clean and cheap power source. Interesting stuff.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/30/content_3161718.htm
Very interesting that they would name it "the way", with the Chinese religion, "Taoism", literally meaning "the way", as well.

This seems promising. But it will be many years off. You have to understand something: The only place in the world that fusion happens is in the core of the Earth and on the sun. It requires that much energy to do it. In the movie, Spiderman-2, Dr. Octavius was trying to build the same thing.

And, theoretically, you might think this is kinda freaky, but.. If they can create a fusion reactor, they could fuse elements to create any kind of element they want. In other words, they could "create" gold, and iron, and virtually any element, from one to the next. This would absolutely revolutionize our world. For one thing, it would launch us into a new technological age, with such things being so cheap, and could (hopefully) help to end world hunger.

But I doubt it will. Mankind is greedy. This just shows we're one step closer to the apocalypse.

Oh, and.. Greenpeace's arguments are mostly bullshit. It's as dangerous as nuclear power, I believe, because from the very little I understand, it might (or not, not sure) lead to nuclear fission--an explosion even larger than a nuclear reactor's meltdown. But it would be better than nuclear power because it would have absolutely no waste, whatsoever. In other words, it's more dangerous in that it could wipre out an entire country, instead of just a large city. But, well.. well.. wait, wait.. Yeah, I'm starting to think this isn't such a good idea, either.

Producing anti-matter is one of the most inefficient processes in science. To produce one anti-particle they have to run the particle accellerator at night since in the day there isn't enough energy. it consumes way more energy than it produces.

Which is...what I said initially...

Fusion power is the technology of the future, literally: It's going to take about 50 years for us to approach anywhere near economically feasible energy production, if it's at all possible. It's a heck of a lot of money to spend on a project that won't be near completion in the life time of the people deciding to spend it.

It's the job that's not started that takes the longest to complete, my friend. John Logie Baird invented the television in the 1920's, but it was only in the 1950's when people could start buying them, and the 60's when they became popular. However, if he hadn't put in the time and effort into it years before it was economically sound, we wouldn't have a computer monitor to look at today.

Sure, lot's of things won't effect us in our lifetimes. Sea levels rising probabl;y won't, desertification and the spread of tropical diseases into once temperate climates probably won't either.

However, not thinking about future generations isn't just selfish, it's plain stupid. Every dollar, pound or euro spent now will save billions in the future, as well as save lives and make our kid's live in a much bettter world.

Which is...what I said initially...

Oops, should have read everything :P

Is it just me or are they taking their ideas from Star Trek?

Take a look at this photo of one fusion reactor:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Inside_JET_tokamak.jpg

It looks just like the Star Trek ships' warp core which also used anti-matter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/gallery/images/340/tngwarpcore01.jpg

For a starter setup, yes, it does seem that the proverbial spark for fusion power will be through fission. But beyond that, I wonder what nuclear waste you are talking about. Fusion in the same way that the stars do it produces no physical waste.

The stars produce very little waste (although they do produce some, like the solar system) since their type of fusion is different to what we're doing on earth, contary to popular belief, which does produce waste.

Firstly, we're fusing different nuceli to the stars. Our method produces more energy, although the materials are quite rare (Deuterium is 1/6500 of all H2 nuceli) and tritium is not naturally occouring at all. To produce that, you need to do a nuclear reaction with lithium, which produces readioactivity.

Secondly, we're using a different confinement method. The stars use their own gravity to confine the hydrogen. We use über-big magnets inside a metal tokamak. The fusion reaction produces fast neutrons which fuse with the nuceli inside the tokamak, literally making it radioactive too. Eventually the reactor itself becomes a piece of waste itself, and has to be replaced. The stars don't use tokamaks, so there's noting for the neutrons to activate.

Sorry to be an ass...but it does produce dangerous waste, although i'd rather that than global warming any day. Even better would be wind/solar which produces no waste at all and is totally renewable, unlike fusion.

Producing anti-matter is one of the most inefficient processes in science. To produce one anti-particle they have to run the particle accellerator at night since in the day there isn't enough energy. it consumes way more energy than it produces.

Actually, i'm wrong. β+ decay produces an antielectron and β- decay produces antineutrenos without any human intervention or effort.

IF only someone could harness that...

For a starter setup, yes, it does seem that the proverbial spark for fusion power will be through fission. But beyond that, I wonder what nuclear waste you are talking about. Fusion in the same way that the stars do it produces no physical waste.
Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm)

However, not thinking about future generations isn't just selfish, it's plain stupid. Every dollar, pound or euro spent now will save billions in the future, as well as save lives and make our kid's live in a much bettter world.
I agree, insofar as the money should be spent to save billions in the future. It should have been invested in renewable energy sources such as solar power or wind power instead, considering its much closer to being used economically and produces much less waste (zero, to be exact). That would be better than spending it on some project that does invariable produce radioactive waste and would thereby make the world a better place to live for our kids. I don't propose not using the money, I would just have been happier to have it spent somewhere else.

Laerod, I am forced to point out your own quote and its logical flaw.

Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.

We do not see the total amount of radioactive waste, nor the level of radiation they produce, much less the half life. Lumping it instantly into the same category as waste produced by fission reactors without proper analysis is simply foolish. Otherwise I suppose you propose the abolishment of x-ray machines and radiological dyes used to determine problem areas in a blood stream?

Radiation is all around us. High levels of radiation are dangerous true, but low levels are generally acceptable, otherwise we would have sought to ban sunlight long ago.

Furthermore, I find the opinions of the green groups that state the energy source would never deliver useful energy to be extremely short sighted and foolish.

If we used that same opinion, should we not have used cars, but instead, found ways to make horses go faster? Should we have stayed with valve tubes rather than transistors and eventuall microchips? Should steamships have been ignored because sailships were faster when they first came out?

People thought flight was impossible once, and the Wright Flyer would never have been the type of machine to transport mass groups of people over long distances. And that is correct. The Wright Flyer never could. But with the principles established by the Wright Brothers, they proved that man flight was possible, and that this was the first step towards making it big.

The same applies to this fusion technology. If we were to abandon it simply because there are other means available, we will never advance or make the world better.