NationStates Jolt Archive

For my Junior English research paper, I'm doing whether or not the we should continue to pursue research in fusion power. I personally think we should, but I was wondering what other people think, or if there are any arguments I haven't considered. Poll coming shortly...

Yes, we should

yes.

Yes, but only as a scientific discipline, and not an industrial matter. We cannot hope to have fusion power in our lifetime. Right now we are with fusion where we were with fission at the turn of the 20th century. ie - we kinda know what it is, but are totally clueless.

Yes, but only as a scientific discipline, and not an industrial matter. We cannot hope to have fusion power in our lifetime. Right now we are with fusion where we were with fission at the turn of the 20th century. ie - we kinda know what it is, but are totally clueless.
We're actually a lot farther than that, relatively speaking. At the turn of the century, we didn't even know fission existed. With fusion, we're more at the 1940's point of fission: we can blow stuff up with it, but we can't make energy with it.

With fusion, we're more at the 1940's point of fission: we can blow stuff up with it, but we can't make energy with it.
And we've been stuck at that point for a generation.

We're actually a lot farther than that, relatively speaking. At the turn of the century, we didn't even know fission existed. With fusion, we're more at the 1940's point of fission: we can blow stuff up with it, but we can't make energy with it.
Yay for blowing up stuff :D

Fusion is good. Research into fusion is also good... I think it's worth it, I mean, if we could reach a point where we get usable energy from it, that would be swell.

What I want to know is how they plan to get power from a fusion plant? they can already get power from a plant, but it takes more energy than it produces to make it run. what do they physicaly do to make power?. i know fission plants are just giant steam engines with radioactive fuel in the middle, but how do fusion plants work?

I don't really want to do your homework for you, seeing as I'm on NationStates to escape my own, but here's a Sophomore's view on fusion.

We should continue to fund fusion research. It's impossible with current technology, but the same was true for the iPod ten years ago, and look at it now.

Headway is being made in Europe on fission research, but don't hope that anything gets done with a Republican in charge.

What I want to know is how they plan to get power from a fusion plant? they can already get power from a plant, but it takes more energy than it produces to make it run. what do they physicaly do to make power?. i know fission plants are just giant steam engines with radioactive fuel in the middle, but how do fusion plants work?

Fusion is basically the same thing. It justs creates the heat via a different reaction, which is more complicated and difficult to safely and usably induce.

What I want to know is how they plan to get power from a fusion plant? they can already get power from a plant, but it takes more energy than it produces to make it run. what do they physicaly do to make power?. i know fission plants are just giant steam engines with radioactive fuel in the middle, but how do fusion plants work?
Fusion plants are similar to fission plants in that they generate heat which boils water which turns a generator... Fusion creates that energy because more energy is released when the bond is made than is necessary to force the nuclei together in the first place.

Miles Davis, John McLaughlin, Joe Zawinul, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea...


who could possibly oppose Fusion?

The crux of why it's more difficult is that whereas fission breaks apart nuclei, which in the case of certain substances like UFl6 are already 'falling apart' per se, fusion requires you to 'fuse' nuclei together by smashing them at high speeds, which requires electromagnetic fields, plus a way to harness that energy is an energy-efficient, relatively non-lossy manner.

Should we research fusion? Let me see, energy for ever.... or not. Ill go with the former. I reckon there should be cold fusion research too, but only because its AWESOME!

The Fusion is an Ugly Car

Especially The race car

http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/large/75207_ford.fusion.stockcar.jpg

What I want to know is how they plan to get power from a fusion plant? they can already get power from a plant, but it takes more energy than it produces to make it run. what do they physicaly do to make power?. i know fission plants are just giant steam engines with radioactive fuel in the middle, but how do fusion plants work?


Fusion is quite simple....... take some hydrogen and compress it until it gets to unbelivable pressures and a fair old temp and you find the hydrogen atoms will fuse will other hydrogen atoms and turn into helium, but what also happens is that the new atom will release a small amount of energy due to the atomic weight of a helium atom is slightly below that of the 4 hydrogen atoms its made of and in occordence with Ensteins famous E=MC^2 equation that missing mass turns into energy.

Theres lots more maths and partical physics involved but thats the simple version.

The JET project I'm led to believe was achieving 4-10 second pulses of fusion power, it could'nt go any higher because the thing was'nt built to get rid of the amount of energy released by a 10 sec burst.

But the actual energy is extracted by boiler method where the fusion generator passes its energy to a cooling jacket/radiation shield, then thats used to boil water and make steam.

hope this helps

The crux of why it's more difficult is that whereas fission breaks apart nuclei, which in the case of certain substances like UFl6 are already 'falling apart' per se, fusion requires you to 'fuse' nuclei together by smashing them at high speeds, which requires electromagnetic fields, plus a way to harness that energy is an energy-efficient, relatively non-lossy manner.

I'm going to start lobbying to make "non-lossy" a word, because it fits this kind of thing.

Fusion should be persued, but I think that it should be persued more as a byproduct of high energy research physics than as a goal in itself. One of the main rubs of fusion is being able to collect and release the energy in a controlled manner. Trying to get fusion reactions started so one can address these problems seems, well, problematical. I would think an easier (ok, maybe not easier, but...) way would be to find a way to harness the energy of matter - antimatter interactions. Figure out how to harness that kind of energy and fusion should be simpler to control.

Have you looked into what the Chinese are doing on the next generation Tokamak? I seem to recall a news piece on that fairly recently, past two-three weeks.

For my Junior English research paper, I'm doing whether or not the we should continue to pursue research in fusion power. I personally think we should, but I was wondering what other people think, or if there are any arguments I haven't considered. Poll coming shortly...

Google "Magnetized Target Fusion".

It's going to work far earlier than anything else.

The crux of why it's more difficult is that whereas fission breaks apart nuclei, which in the case of certain substances like UFl6 are already 'falling apart' per se, fusion requires you to 'fuse' nuclei together by smashing them at high speeds, which requires electromagnetic fields, plus a way to harness that energy is an energy-efficient, relatively non-lossy manner.


And temperatures in the millions of degrees, and IIRC, high presssure.