Nuclear fusion, new one

milanonaj

I am trying to gather new perspectives and wonderful reasons to
speed up the transition for nuclear fusion power stations, which would hopfully be in the hands of governments not multinationals.

below are a few examples of why cheap near zero emission energy is needed below, any more you can add would be great. : )

>energize a near zero emission transportation network?

>There would less carcinogens in the atmosphere, less cardio vascular disease ,asthma for example.

>less need for foreign oil.

>fusion power is less hazardous than fission ( no chance of a Chernobyl type event)

>use the clean energy to filter and separate out poisons/toxins from our drainage before the waste reaches the rivers and seas?

>offer our governments control to supply free energy to people that have positive ideas for our communities and environment. Inspiring people to do good things by offering them free energy, saving them money, instead of inspiring people to do bad things to make money. For example : imagine a synthetic paper factory making toilet rolls, A4 paper and alike, the whole factory running from free fusion energy, because they help save the rain forests. Might be quite inspiring for when people choose to set up new businesses. by doing good for everyone, minimising pollution/ disease and ecological threats = get free energy for your business idea?

>inspire organic farming by offering free energy to those that wish to do so. grow exotic organic fruit in colder climates by using green houses with heaters?

any thoughts on this ,positive or negative, thanks.

HalloweenJack

let start with fusion that produces more energy than it uses in the process - then we`ll get somewhere

right now fusion isnt doable for that reason - the pessimists say ` 50 years at least` for that reason , although theres hope at NiF for laser fusion - but again thats still years away.

moonrakerz

milanonaj wrote: »

There would less carcinogens in the atmosphere, less cardio vascular disease ,asthma for example.

Asthma isn't a cardio vascular disease.

milanonaj wrote: »

fusion power is less hazardous than fission ( no chance of a Chernobyl type event)

Not necessarily. No one has developed a working fusion reactor (other than an H Bomb !), so no one really knows what this would involve.
Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion as many people incorrectly believe, it was a chemical explosion - as was Fukushima. Current thinking involves containing a plasma inside a large pressure vessel - if this exploded the results could be far more devastating than Chernobyl.

PS: I am old enough to remember when Calder Hall nuclear power station came on line - we were told then that electrical power produced by nuclear (fission) meant that electricity "would be too cheap to meter" !!! :rotfl:

forgotmyname

OK if you start with that i will continue with the global warming myth.

The planets climate has been changing for millions of years, Did the dinosaurs get taxed to death for polluting it?

Zero emission transport, Thats great except half the population will be dead from all the hazardous processes to actually
get the raw materials to create them.

Less need for foreign oil, Buy a pushbike.

Government owned fuel suppliers, This would mean billions of £ worth of investment which will mean no more expenses for the
MP's. But they wont complain because im sure they will get FREE shares in the companies and profit related bonuses.

And didnt they already own them but sold them off?


Clean energy to filter drains? Just bring back the death sentence and execute anyone that drops litter or flushes the toilet more
than once a week?

Maybe my outlook on life is different to others?

HalloweenJack

erm moonrakerz - the JET reactor at cullem is very much a working fusion reactor....its just right now technology for `breakeven` is still years away, ITER isnt set for DEMO till 2024.

currently JET in its last full D-T experiement produced 16MW - 65% of the input power - and has this year come out of `refurb` - over 80,000 components were changed (the torque is more ITER like now) and input heating is up to 50MW.

http://www.jet.efda.org/jet/news/2011/09/worlds-largest-fusion-experiment-back-in-operation/

Farway

moonrakerz wrote: »

PS: I am old enough to remember when Calder Hall nuclear power station came on line - we were told then that electrical power produced by nuclear (fission) meant that electricity "would be too cheap to meter" !!! :rotfl:

Me to, do you also remember the free power from seawater, ZETA was it? Oh yes, that was nuclear fusion as well, wonder whatever happened to that

Ben84

Because there are no self sustaining fusion reactors available, it's not just a matter of speeding up the transition. There is no certain promise that nuclear fusion will ever generate useful power.

moonrakerz

HalloweenJack wrote: »

erm moonrakerz - the JET reactor at cullem is very much a working fusion reactor...

erm halloweenjack - let me quote from the item you link to:

"(JET), the world’s largest magnetic fusion device, is ready to start new experiments. ...................will be used inside the next-generation international experiment, ITER." (My highlighting)

The important words -"device" and - (used twice) "experiment" - it has managed to produce an output for 0.5 of a second - hardly enough to keep the lights on in UK for the next 50 years.

I will say again: NO ONE has produced a a working fusion reactor ! The scientist working on this project say that IF and WHEN they get a full scale fusion reactor working it will require 50kg of Tritium each year to operate - at present there are around 20kg of Tritium on the planet - and most of this is in nuclear weapons.

It would also help if you got the name of the site correct: it is Culham not "cullem".

milanonaj

Thanks friends, but i still believe the nuclear power has as an epilogue.

Pincher

Didn't somebody already made a fusion reactor called the sun?

It evaporates water into cloud, to irrigate the plants that collect the sun's energy. Leaves are nature's solar panels. They don't need toxic materials to etch solar cells. They are bio-degradable and don't become landfill headaches.

Only the bureaucratic mind can create a Feed-In-Tariff for solar panels that produce pitiful amount of elecricity for the money spent, so that the only way to make it viable is to make other electricity customers pay for it. And then they demand that your roof should face south!

How about giving FIT for rapeseed crop? You can get oil from it, and nothing has to face south!

Why do we need to build a fusion reactor on Earth?
Stop having too many children, and there will be plenty of energy to go round.

milanonaj

Pincher wrote: »

Didn't somebody already made a fusion reactor called the sun?

It evaporates water into cloud, to irrigate the plants that collect the sun's energy. Leaves are nature's solar panels. They don't need toxic materials to etch solar cells. They are bio-degradable and don't become landfill headaches.

Only the bureaucratic mind can create a Feed-In-Tariff for solar panels that produce pitiful amount of elecricity for the money spent, so that the only way to make it viable is to make other electricity customers pay for it. And then they demand that your roof should face south!

How about giving FIT for rapeseed crop? You can get oil from it, and nothing has to face south!

Why do we need to build a fusion reactor on Earth?
Stop having too many children, and there will be plenty of energy to go round.

I think that extracting oil from crop is too expensive. But, you have excellent proposition: to build a fusion reactor in space!