France narrowly wins over japan. One very important step in Fusion research! ~:)
Click Here
Printable View
France narrowly wins over japan. One very important step in Fusion research! ~:)
Click Here
If the Fusion power will be reality.It can chance the world as we know it. ~:cheers:
Dont count on it heh. Most likely its gonna be huge and expensive powerplants.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
CBR
Ah, they finally got that little bicker done with. I sometimes wonder just *how* much political arm-wrestling actually goes on over these sorts of projects...
Most certainly would. I cannot understand why on earth certain countries dont pour their seemingly limilless funds into this?? Come on, this should definately get the same sort of backing as the Apollo Program. If not for the direct result itself, but for the vast amount of spin-off technologies it will generate, most of which will now have a nice "Made in Japan" or "Made in the EU" etched into the side. I honestly cant for the life of me understand why America isnt putting a LOT more into this?? ~:confused:
I would prefer they spend some of the money on developing solar cells. If we can get them cheap and running at 50-60% efficiency, as some are claiming can be done, then we dont have a problem.
CBR
Yes its an possibility,but for a fuel i a prefer water over fossilic fuels. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Yes but its not gonna be water unfortunately. Its been some time since I last checked out the details of it so Im a bit rusty but... the current Fusion research is IIRC focusing on the easist fusion process which is the deuterium-tritium which is gonna leave a radioactive powerplant after its burned out (after 30-50 years of use or whatever)
The best but also most difficult one is the Helium3-Helium3 which has no problems with radioactivity but there is not much helium3 (taken from seawater AFAIK) for the whole world to use for very long, but can be mined from the Moon and yes its been calculated that it actually is worth it to start a mining operation to get the few tons or something like that we need.
But there might be someone who knows more about it than me...very likely indeed ~:)
CBR
Well, at present solid state Photovoltaic Cells get about 10-12 percent efficiency. Thats a long way to go. Then you've got the problem of energy production only during daylight hours, how does one store this energy viably to make a consistant power supply? There are a lot of inherent problems that make PV Cells more of an addition to another system, rather than a main power production method in itself.Quote:
I would prefer they spend some of the money on developing solar cells. If we can get them cheap and running at 50-60% efficiency, as some are claiming can be done, then we dont have a problem.
Anyway, one does not exclude the other. ALL areas of renewable energy and "safe" nuclear alternatives should be given MAXIMUM priority in research funding.
:book:
Im not an expert on this matter either.But im shure that someone will enlighten us dumbasses in this matter. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
AFAIK there are already cells running at 25% just very expensive yet. The idea is to expand the spectrum used and have multiple layers to get to the 50-60%.
Storing is one thing to consider of course but there is other exotic stuff like superconducting materials that improved on storage as well as cables that means one can export electricity over much longer distances.
And most electricity is used during daytime anyway I think.. but one thing is to produce hydrogen and use that in fuelcells as backup and we need to start making loads of hydrogen anyway when we run out of oil ~:)
CBR
I agree.It feels so stupid to see what things are in center of attention in todays world.We should pretty fast start doing something to alternative ways to produce energy.Otherwise this great machine we call the world will run out of fuel.And we all know whats going to happen then. :bow:
Again you involve a technology that is still very much in its infancy. Superconductors have a LONG way to go before they begin to change the way we transport electricity. Currently, the highest temperature any known material will superconduct at is 138 K, thats -135 degrees C! :help: Not exactly practical on a large scale as of yet... Its not even known for sure if there is a limit, or if we just havent found the more practical materials yet. So this is very much an uncertain area, I would say a lot more uncertain than fusion at this moment.
:dizzy2:
Wind generators with solarcells imbedded on the blades and the pole and the ground beneath them. Can be done right now, all you need is something to generate power from rain fall and you cover most weather conditions.
Well I guess the difference is that we have solar cells that work we just need to improve them(cheaper/better or both) and same could be said of superconductors but that was just one way to fix the storage/distribution problem and using hydrogen is another. Right now we dont have working fusion at all. The new ITER reactor might make sustained fusion and is gonna run over 35 years and cost 10 bn Euro and then we still dont know what commercial use of it would cost.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarcell-99j.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_030725s.html
http://blog.monkeysign.net/monkeysig...ystal_sol.html
There are also research in cells that would be very cheap to produce so an increase in efficiency might not even be whats needed to start using it in a big way.
Overall I would say that we are closer to efficient solar power than fusion. But if we have money for both Im not complaining. Afterall, a big shiny fusion reactor is more sexy than a solarcell ~D
CBR
If Im not mistaken Denmark already gets 20% of its electricity from windpower. But not all nations can do that of course.
CBR
Failsafe on solarpower vs fusion.
I would like to see both available. Tiles on house roofs converted to solarpower etc.
First off is that one kilogram of refined fuel which would require how much unrefined fuel (water) to make?Quote:
One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel.
Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.
Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies.
"With 10 billion [euros], we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."
The problem with the greenpeace idea is that windfarms take up a lot of area, offshore ones? What are they going to build, massive oil rig like structures? Also 7.5 million people could be powered by it now. So what there is more then 7.5 million in the world. By 2080 there will be probably more then 7.5 billion people. So all Greenpeace is looking at looking after is 0.1% of the world.
They have their heads in the sands on this one. If a working fusion reactor can be made then fossil fuel usage would be diminished to virtually nil as far as an energy source.
We need to invest in cleaner power sources, both in what we have and what we can have.
Greenpeace yet again shows they are all emotion no intellect.
Quote:
First off is that one kilogram of refined fuel which would require how much unrefined fuel (water) to make?
SourceQuote:
Fuels
Deuterium is abundant as it can be extracted from all forms of water. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion power stations, Deuterium supplies would last for millions of years.
Tritium does not occur naturally and will be manufactured from Lithium within the machine.
Lithium, the lightest metal, is plentiful in the earth's crust. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion, known reserves would last for at least 1000 years.
Once the reaction is established, even though it occurs between Deuterium and Tritium, the consumables are Deuterium and Lithium.
Quantities
For example, 10 grams of Deuterium which can be extracted from 500 litres of water and 15g of Tritium produced from 30g of Lithium would produce enough fuel for the lifetime electricity needs of an average person in an industrialised country.
Mining the Moon souinds good at first, I had that idea long ago, the Moon is so big, if we could fully use it... ~;) ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
But(yes BP, starting a sentence with "but" ~;) ) if we mine the Moon, maybe we bring chos to our universe after some time, because the Moon will lose mass after time and that will alter it´s gravity, if we transport that mass to Earth, Earth´s gravity will be higher and that may be bad as well, I have no idea how much that would affect our little universe, but I remember the game Earth 2150, where mankind got the Earth to crash into the sun. ~;) :dizzy2:
Turn the rotor 90° up so that the rain will make it turn. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It's a bit unclear on when fusion can be commercialized. Anyone seen any predictions on the when it might be a reality ?
Pape, it seems we have a very similar idea about this issue. I'm a green, that is member of the Green Party and for me the environment is paramount. And thats exactly why I am so eager to see Fusion take off. The likes of Greenpeace really need to smell the coffee on this issue, just because it has nuclear in the title doesnt mean it has to be bad. Surely, their are disadvantages to fusion, small amounts of radioactive waste are produced, but these have a half life of about 80 years, rather than tens or hundreds of thousand, very managable and not comparable at all to fission. Its expensive, sure its going to cost a pretty penny, but anyone who complains about an investment when the product is defacto limitless cheap clean and safe energy for the entire globe really needs their head checked. Not to mention all that money that will be generated with all the "Fusion Age" research creating new technologies and materials in the same way the sapce race did. How much do Europe, Japan, Russia, America and the other contributors to this 10 billion spend on oil... every day?? I'd say a lof more than 10 bllion. So whats 10 billion spread out over 10 years between the worlds richest nations? Need I point out again that the aim of this is an energy utopia - something that might actually be very good for humans, could even stop a lot of wars?
When they get it working properly, of course. It's not all that much of an issue before they can start building reliably working reactors...
There have been a few Fusion reactors built already. Thats not the issue. The issue is getting them to be commercial, viable and efficient. The ones that have been built already use more energy than they produce, just to keep the reaction going... Obviously not what you want in a commercial setting. But these experiments are critical. The scientists and engineers need to build on this "primative" work and from that make the breakthroughs to the holy grail! As for when? There is a running joke that is said when someone asks that question, viable nuclear fusion has been just a few decades away for a few decades. :book: Its not going to be easy folks, but anyone who ever though it would be was foolish, I mean forget rocket science, brain surgery and all the rest... this is fusion.
As for disturbing the mass ratio of the earth and the moon, it would be the other way around for a start, the mineral yeild of mining helium-3 would be measured in kg. That is kgs of the isotope would be brought back to earth, while at the same time, hundreds of tons of equipment etc... would be transferred from earth to the moon to mine it. But either way the net gain/loss is so damn tiny compared to HUGE masses we are talking about, their would be no issue at all. Its like saying pouring teaspoons of water from the Atlantic to the Pacific is going to raise the Pacific Ocean's levels and flood that hemisphere... just not realistic.
Yes I think we are talking a few thousand tons of Helium3 and thats not gonna be a problem for its orbit. And the moon is moving away from the Earth anyway ~:)
CBR
What i read from Ironsides link the fuel can be extracted from water.Generally i dont consider my self exeptionally "green",but it may take bit more time before the fusion will be productive.At meantime i also wonder why the alternative energy sources arent been properly exploited?Because the worlds oil supplies will be exhausted maybe less then two hundred years. :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Well, we know that fusion can work. After all, most of the energy in the universe is produced that way. Alternative sources are good, but they will never be sufficient. Think about it. On a clear day, sunlight provides 250 Watt per square meter at the equator. So about 125W/m² will be maximum for solar cells. That`s two light bulbs. Imagine what you would need to provide GB with enough energy, with facilities IN GB.
Fusion reactors on the other hand have no upper limit of energy to produce.
Yes.The Sun is in itself a working Fusion reactor.I agree that the main goal should be Fusion Power.One thing that comes to my mind is we really should get rid of car engines that use gasolin.There are Hydrogen motors allready.But for mass producing of energy,until fusion is ready.I still support Fission.I know many people doesnt like it.But its lot more nature friendly then coal. and novadays Nuclear Plants are lot more safer than Thzhernobyl. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I heard reports of a Fission plant that is more economic than other reactors but wasn't used because it doesn't produce alot of Uranium.
I would support a few more nucear energy plants opening at least as a stopgap to cut down the amount of Oil and coal used to produce electricity.
Wind is quite promising unfortunately there is no way to store the energy when there is no wind. It would definately have to be used with something else like for instance Solar or wave energy (although it has so far been a failure it could possibly work)
With current commercial solarcell efficiency (about 10%) it would make for around 300 km^2 of solarcells to cover the need here in Denmark so that would be around 10 times more for UK. Any house roof could be used for local supply too.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
You still need to dispose of thousands of tons of reactor core etc that is radioactive when the reactor is burned out. At least it shouldnt be highly radioactive but still needs to be contained for many years.
There are some advanced Fission reactor designs being tested and one is using Thorium for fuel which is very good as there is not that much Uranium to cover all our needs for very long, while there are loads of Thorium just waiting to be used. If we wanted to move away from fossil fuels quickly then that is certainly a way.
CBR