Do you think nuclear fusion power will ever become a reality?

Hydrogen fusion is already a reality.

Oh, you meant in a controlled reaction. We already know how to do an uncontrolled reaction (aka a bomb).

 

I didn't find the recommended website very helpful. Because of this, and today's political climate whereby we are lied to every step of every day, and after reading what the website had to offer, I am forced to my own non-professional conclusions, specifically: They did not address waste products. I am therefore to conclude this is just more of the same pipedream of 'electricity too cheap to measure' and ignoring the waste stream problem. Same old same old. Like many, i could be persuaded to support such programs AFTER waste is a non-problem, but until such time (and unlike current politicians) I do not believe in saddling future generations with 'our' problems.

Furthermore, I would specifically support new NONCENTRALIZED methods of energy production which leave no 'little problems' for future generations. I would have a hard time supporting CENTRALIZED energy production techniques. Have we not learned our lessons as to corporate behaviour/monopolies/public give-aways, whereby funds just go into the pockets of upper corporate management as bonuses?

 

Fusion is practical, sustainable and occurs every day - the sun. We just need to look up and take advantage of what already exists (solar water heating, photovoltaics for electricity). No rational person is going to set their hopes on centralized fusion power plants.

I concur with MarinJohn - decentralized power production, efficiency and conservation are the way to go.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ May 18 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]257515[/snapback]</div>

Actually they did address waste. http://www.iter.org/safety-waste.htm "ITER waste is increasingly less dangerous after 100 years than the total ash from a large coal-fired power plant..."

 

This is very interesting technology but even woth optimitic schedules they are looking at 2040 for first comercial availability.

Also no experiemental plant has generated net energy yet and even the ITER one will be a "zero sum" game (it won't use constant fusion).

Still, this coul dbe the future if we can solve the technichal problems with it. Waste seems a lot less dangerous then nuclear and it seems like it can compare to coal if run for a long time.

let's hope they don't run into a road block.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 18 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]257598[/snapback]</div>

Yes. This is the main advantage and waste that we can more realistically manage compared to nuclear. We're talking a hunder years instead of many times more. Accidents are also less dangerous with the core only burning for seconds with out maintainece.

Our only realistic way out from destroying the environment as fast as we do is technology. I think nuclear is unfortunatley the short term solution (better overall for environment impact i.m.o), with fusion the longer term hope.

Problem with both technologies is that they might hint at unlimited energy and we as a global society will not cut our wastefulness, which in the end is not a good thing.

Still I am hopeful that we can in my lifetime move away from 100 year old technology like oil, gasoline and coal to something newer

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ May 18 2006, 01:50 PM) [snapback]257602[/snapback]</div>

At the risk of being labeled a Luddite, I respectfully disagree. Appropriate technology could be very helpful, but "More! Higher! Faster!" is what got us into this mess in the first place. Not to confuse the issue with religion, but the god of technology isn't going to save us from ourselves any more than any other god.

 

I would say, how could it ultimately not become a reality? h34r:

 

Their web site reminds me of so many futurists: full of "coulds" and "woulds" and a few scientific-looking graphs, and a lot of speculation on what "might" be, but very short on solid, reliable information.

They say, for example, that waste would be less persistent because they would use materials that, when irradiated by the high neutron flux of a thermonuclear reaction, don't form long-lasting radioactive waste, but then they admit that such materials do not yet exist. Anyone remember the promises back in the 50's that nuclear energy would be clean, and so cheap that we would pay for the connection to the grid, but would not even have electric meters?

The technology for thermonuclear electric power generation does not yet exist. Specifically, containment of the plasma has proved so thorny a problem that they cannot honestly claim to have taken the first baby step. It may be 100 years before they figure out how to do that. Containment is still a dream. Maybe it will happen. Certainly not in my lifetime, and maybe not in this century.

On the other hand, we do have a thermonuclear reactor, at a safe distance (the sun) and all we have to do is improve the effeciency of solar cells to make the whole question of ITER moot. Problem is, then they could not charge us for power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 18 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]257784[/snapback]</div>

The difference with fusion is that the radioactive waste is not resulting from the fusion process itself, it comes from the need to capture neutrons that are escaping from the reactor. As such you can choose the most advantageous material. The idea is that it will have to be replaced every four years or so. And the reactor is relatively small.
The power multiplication factor doubles every 1.8 years, and is currently at about 1. The next experimental reactor ITER in France is supposed to reach 10 (ten times more energy out than in). This research is supported by almost all countries in the world.

 

It exists now. Go check with your Ford dealer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arnold @ May 22 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]259320[/snapback]</div>

Interesting that you are able to describe the characteristics of a technology that does not yet exist. The expected ratio of energy out to energy in begs the real issue of containment. They are nowhere near figuring out how to contain a plasma at thermonuclear temperatures. Maybe some day they will. But they've been working on it for decades without making any progress or finding any breakthroughs in the fundamental question: how do you contain a plasma so hot that it will vaporize any solid material? The present idea is to do it with magnetic fields, and they experiment with differently shaped fields. But it's not working. They are making no real progress on the real problem: containment.

Meanwhile, we are surrounded by energy available for the taking, but because it's dispersed energy (solar, wind, etc.) it's hard for a transnational corporation to exploit and control for profit, so it gets very little investment and no government support.

For the money that goes into thermonuclear research, we could replace our imported oil with domestic renewables.

 

Yes. They'll eventually figure out a way to control it.

As for any side pollution aspects, I can't say.

 

The reason solar energy will never become popular is for one simple reason. You can not put a meter on the sun!
Kathleen