Time to put more research into Fusion power...

[snooper2]

None of those nasty beta-decay problems you have with fission reactors



construction on DEMO is due to start 2024...U.S. needs to start a large scale project around Fusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

DEMO (DEMOnstration Power Plant) is a proposed nuclear fusion power plant that is intended to build upon the expected success of the ITER (originally an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) experimental nuclear fusion reactor. Whereas ITER's goal is to produce 500 million watts of fusion power for at least 500 seconds, the goal of DEMO will be to produce at least four times that much fusion power on a continual basis. Moreover, while ITER's goal is to produce 10 times as much power as is required for breakeven, DEMO's goal is to produce 25 times as much power. DEMO's 2 to 4 gigawatts of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power plant.<1> Also notably, DEMO is intended to be the first fusion reactor to generate electrical power. Earlier experiments, such as ITER, merely dissipate the thermal power they produce into the atmosphere as steam.

To achieve its goals, DEMO must have linear dimensions about 15% larger than ITER and a plasma density about 30% greater than ITER. As a prototype commercial fusion reactor DEMO could make fusion energy (which does not have the problems associated with fossil fuels or fission energy) available within 20 years. Subsequent commercial fusion reactors could be built for nearly a quarter of the cost of DEMO if things go according to plan.<2><3>

[Kennah]

1. Given how technologically complex and vulnerable fission reactors have proved ...

... do we really wanna go there, assuming we can "build a box to house the sun"?

[snooper2]

2. When you understand how a fusion reactor works

you'll understand the issues that make fission reactors so dangerous are not present in a fusion reactor.

[Deep13]

4. There are no dangers because it may be impossible.

The only reason the sun works is because it is so big that gravity creates the necessary compression. I don't see what work around can exist for that on earth that does not consume more energy than it creates.

[snooper2]

7. It's already being done..

of course on a small scale... Do a search on JET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

Fusion reactor being built (of course Europe is ahead of us)
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
Here's a primer on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[Deep13]

16. Very interesting, but tests look like they are still 7 years away.

If it works, it will be a gigantic achievement.

[Occulus]

9. The Polywell might

A polywell device is a type of fusion reactor that was developed by Robert Bussard under a US Navy research contract. It traps electrons inside its hollow center by inertial electrostatic confinement. Then, positively charged ions can be injected for the purpose of achieving magnetic confinement fusion. The polywell device can trace its development from the ideas behind the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. Bussard theorized that this device could potentially generate net energy production and thus become a source for electric power.

The polywell consists of several positively charged electromagnet coils that are arranged in a polyhedron. This charged magnetic polyhedron is called a MaGrid. Electrons are introduced from outside and are accelerated into the MaGrid due to the electric field. Within the MaGrid, magnetic fields confine most of the electrons and those that escape are retained by the electric field. This configuration traps the electrons in the middle of the device focusing them near the center which produces a virtual cathode (negative electric potential). Ions are introduced and the virtual cathode is used to accelerate and confine them so they will fuse, creating fusion power. Robert Bussard developed it as an improvement of the Elmore-Tuck-Watson fusor which was based on the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor.

The name polywell is a portmanteau of "polyhedron" and "potential well."

Polywell Wiki



WB-6, fully assembled



WB-6 in operation, using helium as a fuel for testing purposes. The bright light is the reaction in the core

[Kennah]

8. I understand only the basics, and I know there are multiple approaches to fusion ...

... but the complexity causes me to wonder if we're chasing perpetual motion machines, or something even more dangerous than a fission reactor.

[Tesha]

6. One big advantage of fusion power is that it takes very accurate control just to keep it running.

Any sort of error results in the fusion reaction stopping.
That's quite different than in a fission reactor where things
can continue to happen absent human control.

Also, the fusion reactor is working with quite small instantaneous
volumes of its fuel so there isn't very much radioactive stuff lying
around at any point in time.

If it works at all, it should be much safer technology than even
our future fission reactors.

Tesha

[Statistical]

20. Well fission require careful control also.

More accurately would be to say that fusion reactor can instantly stop.

A fission reactor can stop fission instantly. All fission in the Japanese reactors stopped within seconds of the Earth Quake. The problem is the reduced but still massive decay heat that lasts for weeks.

Nice thing about fusion reactors is the high neutron flux could be used to transmute nuclear waste. Convert it from stuff with 10,000 year half life to stuff with half life measure in hours.

[Boswell]

10. if you only take your 'science" from Spiderman movies

well, you are going to sound goofy. a lot...

[Kennah]

11. Building a box to house the sun is how I've heard the idea of nuclear fusion described ...

... and not from Spiderman movies.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Sounds like a hassle-free alternative.

[Taverner]

5. I agree 100%

Granted, we have to keep our eyes open for frauds - like the famous case back in the 80's/90's

[ljm2002]

12. Or invest the same amount of money...

...in solar, wind and geothermal, technologies that are already understood and that do not pose the same kind of long term danger when something goes wrong.

Just a thought.

Of course, solar in particular can be used in a decentralized fashion, and that is a big no-no for TPTB. Why that would have the effect of empowering individuals and communities and making them less beholden to the hierarchy.

If we were to push solar energy in those places that get enough days of sunshine to make it viable as a primary energy source, you could have people generating their own solar energy, and you could also reap the efficiencies of not having to transport the energy...

[snooper2]

18. no long term danger with fusion

also, we would shoot any waste product into space...


:)

[ljm2002]

19. I seem to recall...

...there have been real problems containing fusion reactions within plasma shells. But I am not up-to-date on the latest developments in this area.

What I do know, is that fusion bombs are much more powerful than fission bombs. This suggests to me that the much greater efficiency of fusion comes with its own dangers, should something go wrong. Now I know, what could possibly go wrong? But it seems there is always a way...

Quite apart from that, we already have working technologies that can be used right now, and that do not require complex technological systems in order to operate them, and that can be deployed in a distributed rather than centralized model. Solar of course can be distributed at the level of individual homes, apartments, office buildings, farms, towns and cities as well as regional. Same for wind. So you tell me: why shouldn't we spend the same amount of money to do that, without needing to do a sh*tload more research and development?

There is also the use of alternative fuels, whether from corn (yes, I know there are issues there), or hemp, or methane from cow dung, or garbage. There is also conservation, which is often left out of the equation but which could have huge effects right now.

So I don't see it as necessary to develop yet another high-tech nuclear power source, with a small priesthood who understand it and a very centralized model of operation. I don't think that is the proper way to go at all.

[Statistical]

21. If the powers that be don't support solar then why is it massively subsidies by the TPTB?

[ljm2002]

22. Well you do have a point...

...although I might quibble with the use of "massively".

However, it seems TPTB really, really like big solar installations. Like here in NV, they are building a great big solar array out in the desert. I wonder if we put the same amount of $$ into installing solar on every roof in LV, if that might be a more efficient way to go? Certainly it's the case that the less distance you have to transport energy, the less you lose. But there may be other efficiencies that I am unaware of when massing the collectors together like that.

I don't claim to have all the answers, just suggesting that solar might be better than fusion or other nuclear options.

[Johonny]

13. Republicans plan to cut fusion funding by 1/3

all the major science would take a huge hit, if their budget passes. They HATE Americas future.

[hunter]

14. With cheap fusion we could turn the entire planet into a giant Wal-Mart.

That's probably how the Borg got their start...


http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Earth

Inexpensive fossil fuels are destroying our environment. Until we get our act together as a species, it's best whatever new energy sources we find are not too easy or too inexpensive. Otherwise we're just pouring gasoline on the fire.

[Deep13]

17. While I agree with your basic idea...

...that people have to learn to be more than consumers and competitors for consumables, the need for an alternative to CO2-producing power sources is dire.

[chaska]

15. Fusion has been ten years away for what 50 years? It's bullshit. Ain't gonna happen.

Power down, America. NOW!