Posted on 05/24/2006 12:46:44 AM PDT by MadIvan
There is a deafening, unearthly howl as if a jumbo jet was firing up its engines in the Albert Hall. On the screen in the control room a ghostly pinkish glow whips round the edges of the inside of the nuclear reactor. At its core it is 10 times hotter than the centre of the sun.
This, according to some physicists, is the solution to the energy crisis - a future with cheap, reliable, safe and nearly waste-free power. Today, after years of false starts and political wrangling dating from the cold war, they will get their chance to make that dream a reality. A €10bn (£7bn) project, called Iter, to build a prototype nuclear fusion reactor will be signed off in Brussels by the EU, Japan, China, South Korea, India and the US.
The prospect of virtually limitless energy is not merely science fiction. The haunting, screaming growl of matter being smashed together at unimaginably high speed is a daily occurrence at Jet in Oxfordshire, an existing experimental fusion reactor. Jet is by far the biggest of the world's 28 fusion reactors. It is the work of scientists here that has paved the way for the much bigger Iter, which, once the project is ratified in December, will be built in Cadarache in southern France.
Its advocates say nuclear fusion is the most promising long-term solution to the energy crisis, offering the possibility of abundant power from cheap fuel with no greenhouse gases and low levels of radioactive waste. But critics say the government is gambling huge sums of money - 44% of the UK's research and development budget for energy - on a long shot with no guarantee of ever producing useful energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
|
If there is no money involved, it wont work,
THE HEAT IS BENEATH OUR FEET
and that Sir, is free to every country in the world.
Due to the high risk (we just don't know whether Fusion will ever really work) this is one of those very few occasions where government funding seems a good way to go.
44% of UK R&D funding for Fusion is dirt-cheap if it works, expensive if it doesn't. As long as Fusion doesn't turn into a lavishly funded boondoggle, its fine by me.
Not particularly. The "hot fusion" physicists have been saying the same thing for sixty years.
Eventually (probably ANOTHER sixty years), it might even work.
No, what we need is a full-bore FISSION economy with breeder reactors. There are NO technical barriers to that--just political ones.
"No, what we need is a full-bore FISSION economy with breeder reactors. There are NO technical barriers to that--just political ones."
The byproduct can be used to make nuclear weapons correct? And the political barrier is the fear of the byproduct being stolen?
Can you give a thumbnail sketch of the economic benefits?
Excellent article on thanks for posting. I do have one gripe. An article like this should mention one basic fact that some general readers would not be aware of---fusion is the force behind the hydrogen bomb.
Especially when they talk about how fusion power already works because it powers the sun---this needs to be mentioned. The sun is powered by an endless series of hydrogen bomb-type explosions. This hardly proves that fusion can become a workable source of energy for society.
Nonetheless, I agree that the potential is so awesome that it needs to be explored.
Well, if you use the u-238-Pu-235, that's true. But if you use the Th-232-U-233, it's not. And security is plenty good enough here in the US to prevent that from being a problem evn with the Pu cycle. There's already LOTS of plutonium in spent fuel sitting in pools on various nuclear plant sites. I'd one heck of a lot rather see that re-processed and put BACK into reactors than sitting there where security is less stringent than it would be at a re-processing plant.
"And the political barrier is the fear of the byproduct being stolen?"
No, actually it's not. The political barrier is the irrational fear engendered about ANTYHING with the words "nuclear" and/or "radioactive" associated with it, promulgated by the Greens at the behest of their allies in the now-defunct USSR.
Baloney. Geothermal is VERY limited in availability and siting, and "Ocean Current" isn't even on the drawing boards other than as a "wild idea" type proposal.
Not necessarily true. Depends on the reaction used H2 + H2 fits the bill but requires a lot higher activation energy than H2 + H3. The H2 + H3 reaction generates huge quantities of neutrons which then go on to make all sorts of dangerous high level waste.
It sometimes seems like the political barriers are harder to solve than the technical ones.
Yes, I've heard of both of them. Yellowstone is way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. There is very little geothermal close to where there are large numbers of people. As concerns the Gulf Stream--it suffers from the same "remoteness" except for a few limited locations where it swings close to Florida.
"You are misinformed. I can tell by your tone that you are going to do what ever it takes to be the smartest person in the chat room. Check this out."
Nice slide presentation. Proves nothing. A fractional scale prototype is a LONG way in engineering and time from a functional full-scale plant. And yes, Virginia, I am WELL-versed in how long it takes to bring a major-scale project from R&D to full fruition. It will be take on the order of 10-15 YEARS or longer to get there.
And no, I'm NOT misinformed. I've been following the "alternative energy" biz since the FIRST energy crunch back in Jimmah Cahtah's adminstration.
Totally ignorant comments, proving your inanity. The Manhattan Project does not "glow in the dark". And the Hoover Dam was built with KNOWN TECHNOLOGY.
"I guess that you know more than those engineers and the U.S. Navy with the near full scale demonstrator. You have a marvelous ability to discern engineering efficacy based a cursory look at some photos. Just where do you work, the Post Office? Your remark is a cheap shot at some one else's hard work from your easy chair."
Excuse me, but that dinky little pinwheel is in no way near a "nearly full scale prototype". And I'm not talking about "judging engineering efficacy...based on a few photographs". I know how hard underwater engineering and construction is, and the unanwered questions that have yet to be solved. See the construction of any off-shore drilling platform for examples. And that ignores the KEY problem---how do you get the power from the generators to shore to population centers. There is this little thing called "transmission losses" that you are ignoring. And no, you can't use "superconducting wires"--because THEY aren't feasible technology.
"The track record of geothermal plants, which have for decades produced reliable, inexpensive electricity simply cannot today be matched by a breeder reactor."
I say for the third time---geothermal is limited in magnitude and availability. Sure, a few dinky plants have been built and operated. Now, with that track record of success, WHY HASN'T THE TECHNOLOGY BEEN MASSIVELY SCALED UP?? Because geothermal is limited in magnitude and availablity. It's that little "transmission losses" problem again. Availabe geothermal sites are located, for the most part, at great distances from population centers.
"You will have your hands full getting Yucca Flats operational, a major prerequisite for expanded nuclear. I suggest you get crackin' and remember - I support you and I've got your back. Because three billion dollars (the cost of Yucca to date) is a terrible thing to waste."
Again, your ignorance shines through with a blinding light. The reason Yucca Flats is behind schedule and over budget is not because of any engineering factors, but because the eco-nutcases have followed their usual tactics of "delay, delay, and delay" by filing lawsuit after lawsuit and lobbying for changes in design based on imaginary scenarios. It's a tactic they have used successfully to prevent the implementation of "all things nuclear" for the last thirty years.
promulgated by the Greens at the behest of their allies in the now-defunct USSRAnd even though the USSR is defunct, the Greens soldier on in the commie war against the west.
That they do.
As to power transmission issues, the power from the Hoover Dam goes not to Las Vegas, but to Los Angeles. Hmm, I wonder why?
Geothermal supplies over 1 gigawatt of capacity. The largest dry steam field in the world is The Geysers, about 90 miles (145 km) north of San Francisco began in 1960 which has 1360 MW of installed capacity and produces about 1000 MW net. Calpine Corporation now owns 19 of the 21 plants in The Geysers and is currently the United States' largest producer of renewable geothermal energy. The other two plants are owned jointly by the Northern California Power Agency and Santa Clara Electric. Since the activities of one geothermal plant affects those nearby, the consolidation plant ownership at The Geysers has been beneficial because the plants operate cooperatively instead of in their own short-term interest. The Geysers is now recharged by injecting treated sewage effluent from the City of Santa Rosa and the Lake County sewage treatment plant. This sewage effluent used to be dumped into rivers and streams and is now piped to the geothermal field where it replenishes the steam produced for power generation.
Another major geothermal area is located in south central California, on the southeast side of the Salton Sea, near the cities of Niland and Calipatria, CA. As of 2001, there were 15 geothermal plants producing electricity in the area. CalEnergy owns about half of them and the rest are owned by various companies. Combined the plants produce about 570 megawatts.
The Basin and Range geologic province in Nevada, southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, Arizona and eastern Utah is now an area of rapid geothermal development. Several small power plants were built during the late 1980s during times of high power prices. Rising energy costs have spurred new development. Plants in Nevada at Steamboat near Reno, Brady/Desert Peak, Dixie Valley, Soda Lake, Stillwater and Beowawe now produce about 235 MW. New projects are under development across the state.
Could you explain to me how much power is now generated by Breeder reactors? How many new projects are under development in the United States?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.