Cold fusion ‘breakthrough’ heralds clean nuclear power

The Sunday Times (UK) ^ | March 03, 2002 | Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

[monocle]

This is the first time in forty years in the sciences that I heard fire called an acoustic process. Fire is an oxidation-reduction reaction. By definition nuclear reactions involve the nucleus of an atom. Mere potential is not the be all end all but is a measure of energy that can be brought to bear on the particle upon which one wishes to act. The potential is applied to accelerate and impart kinetic energy to the particle so overcome various forces opposing a reaction.

[RightWhale]

fire called an acoustic process

While not everyone does that, some physicists look at it that way.

[Ditto]

Ditto: you're familiar with the industry: anybody ever come up with some fairly serious proposals along this line, or is it just plain too complicated to consider?

Not that I have heard, but I have been away from the business for a while. I think the basic rule still applies. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But you can transmute it. We could create all the gold we wanted if we are willing to pay the price in energy to do that.

As to cold fusion, it will take more than an article in a newspaper to get me excited. My intuition is that it will never be that easy.

It was the press and an idiot Army general who coined the term "too cheep to meter" back in the fifties. Within the industry at that time, all the focus was not how to produce power, they already knew they could, but how to do it competitively. The efforts were focused on nitty-gritty engineering in materials sciences and fluid mechanics. They pretty much figured that all out with the Nautilus and then Shippingport.

Today, nuclear is cheaper than coal, but back in the 50s, they laughed at the BS out of the “popular science” media of nuclear powered everything. They knew that would never happen and never made claims that it could, but as is the case today, the media look from dramatic quotes to spice their product. What reporter would want a story on why a nuclear turbine would need to be low pressure as opposed to high pressure or the relative advantages of Inconel, Zercoly or SS305? That stuff is dull? Too cheep to meter is cool!

Just like a fusion plant, 90% of the development and infrastructure of any theoretical fusion plant would be virtually identical to the infrastructure of a fossil fired plant. There is not a free ride regardless of your fuel source.

Newton is still relevant.

[1L]

Bobby777 wrote "some have said the fusion reaction reaches 35 million degrees," while Willie Green said, "boil enough water to make a decent cup of coffee." You all know what happens next: McDonalds serves the 35 million degree cup of coffee and some lady spills it on herself and sues. All this techno stuff is just litigation looking for a place to happen!

[Willie Green]

Today, nuclear is cheaper than coal, but back in the 50s, they laughed at the BS out of the “popular science” media of nuclear powered everything.

Thanks. I've been doing a Google search on the Web to refresh my memory and found tons of stuff. It seems that nuclear fuel recycling or reprocessing research was quite active until Jimmy Carter killed it due to "fears" over proliferation. Then, even though Reagan lifted the ban, the industry hasn't pursued it since the virgin-fuel itself is so cheap. So it seems that all the high-level "waste" (spent fuel) to be eventually buried at Yucca mountain could actually be recycled NOW if we want! (Please correct me if this rings a bell and you know different.)

Also came across what looks like another promising technology: The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR)
Needless to say, its another one that the dunderhead Congress killed when it was on the verge of demonstrating successful operation.

[henbane]

Name one technology (other than fission, which doesn't count because it was war time) that govt. dollars brought to fruition and was also cost-effective?

Duck Tape

[Ditto]

So it seems that all the high-level "waste" (spent fuel) to be eventually buried at Yucca mountain could actually be recycled NOW if we want! (Please correct me if this rings a bell and you know different.)

There are no technoligical peoblems. France, Japan and the UK are doing it. For power reactors, it is really a matter of economics. Uranium prices are so low now that it is cheaper to make new than to recycle the old. That could change, but that is the market now.

That does not address the issue of weapons grade stuff which never comes from or is used in a power reactor. Some sort of recycle is necessary to make it 'non weapons grade' but the Luddites won't listen to logic. Nunn -Luger was supposed buy a lot of the Russian weapons grade stuff that bin Laden & Co. have been trying to get and use a recylicing process to turn it into a power reactor fuel to eliminate it. I don't where the issue stands now, but the last I heard, the Luddites didn't want any part of it. I guess they just want it laying around so Osama or Saddam can have their chance at greatness.

[Willie Green]

Uranium prices are so low now that it is cheaper to make new than to recycle the old.

Question about the "spent" fuel rods:

I know they still remain "hot" for many months when they're removed from the reactor and placed in 'temporary' holding tanks.

Is the heat that's given off in those holding tanks used for anything?

Can a reactor be designed to use the "spent" fuel-rods as-is?
(Yeah, I know it would be far less efficient than a "real" reactor.
But what the heck, heat is still heat!)

[Ditto]

Is the heat that's given off in those holding tanks used for anything?

Not really. It is called residual or decay heat from the short-lived fission products. It is not hot enough to produce usefull energy.

[Willie Green]

Thanks, I wasn't sure how hot the "spent" fuel got.
It was my understanding that's one of the design concerns they had for storage of so many of them at Yucca mountain. Not that they'd actually start a reaction, just that it made the chambers too hot to access in the future. (Seems to me, they ARE relying somewhat on the heat to keep the chambers bone dry in case of groundwater leakage.)

I just thought that maybe they could bunch the "spent" rods a little closer together to squeeze whatever excess, residual heat they could out of 'em, then run the liquid through some kind of heat exchanger / heat pump and use it for something.

Oh well, I'm sure that's already been looked at thoroughly.

[chilepepper]

SAW devices (surface acoustic wave) devices have been around for a while now. It is fitting that they have reached the molecular level: this is nano-technology arriving early, from an unexpected direction...

Damn I hope the report is true!

[longshadow]

Don't laugh at the contributions of "Plato the Platypus." This is a documentary about one of our early projects: Disney's Flubber.

I should have known.....

[Willie Green]

You know darn well if in the course of this scientific research that if the experiments show that there is excess energy, that the apparatus may be indeed designed in such a way to boil enough water for your cup of coffee.

Yes, I know that darn well.

I also read the darn article:

The scientists are, however, extremely cautious at this stage, saying only that they have detected all the signs of fusion rather than categorically confirming it.

When the darn scientists have the darn gonads to actually call it fusion, and boil enough darn water to make me a darn cup of coffee, then I'll be darn impressed!

[woodsman]

My dream is commercialy available fusion power in my lifetime so I can see the Middle East turn back into an economic backwater.

Amen to that! It's not only my drean, it's the subject of prayers.

[Willie Green]

Just a strong, pro-nuclear advocate of currently available technology.
Research is nice, especially when practical results are close at hand.
The farther out on the horizon, I become less enthralled with "breakthroughs".

Something that's 30-50 years away (maybe) doesn't thrill me much.
Odds are I'll never see it.