|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Nuclear fusion - 7/19/2008 10:03:11 PM
|
|
|
mikeman2
Posts: 280
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
And now for something completly different. No more evolution vs. ID vs. Creationism vs. old earth vs. new earth, vs. new/old earth etc etc. 
Instead, my question revolves around nuclear fusion. 
The race is now on to find alternative viable energy sources for obvious reasons. A wide majority of our ills are caused because of dependence on foreign oil and we are getting sicker and sicker by the day. We have made oil producing countries that hate us rich as they turn right around and use that money to fight us just like Ben Ladin. We are going bankrupt as we have spent trillions of dollars by going over to these oil rich countries to protect our oil reserves. In addition, OPEC has the Western powers held hostage by controlling oil prices daily. Therefore, we need a change and FAST!!
So who here knows much about nuclear fusion? From what I hear, it is an extremly safe form of energy. Unlike its cousin, which is nuclear fission, there is no chance of a melt down or explosion and no radioactive waste to boot. On the down side, however, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce and to continue, therefore, as of yet it is not economically feasible as a viable alternative energy.
Assuming I have my facts straight, who here thinks that nuclear fusion can be a viable alternative to our energy needs in the forseeable future and why?
_____________________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
-Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 12:42:52 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Nuclear Fission is not as dangerous as you have been lead to believe. France is very dependent on nuclear energy already. It is the only base-line energy source that we KNOW will be safe, reliable, and will have almost no impact on the environment. Fusion sounds promising, but fission is something we know can benefit us now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 10:06:38 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 280
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Nuclear Fission is not as dangerous as you have been lead to believe. France is very dependent on nuclear energy already. It is the only base-line energy source that we KNOW will be safe, reliable, and will have almost no impact on the environment. Fusion sounds promising, but fission is something we know can benefit us now.
It is true that nuclear fission is now a relatively safe method of generating electricity.
However, the waste it generates will be radioactive for many, many generations into the future. How do you feel about being part of the handful of generations in the 20th/21st centuries which:
* used all the oil, coal, gas, etc
* (probably) contributed to increasing the global temperature
* polluted large tracts of land with nuclear waste (whether stored or--Chernobyl--released), for hundreds of generations to come?
Is that good stewardship of the Earth? I think not.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 11:48:07 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
Assuming I have my facts straight, who here thinks that nuclear fusion can be a viable alternative to our energy needs in the forseeable future and why?
Fusion research has not produced much success. I think even the best research programs are producing fusion barely at the breakeven point (i.e. they're putting as much energy into the system as they're getting out), and even that is only for a few seconds. In any event, wiki states that "no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050." That might be a tiny bit pessimistic, but fusion as a significant contributor to our energy requirements won't happen til the latter half of this century.
I share DanJames' enthusiasm for fission, and I share ianz' concern about spent fuel/nuclear waste. Reprocessing 'waste' as fuel can help reduce the waste, but waste is a significant problem.
Personally, I think solar is truly beginning to come into its own. Solar probably could never support current levels of American energy usage, but I think as oil/gas get more rare and more expensive, we will be forced to make do with less energy - and in that scenario, solar power could well support a large fraction of our needs in a sustainable manner.
Sadly, in both fusion and solar, the US is trailing in technology. The US originally was part of the international partnership behind ITER, to be built in France, but the US budget for ITER was eliminated in the FY2008 budget. And Germany is the undisputed leader in solar technology (though even there, solar only provides about 1% of their energy needs), due to years of strong government incentives. The US had similar solar incentives back during the 70's oil crisis, but as soon as oil was cheap and plentiful again, we gave up on investing in that future.
I made some bets on the stock market in favor of solar power - the situation is so volatile that I don't really advise it unless you look into it a lot more. I'm still winning, but it's fluctuated between +40% to about -10% just in the last six months. If you hop on at the wrong time, it could be ugly.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 7:17:57 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, the waste it generates will be radioactive for many, many generations into the future. How do you feel about being part of the handful of generations in the 20th/21st centuries which:
* used all the oil, coal, gas, etc
* (probably) contributed to increasing the global temperature
* polluted large tracts of land with nuclear waste (whether stored or--Chernobyl--released), for hundreds of generations to come?
There is a natural consequence of an isotope with a very long half-life.. it isn't very dangerous to stand next to. I mean that elements such as U-238 and U-236 that have half-lives of many human generations are very safe to be around. On the other hand, Rn-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days and is very dangerous to be around.
What I'm expressing is that there is a curve half-life / risk curve that cannot be understood abstractly. The very short half-life isotopes are very dangerous for a short amount of time. The very long half-life isotopes are not dangerous from the perspective of radiation danger.
Additionally, the isotopes of uranium already exist on our planet and have even created at least one natural fission reactor.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 9:57:35 PM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
We already get a great deal of energy from nuclear fusion. The Sun is a fusion reactor... located at a "safe" distance. It is prebuilt and free. There is a cost in building the equipment and collecting the energy into forms we find useful.
Arguably even fossil fuels are a result of fusion. Light from Sun, grows plants (a long time ago) the plants die and form coal, oil, and natural gas.
Also arguably everything else we have is a result of fusion reactors. A very very long time ago but after the big bang, hydrogen was "burned" to helium, helium to carbon, carbon to iron, then the reactors went super-nova and the other elements were "forged". This "star stuff" is what the earth and the other planets (indeed anything heavier than hydrogen) is made of.
Fusion research has been going on in the US for about 50 years. Billions have been spent and billions more will be spent. The potential payoff is so great that, I think, it is worth it.
About ten years ago we did the ultrasound bubble experiment in my Physics lab. Look up "sonoluminescence". We got the light but no radioactivity. We used plain water not "deuterated acetone."
A couple of years ago we had a Physics Club field trip to Princeton Plasma Physics Lab which was a lot of fun and very interesting. Even got to climb inside one of their tokamaks (the TFTR). One of my students did a summer internship there and now works there on plasma rocket engines. Very fun and interesting stuff.
I think that ultimately we are going to have to go to fission and then, hopefully, fusion reactors. It is a shame that they are so potentially deadly. Both produce a lot of radioactive waste. Fusion should produce less than fission though.
As far as radioactivity goes... there is quite a lot of it going on all the time. Ever played with a geiger counter or cloud chamber? The "naturally occuring" radioactivity gets to be big problem when it is concentrated. Uranium, radium, and radon gas are all naturally occuring. There are significant problems with radon in peoples homes in many parts of the country. There are also quite a lot of natural minerals that may contain higher concentrations of uranium. One should avoid being to close to those minerals for extended periods of time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 11:34:46 PM
|
|
|
mikeman2
Posts: 280
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Personally, I think solar is truly beginning to come into its own. Solar probably could never support current levels of American energy usage, but I think as oil/gas get more rare and more expensive, we will be forced to make do with less energy - and in that scenario, solar power could well support a large fraction of our needs in a sustainable manner.
quote:
But I hear solar is also harmful to the evironment. Specifically, developing the solar panels is problamatic in that it pollutes the environment. Couple that with the fact that it will NEVER support the levels of energy consumption in the world today and you wind up wth a somewhat bleak outlook for its future, I would think. Of course, the answer may not reside in one technology, rather, it probably will be a combination of technologies. For example, use some of those bird killing wind mills and polluting solar panels and toxic waste producing nuclear plants in combination together should do the trick!!
_____________________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
-Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 11:36:46 PM
|
|
|
mikeman2
Posts: 280
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of anti-matter being used as a potential fuel source?
_____________________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
-Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 11:47:47 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
But I hear solar is also harmful to the evironment. Specifically, developing the solar panels is problamatic in that it pollutes the environment.
This is true. In a few more years, we'll be better able to see what the trade-offs are.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/20/2008 11:50:19 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of anti-matter being used as a potential fuel source?
Matter/Antimatter would be the most efficient way to use E=mc^2 to get energy. Sadly, antimatter isn't just sitting around somewhere to be mined. Creating it would take more energy than we'd get out of it.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 1:56:33 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of anti-matter being used as a potential fuel source?
Only in star-trek episodes. This dove-tails into the question of "Why is there more normal matter than anti-matter in the universe?"
Theorists have a few ideas, but they are beyond my understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 4:36:46 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
But I hear solar is also harmful to the evironment. Specifically, developing the solar panels is problamatic in that it pollutes the environment.
This is true. In a few more years, we'll be better able to see what the trade-offs are.
What are the specific ways that manufacturing solar panels pollutes the environment? Would these still exist to the same extent when solar energy is used in the manufacturing of solar panels? What about newer forms of capturing solar energy such as thin film solar cells?
And what about other renewable energy sources? Are there pollution problems with them too, and can they be overcome as we move from fossil fuels to the clean energies themselves as the source of energy to produce them e.g. would using wind energy to make wind turbines be as problematic as using fossil fuels to make wind turbines?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 5:14:18 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 280
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
But I hear solar is also harmful to the evironment. Specifically, developing the solar panels is problamatic in that it pollutes the environment.
This is true. In a few more years, we'll be better able to see what the trade-offs are.
There's a pretty simple solution to all this.
Use less energy.
Regards, Ian
PS I should add - I realise it's not as simple as just reducing energy consumption. But a heck of a lot could be saved through more efficient use.
< Message edited by ianz -- 7/21/2008 5:20:40 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 8:55:44 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
Not sure how true this is, I din't delve into the issue that much... but check this out.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Can someone with more knowledge in the field verify this?
That is not a well written article, especially the headline, if it is meant to inform the reader. SciAm used to be better than that (sigh). Unfortunately it leaves you reacting to the headline with the impression that somehow coal ash (fly ash) is more radioactive, pound for pound, than spent nuclear fuel. This is not true.
Read through the article and read some of the comments (scroll down) to the article on the link you gave.
The article itself is not all that bad but I think it could have been better written and made people more informed on the issues rather than misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 10:09:16 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
What are the specific ways that manufacturing solar panels pollutes the environment? Would these still exist to the same extent when solar energy is used in the manufacturing of solar panels? What about newer forms of capturing solar energy such as thin film solar cells?
Most of the manufacturing processes are similar to processes in the semiconductor industry, and use many of the same toxic chemicals (e.g. Silicon tetrachloride). At least one supplier uses cadmium in the panels themselves, so that they present a disposal/recycling problem.
Other solar methods, like using mirrors to heat an ionic liquid, may suffer from this less, but it's not something people can have on their roof.
quote:
And what about other renewable energy sources? Are there pollution problems with them too, and can they be overcome as we move from fossil fuels to the clean energies themselves as the source of energy to produce them e.g. would using wind energy to make wind turbines be as problematic as using fossil fuels to make wind turbines?
Since both wind turbines and solar cells can last a long time (but not forever) I'm not too worried about the energy that goes into their production. I'm sure they must 'pay for' themselves in that respect. But if we pave the Mojave with solar cells, chemical waste is going to be a headache. Hydroelectric and geothermal are pretty clean. But these depend a lot on geography. If you're Iceland, you can get a lot (more than 25% of their electricity) of energy from geothermal, but it helps that the island is practically a big volcano.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 10:24:27 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
What are the specific ways that manufacturing solar panels pollutes the environment? Would these still exist to the same extent when solar energy is used in the manufacturing of solar panels? What about newer forms of capturing solar energy such as thin film solar cells?
Most of the manufacturing processes are similar to processes in the semiconductor industry, and use many of the same toxic chemicals (e.g. Silicon tetrachloride). At least one supplier uses cadmium in the panels themselves, so that they present a disposal/recycling problem.
Other solar methods, like using mirrors to heat an ionic liquid, may suffer from this less, but it's not something people can have on their roof.
quote:
And what about other renewable energy sources? Are there pollution problems with them too, and can they be overcome as we move from fossil fuels to the clean energies themselves as the source of energy to produce them e.g. would using wind energy to make wind turbines be as problematic as using fossil fuels to make wind turbines?
Since both wind turbines and solar cells can last a long time (but not forever) I'm not too worried about the energy that goes into their production. I'm sure they must 'pay for' themselves in that respect. But if we pave the Mojave with solar cells, chemical waste is going to be a headache. Hydroelectric and geothermal are pretty clean. But these depend a lot on geography. If you're Iceland, you can get a lot (more than 25% of their electricity) of energy from geothermal, but it helps that the island is practically a big volcano.
Thanks. If I understand this, the chemical waste associated with solar panels poses a problem similar to the nuclear waste from fission.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 12:50:54 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
We have the technology to make hydrogen peroxide powered cars. Hydrogen peroxide "burns" clean. What are the pros and cons of this?
My guess is that, like with antimatter, the problem with hydrogen peroxide is that it doesn't grow on trees, or bubble out of the ground. Oil already has energy content locked in it, so when we burn it we get the energy out. It's a free lunch, as long as the all-you-can-eat buffet lasts.
Hydrogen peroxide has to be manufactured, so we would have to put the energy in, before we could get it out. So there's no real gain.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 1:27:24 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Embedded
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
Not sure how true this is, I din't delve into the issue that much... but check this out.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Can someone with more knowledge in the field verify this?
That is not a well written article, especially the headline, if it is meant to inform the reader. SciAm used to be better than that (sigh). Unfortunately it leaves you reacting to the headline with the impression that somehow coal ash (fly ash) is more radioactive, pound for pound, than spent nuclear fuel. This is not true.
Read through the article and read some of the comments (scroll down) to the article on the link you gave.
The article itself is not all that bad but I think it could have been better written and made people more informed on the issues rather than misinformed.
Is coal more radioactive than nuclear fuel pound-for-pound? No. But easily more radioactive per-kilowatt hour.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 5:41:35 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Nuclear Fission is not as dangerous as you have been lead to believe. France is very dependent on nuclear energy already. It is the only base-line energy source that we KNOW will be safe, reliable, and will have almost no impact on the environment. Fusion sounds promising, but fission is something we know can benefit us now.
It is true that nuclear fission is now a relatively safe method of generating electricity.
However, the waste it generates will be radioactive for many, many generations into the future. How do you feel about being part of the handful of generations in the 20th/21st centuries which:
* used all the oil, coal, gas, etc
* (probably) contributed to increasing the global temperature
* polluted large tracts of land with nuclear waste (whether stored or--Chernobyl--released), for hundreds of generations to come?
Is that good stewardship of the Earth? I think not.
Regards, Ian
1: We will never use up all the oil or coal on the planet. We continue to find more and more sources of oil as the days go by. Presently, the United States is the most oil-rich country on the planet.
2: Probably not
3:We aren't polluting large tracts of land, the waste can be stored in fortresses, transported by vehicles that are themselves fortresses. If by "hundreds of generations to come" they still haven't found something productive to do with it, then they deserve it.
I'd say stewardship is not the issue. If you were worried about stewardship, why wouldn't you be all for nuclear energy since it is by far the cleanest most bountiful source of baseline energy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 6:02:56 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Presently, the United States is the most oil-rich country on the planet.
Not if we're counting proven reserves. Proven reserves and oil production have both decreased in the US over the last 35 years.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 6:25:46 PM
|
|
|
Fireborn
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/20/2005
Status: offline
|
As for fusion, I think almost everything has been said already. It may not be immediately useable, but in the long term, it is a much more appealing option. Fission only has an optimistic fuel reserve of about a few centuries. From what I know, there is also supposed to be some method of obtaining more fissionable material from a virtually inexhaustible supply of granitic rock, but there are a multitude of problems surrounding the extraction of the fissionable parts. However, fusing deuterium alone, even moderating the prediction with low efficiency and such, has a supply to allow roughly 1,000,000,000 years of energy production. Obviously these are very rough figures, but that looks promising to me. Fusion doesn't produce any radioactive waste in the process itself, but that doesn't mean that preparing the fuels or feeding the process won't involve radioactive materials.
Currently, we still have major problems in the containment of the plasma and getting the ignition to occur. I'm not sure how muon-catalyzed fusion is coming along, but that seems another interesting avenue as well, as it doesn't require temperatures several orders of magnitude greater than the surface of the sun.
Has anyone investigated marine current turbines, i.e. the tidal turbine engines? They operate just like wind generators, except they are placed in the seabed or under a strong-current river. Since the density of water is 1,000 times the density of air, with good velocities, tidal turbines get far more theoretical (and, now, experimentally demonstrated) power than wind generators with smaller diameters.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Nuclear fusion - 7/21/2008 8:45:47 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
People even made dragsters with hydrogen peroxide
It's also been used to fuel torpedos. IIRC, an H2O2 explosion is what's thought to have sunk the Kursk.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
