Nuclear fusion site gets greenlight

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by pinto32, Jun 28, 2005.

  1. pinto32 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    PA
    #1
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8385911/

    The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, is intended to show that nuclear fusion, which harnesses the same energy that heats the sun to generate electricity, can wean the world off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion also produces no greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists tie to global warming, and only low levels of radioactive waste.
     
  2. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #2
    Fussion is a lofty and noble dream, I hope it comes true.

    Meanwhile....why not MHD a proven and readily available, fairly clean use of coal?

    Liquid Metal version I thought one was operational in Israel maybe, using solar collectors to vaporize mercury, then it cools and re-enters the cycle again (closed system).
    Anyway there are plenty of other useful technologies that need to be actually used, with much smaller investments they may be large scale by the time this plant goes on line.
     
  3. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #3
    Sustainable fusion has been a Holy Grail of sorts. I think it will eventually happen, but its going to be a long time before we see Fusion plants pumping out electricity for the masses....

    D
     
  4. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #4
    Nuclear fusion will become a reality in my lifetime, but on the downside, my grandchildren will have 3 eyes.
     
  5. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #5
    I thought "More is Better" was the american mantra! Heck why stop at 3!
     
  6. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #6
    How about this 'green' light?

    It aint just for smokin' ya' know ...

    FCDA report summary:
    http://www.ccguide.org.uk/cbee.php

    It is calculated that only 6 per cent of the agricultural land area of the contiguous United States would now produce more than sufficient Cannabis Biomass to supply all current demand for gasoline, diesel and oil for that energy-voracious country.

    Related links:
    http://www.ccguide.org.uk/forfuel.php
    http://www.hempevolution.org/ecology/ecology.htm

    leave nuclear fusion for the sun ... why recreate what is already here???


    peace | neut
     
  7. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #7
    But then you'd have all the oil companies calling foul.....and with the future price of gas estimated to be over $3 a gallon next year, they're perfectly happy with the way things are going :D

    D
     
  8. michaelrjohnson macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Location:
    54140
    #8
    This is a very exciting prospect for future energy alternatives. I'm very interested to see if this thing fires up in 2015 as scheduled.

    But how about today? We need to start reducing environmentally harmful energy byproducts *yesterday*. What do we do in the meantime?
     
  9. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #9
    "We the people", eh? ;)

    Bite the hand that feeds


    See post #6.

    It could happen now if we wanted it to ... Canada's well on their way. If the US reaches the logical end then cannabis well be freed throughout North America. :)

    the list of more than 500 economists who've signed an open letter asking our Drug War-addled politicians to stop the prohibition of marijuana and instead legalize it...


    peace | neut
     
  10. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #10
    Ah, the lengths that potheads will go to get weed more easily. Tell them that this reactor is a marijuana-enhancement factory and fusion will be perfected within weeks! :D
     
  11. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #11
    I have to say, i'm warming up to nuclear power, it's definitely not the best choice but it's much better than the current methods, and the risks are less as well. No one wants another chernobyl, but on the other hand, I don't want the whole world to be an ecological disaster because of greenhouse gasses.

    We will never see legalized cannabis in America. Are we being confused with forward-thinkers again? :rolleyes: :D
     
  12. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #12
    nuclear fusion is the answer to earthly power troubles only if we can figure out how to pull it off. The problem with is is that it requires loads of energy to get started. One way to do it is to compress some hydrogen.. This would be pretty easy if it were not for the fact that when fusion occures it produces energy that means it becomes harder to compress, fusion resists compression. The whole reason the sun burns is because the son compresses the hydrogen with its gravity that never stops.

    What means do they have to overcome this problem?
     
  13. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #13
    :)

    Just showing an alternative. Getting pot isn't a problem. California produces more pot than all of Canada combined; 85% of Canada's crop is consumed by the US.

    Seeing how easy it is to convert ... i would think it the natural choice when faced with an energy decision. How much materials, time, money does it take to develop and deploy nuclear fusion to the masses as as opposed to converting to an extremely plentiful and resilient plant? The 'technology' to convert is already here. The only 'people' that really have to change are the oil and textile companies. The masses will see almost no difference in the products (fuel, food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and most processes would require little or no conversion to take advantage of the new fuels and fibers.

    Giving the go ahead on nuclear fusion when we can't even feed and shelter ourselves nor do we remember how to make fire.

    Don't you think the dawn of the age of plastic was enough?


    peace | neut
     
  14. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    With luck, there will be electricity production by 2050, maybe 2080.
     
  15. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #15
    ITER costs 13 billion. The current cost of the Iraq war is 180 billion (I think only for USA).

    Correction: Irak cost is 208 billion.
     
  16. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #16
    Pot makes Canada 7B a year ... and it's currently NOT a very competetive. The income (even untaxed) would be huge if the market were open. Regaurdless of the financial benifits ... social and health benefits would inccur as well.


    peace | neut
     
  17. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #17
    I thought this thread was about nuclear fusion, not whether pot is profitable... :confused:

    :D
     
  18. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #18
    Pot still profitable. Wholesale prices for pot by the pound sells for about $1500 CDN.
     
  19. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #19
    ... and at least double that amount when you hit the border.

    *Sorry for crashing this thread, but moving towards nuclear fusion as mass power is just ****ing retarded with all this virtually free and ready to be consumed energy found all around us.

    This is just an alt. counter-point to the originally linked article.

    Oh, and that $7B that Canada makes off mary j. is actually just the amount cited by Forbes magazine for British Columbia. It exceeds the Canadian cattle industry. :)

    Pot doesn't meltdown or blow anything up either ...

    The AAAS estimated that each fusion reactor could release up to 2x1012 Bequerels of tritium a day during operation through routine leaks, assuming the best containment systems, much more in a year than the Three Mile Island accident released altogether. An accident would release even more. This is one reason why long-term hopes are for the deuterium-deuterium fusion process, dispensing with tritium.
    World Nuclear Association

    Safer than fission? Yeah right ... **go **** yourself nuclear freaks.


    peace | neut

    **not directed at anyone here
     
  20. barneygumble macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    #21
    Yeah brain cells don't count anyway, who needs em :rolleyes:
     
  21. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #22
    If that's your view than you should stop breathing ... drinking beer ... holding your breath ... driving ... don't even think about approaching a city ... and turn off your TV.

    I guess you really don't use your brain cells that much with a well educated comment like that. Sure ... i can't do brain surgery stoned; but then again im not a brain surgeon. Do i want my brain surgeon smoking pot? Sure, if he's the type of person that gains concentration from it. The amount brain cells you lose with each hit are easily regenerated (you need to actually use them in the first place though) and the amount of mental freedom you gain more than compensates.

    Now alcohol consumption ... now there's a real brain cell killer. "Hey everybody let's ingest poison and do things that we'll regret tomorrow (if we're lucky enough to remember)". Has alcohol ever opened you mind to new ways of thinking? Hey it's legal ya' know. :rolleyes:

    ... and anyways, who said anything about smoking it? I thought this thread was about future energies and that Fusion seems to be the new savior for our greed consumer needs ... ;)

    Fusion is only being granted because the people are too lazy to change, 'someone else' is doing all the hard work and a bunch of nuclear engineers want to keep the funding flowing.

    If people would stop thinking about hurrying home to catch that newest TV show, going shopping to get the latest product, or keeping themselves busy so they 'won't have to think about it' we'd be well on our way to a more organic and healthier way of life.

    Would you rather open your third eye through natural plants or through nuclear radiation? The sun (of god ... if you wish) gives us life everyday; why try to recreate and contain that here on eath when we have more than enough to last us forever if we use it correctly.

    With every generation we get closer and closer to having to deal with past generations errors of greed. Why make it any worse than it already is? Don't we already have enough **** already??? *Take a look at your local dump sometime.


    Humans need to stop being stupid and start living their lives like they want be here ... but if your ready to go; by all means. ;)

    mikeyredk- thanks for the link. :)

    *i think i've scared off the original poster :eek: ... sorry, it's just that i take our lives seriously; maybe i need to lighten up. :(


    peace | neut
     
  22. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #23
    Breeder reactors. Pure and simple.

    http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors.htm

    ____________________________________

    This type of reactor, called a Breeder Reactor, actually produces more fuel than it consumes. A reactor designed to use a mixed Plutonium fuel is basically the same as the Uranium reactor we have already discussed. However, the neutrons that sustain the reaction contain more energy - they are commonly known as "fast" neutrons.

    In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity.

    At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years!

    Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese. So why not the United States?

    We invented the technology but then made a political decision back in 1977 that has accomplished nothing but to create immense piles of long-lived, highly radioactive material that we cannot use for anything, and worse - we must safely store for more than its half-life of 25,000 years.

    The first thing we need is to identify the location and related technology that can safely isolate thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel for 25,000 years - which is a longer time than all of recorded human history. Will our descendents 25,000 years from now even be able to read a sign that says: "Keep Out!"

    The scientists - not the ones who made the stupid 1977 decision - but the ones who have to carry it out, have solved part of the problem. Researchers have developed a glass strengthened with a boron complex that appears able to withstand at least 10,000 years of abrasion with little erosion. For now, they encase the nuclear "waste" in borated glass beads, and then embed these in hardened concrete inside steel drums, and store them in pools of water.

    The United States has several thousand of these drums just waiting for the politicians to decide into which hole in the ground they will eventually be moved.

    It is tempting to believe that our society will progress sufficiently that one day it will finally decide to make practical use of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, our scientists did a pretty good job with the borated glass and concrete encapsulation. It may turn out to be cheaper to refine new nuclear fuel than to undo what we have created.

    The final irony is that there is a much better way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel if we really don't want to keep it around. We tend to think of the solid earth as just that, although anybody San Francisco or Los Angeles can tell you that it just isn't so.

    Our planet's crust consists of a multitude of individual large pieces called tectonic plates. These plates are constantly moving around the surface of the planet, jostling and rubbing one another, and sliding over and under each other. For example, when the plate upon which the Indian sub-continent rests bumped into the Asian plate, the resultant crumpling formed the Himalayan mountain chain. The Western Pacific plate slides under the Asian plate, forming the Marianas Trench, the deepest spot in the ocean. These forces are enormous, surpassing by orders of magnitude anything else on this planet.

    As one plate subducts under another, the entire plate edge is forced deep into the bowels of the Earth where it, and everything on and in it, is totally transformed into the stuff that makes up the Earth's mantle. This transformation results from tremendous pressure and from heat, caused in part by the pressure and by radioactive substances contained within the Earth. The Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific is nearly 36,000 feet deep, over seven miles of water.

    If we were to drop the thousands of borated glass encased drums of so-called nuclear waste into the Challenger Deep or some other fast-moving subduction zone, within a few hundreds or thousands of years the material would be pulled deep within the Earth's interior where it would be completely and utterly dissipated and destroyed.

    If there is one long-term "lesson learned" from the recent span of history that includes the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm, and our current war against terrorists, it is that the United States must become energy independent.

    We have a staggering nuclear waste problem created by a political decision that we could solve simply by reversing that original decision. We also have a perfectly viable way or resurrecting clean and safe nuclear power simply by making the political decision to develop it.

    There is no compelling reason to delay shifting our dependence from fossil to nuclear fuel, and redirecting our nuclear focus to Breeder Reactors. We have the ability to control our own energy destiny if we only have the courage to renounce past executive errors and to embrace viable new technologies.
     
  23. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #24
    No, but burning anything releases hydrocarbons and other not-so nice things into the air. There are downsides to every energy source, we just have to find the right combination of all of them to have the least impact possible.
     
  24. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #25
    w00t!

    Fast breeders rock.
    Pebble Bed Reactors rock.

    If I Ran The Zoo, after 9/11 the US would have been building dozens of the beasts.
     

Share This Page