Safe Enviromentally Friendly Energy ?

[Buddhas Hand]

Fusion power is the power generated by nuclear fusion processes. In fusion reactions two light atomic nuclei fuse together to form a heavier nucleus (in contrast with fission power). In doing so they release a comparatively large amount of energy arising from the binding energy due to the strong nuclear force which is manifested as an increase in temperature of the reactants. Fusion power is a primary area of research in plasma physics.

The term is commonly used to refer to potential commercial production of net usable power from a fusion source, similar to the usage of the term "steam power." The leading designs for controlled fusion research use magnetic (tokamak design) or inertial (laser) confinement of a plasma, with heat from the fusion reactions used to operate a steam turbine which in turn drives electrical generators, similar to the process used in fossil fuel and nuclear fission power stations.

As of July 2010^[update], the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec. Its successor, ITER, was officially announced as part of a seven-country consortium.^[1] ITER is designed to produce ten times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma. ITER is currently under construction in Cadarache, France.

Inertial (laser) confinement, which was for a time seen as more difficult or infeasible, has generally seen less development effort than magnetic approaches. However, this approach made a comeback following further innovations, and is being developed at both the United States National Ignition Facility as well as the planned European Union High Power laser Energy Research (HiPER) facility. NIF reached initial operational status in 2010 and has been in the process of increasing the power and energy of its "shots". Fusion ignition tests are to follow.^[2]

Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production is still believed to be unlikely before 2050

Fusion power would provide much more energy for a given weight of fuel than any technology currently in use,^[43] and the fuel itself (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth's ocean: about 1 in 6500 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.^[44] Although this may seem a low proportion (about 0.015%), because nuclear fusion reactions are so much more energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, fusion could potentially supply the world's energy needs for millions of years.^[45][46]

Despite being technically non-renewable, fusion power has many of the benefits of renewable energy sources (such as being a long-term energy supply and emitting no greenhouse gases) as well as some of the benefits of the resource-limited energy sources as hydrocarbons and nuclear fission (without reprocessing). Like these currently dominant energy sources, fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery (due to the fact that it is not dependent on the weather, unlike wind and solar power).

Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built^{[citation needed]}.

Some problems which are expected to be an issue in this century such as fresh water shortages can alternatively be regarded as problems of energy supply. For example, in desalination plants, seawater can be purified through distillation or reverse osmosis. However, these processes are energy intensive. Even if the first fusion plants are not competitive with alternative sources, fusion could still become competitive if large-scale desalination requires more power than the alternatives are able to provide.

A scenario has been presented of the effect of the commercialization of fusion power on the future of human civilization.^[47] ITER and later Demo are envisioned to bring online the first commercial nuclear fusion energy reactor by 2050. Using this as the starting point and the history of the uptake of nuclear fission reactors as a guide, the scenario depicts a rapid take up of nuclear fusion energy starting after the middle of this century

There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease.

Fusion reactors are extremely safe in this sense, and it makes them favorable over fission reactors, which, in contrast, continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.

There is also no risk of a runaway reaction in a fusion reactor, since the plasma is normally burnt at optimal conditions, and any significant change will render it unable to produce excess heat. In fusion reactors the reaction process is so delicate that this level of safety is inherent; no elaborate failsafe mechanism is required. Although the plasma in a fusion power plant will have a volume of 1000 cubic meters or more, the density of the plasma is extremely low, and the total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small, typically a few grams. If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. In comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for one or several years, and no additional fuel is necessary to keep the reaction going.

In the magnetic approach, strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to "explode" outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident or an MRI machine quench/explosion, and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.

Most reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small, about 1 kg, that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant's perimeter fence.^[37]

The likelihood of small industrial accidents including the local release of radioactivity and injury to staff cannot be estimated yet. These would include accidental releases of lithium, tritium, or mis-handling of decommissioned radioactive components of the reactor itself

we as a world spend trillions on devising new ways to kill and then using those ways those ways to kill each other and yet a big part of our answer to sustainable enviromentally friendly energy does not seem to get a fraction of that spent on its research and development , what are our leaders doing ?

[BiginJapan]

This is an interesting read.

You ask why spend money on killing and devising ways to kill? Kick-backs, bribes, spreading manufacturing facilities over multiple states/provinces/etc., so that if a company loses a contract, a number of states suffer. The reasons go on and on.

Also, the attack on Iraq, for example, was only partially related to energy. It was also a strategical move. I think the reasons for starting wars are rarely black and white.

Finally, while we can run our houses and cars on electricity, how about trucks, ships and airplanes? Those suckers need something like the energy density that is currently only available in hydrocarbon-based fuels, though there are potential solutions to that problem as well, but not commercially available yet.

My two bits worth.

[Buddhas Hand]

This is an interesting read.

You ask why spend money on killing and devising ways to kill? Kick-backs, bribes, spreading manufacturing facilities over multiple states/provinces/etc., so that if a company loses a contract, a number of states suffer. The reasons go on and on.

Also, the attack on Iraq, for example, was only partially related to energy. It was also a strategical move. I think the reasons for starting wars are rarely black and white.

Finally, while we can run our houses and cars on electricity, how about trucks, ships and airplanes? Those suckers need something like the energy density that is currently only available in hydrocarbon-based fuels, though there are potential solutions to that problem as well, but not commercially available yet.

My two bits worth.

[Heretic]

It comes down to economics - right now Energy companies are making money on what we have - until they either start losing and/or until they can see that they can make money with fusion - it just won't happen.

[canucks since 77]

It's the current oil infrasructure in place that is holding energy advancement back. Why should they change when they have the world in a deathgrip that brings untold billions and power to its investors.

[taxi]

It's the current oil infrasructure in place that is holding energy advancement back. Why should they change when they have the world in a deathgrip that brings untold billions and power to its investors.

[Hobble]

The Tesseract!

[Buddhas Hand]

You guys really think this?

There is tons of reserach going into fusion power right now. We simply do not have the technology yet. I think you guys missed some extracts from the above:

IE they got less power out than they put in.

And from the portion of the wikipedia article, the OP chose to exclude.

In other words, fusion power gets about as much research money put into it as all other forms of energy research combined. It has nothing to do with the oil companies holding anything back. If anything the oil companies are in a race to come up with the techonology. The first person to patent it gets to single handedly eliminate the competition.

[canucks since 77]

i would have liked to post up the whole thing but i know the length of most people's atttention span so i picked out the parts that i thought would interest people .and it does not seem to worry anyone that we devote so much time , effort and money to killing ourselves rather than coming up with solutions to the problems our world faces .

[Ghostsof1915]

Oil is a finite resource. As is Natural Gas, and many other fossil fuels. The only clean renewable forms are currently, solar, wind, and tidal. Little research has been put into these, nor has there been a lot of work on developing better superconducting materials.

What is flawed is the 20th century vision of "security". Having tanks, aircraft carriers, etc. delude people into being safe. When the reality is for under the cost of one fighter jet, chemical and biological weapons and converted conventional transports can be made into weaponry. One could argue developing fusion would eliminate wealth from the Gulf, and other unstable areas that are rich in oil, which in itself probably provides more security. (No money, no guns)

In addition the folks that develop fusion power will probably be stinking filthy rich. You'd think that would lure people into investing into it.

[Buddhas Hand]

what i believe is wrong is the mentality that "might is right " and " if you want peace , prepare for war" . does anyone think things will change while we continue to think like this ?

[Sugar baby watermelon]

Archaelogists uncover unknown caves holding new energy form, DINOSAUR FARTS.