living sounds
Well-known member
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-fusion-power-closer-reality.html
Sounds pretty cool.
Sounds pretty cool.
"New design could finally help to bring fusion power closer to reality"
- Thread starter living sounds
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Andy Peters
Well-known member
living sounds said:
What about the shower of high-energy particles (neutrons) which are ejected from the fusion reaction?
> What about the shower....
Bring soap.
> What about the shower of high-energy particles (neutrons)
The near-field problem is the neutrons breaking-down metals (solids). This job cleverly surrounds the core with a liquid which absorbs many neutrons and can be constantly replaced.
I don't think the long-field problem is much different. You don't want this in your house basement.
Bring soap.
> What about the shower of high-energy particles (neutrons)
The near-field problem is the neutrons breaking-down metals (solids). This job cleverly surrounds the core with a liquid which absorbs many neutrons and can be constantly replaced.
I don't think the long-field problem is much different. You don't want this in your house basement.
They are excited about it as a research reactor so not Mr Fusion just yet.
JR
JR
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
If you're lucky, you could use it to generate more tritium and deuterium for your fusion reactor. By having it hit Lithium, for example.Andy Peters said:
living sounds
Well-known member
Yes, it is not there yet. But the prospect of having fusion power that is not prohibitively expensive in the not too distant future is exiting. Wind and solar are great, but they won't be much use the next time a supervolcano eurupts, or something with similar consequences happens.
It seems a little odd that the press is ready to throw solar and wind power under the bus for fusion. What is so special about fusion? I didn't know that wind and solar were temporary bridge technologies.
We have better fission processes than we currently use that are self quenching and do not support or generate weapons grade byproducts, but are progressing at a snail's pace to upgrade to the technology. Last I checked a couple years ago India was working on some reactors using the new improved energy cycle.
While my electric bill is already climbing because of clean coal (an oxymoron) I have read about another mismanaged new power plant from the same parent company (Southern). The new trend in nuke plants is to pre-fab modules that get final assembled at the nuke site to reduce the high on-site labor costs. Well the first modular nuclear plant is behind schedule and way over budget too. Just like our coal plant. :
If I were a cynic (and I am) I'd point to the common element, both projects are under Southern company, who seem lacking in basic management skills.. : I guess utilities where their profit is mostly determined by negotiating with their regulators don't need to practice normal business methods (we'll just get them to raise the rate.). My local electric utility is wrestling with regulators right now about raising the electric rates even higher to cover the over-runs, and the regulators are not accommodating but it is all academic. They already spent (lost) the money, so either they charge us more now, or borrow money that we have to pay interest on, and then pay back the principal later.
It seems like that horse is already out of the barn, and left the area at a gallop.
JR
PS: I've already listed my criticisms of heavily government subsidized wind and solar... How is the price of electricity in Germany these days? While Mississippi is trying to catch up with our "clean" coal fiasco.
We have better fission processes than we currently use that are self quenching and do not support or generate weapons grade byproducts, but are progressing at a snail's pace to upgrade to the technology. Last I checked a couple years ago India was working on some reactors using the new improved energy cycle.
While my electric bill is already climbing because of clean coal (an oxymoron) I have read about another mismanaged new power plant from the same parent company (Southern). The new trend in nuke plants is to pre-fab modules that get final assembled at the nuke site to reduce the high on-site labor costs. Well the first modular nuclear plant is behind schedule and way over budget too. Just like our coal plant. :
If I were a cynic (and I am) I'd point to the common element, both projects are under Southern company, who seem lacking in basic management skills.. :
I guess utilities where their profit is mostly determined by negotiating with their regulators don't need to practice normal business methods (we'll just get them to raise the rate.). My local electric utility is wrestling with regulators right now about raising the electric rates even higher to cover the over-runs, and the regulators are not accommodating but it is all academic. They already spent (lost) the money, so either they charge us more now, or borrow money that we have to pay interest on, and then pay back the principal later. It seems like that horse is already out of the barn, and left the area at a gallop.
JR
PS: I've already listed my criticisms of heavily government subsidized wind and solar... How is the price of electricity in Germany these days? While Mississippi is trying to catch up with our "clean" coal fiasco.
living sounds
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
It's high, but no longer climbing as it was a few years ago. Weighed against the cost of catastrophic climate change it's probably pretty cheap.
Living in a country that has more active volcanoes than any other country, actually more volcanoes than all other countries taken together, and is seismologically the most active area around the globe, I have to contradict.
Japan is eager to fulfill the emission targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol. Right now they can't. So the current government decided to switch reactors back on -- against the expressed will of the vast majority of Japanese people, the claim being (as always has been) that nuclear energy is "cheap" and "clean" -- they now added "safe" back to the list. Actually, one of the Satsumasendai reactors in Kyushu has gone online last Tuesday, after almost three years of Japan being a nuclear energy-free country. The next reactor switch-on is scheduled for October. Yes, they underwent rigorous tests and only half of all reactors are likely to pass it. But they had declared nuclear to be safe, clean and cheap before. The real tragedy is that the Fukushima reactors were the oldest in the country and scheduled to go offline a little later in 2011 to be decommissioned. Ta-da, the quake was faster, a quake that had been overdue by a decade and more -- at least from a purely statistical point of view.
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither an opponent nor a proponent of nuclear power, simply because I achnowledge the need of industrialised and so-called developing countries for quick access to energy, lots of energy. Actually, most of our wealth today is based on tapping into fast energy sources -- whether we like it or not.
But please don't get fooled by the nuclear industry argument that nuclear energy is "clean" and "cheap". It is the standard argument of a greedy billion dollars/euros and trillions of yen industry. Apart from producing 10,000 of tons of nuclear waste that nobody knows what to do with (so much for "clean" and "cost effective" -- maybe ship it to the moon!), nuclear energy is not really cheap. For one, it's massively subsidized with tax-payers' money. And second, there are massive costs arising from reactor decomissioning after end of use and, more importantly, inestimable cost arising in the wake of accidents -- costs that are simply not factored into the equation. Still the nuclear industry claims that it's the "cheapest" -- that's the simple faith of greedy neoliberals. Granted though: nuclear energy is the fastest, and as of today, there are few working alternatives yet.
However, vast areas of land have been lost after Tschernobyl. Maybe not so much of a problem there, but in Japan it's a real tragedy, as more than 70% of the country consists of inhabitable mountain forests. Any stretch of even land is needed. And today, four years after the meltdowns, there are still 10,000s of displaced people living in interim shelters, very much like the ones you see at construction sites. Alcoholism and suicide rates among these people have been soaring due to depression. Yes, it's probably also the Japanese government's fault. But if anything like this happened anywhere else in the world, better start praying cos I'm sure governments are the last to count on for help.
[end of rant -- calming down a bit now]
(1) Anything that happened in Europe, especially in Germany, after March 2011 really is a bad joke! We read the news here: It never had anything to do with the nuclear accident in Japan.
(2) If Finnland or Sweden decided to build more reactors, I'd say: "Fine". They have few to no quakes there. But Japan? Or California? Or any other country located on the Ring of Fire? Think! And besides, during all those years before 2011, the 54 reactors in Japan delivered only 30% of the total amount of energy needed -- only that much!
(3) Unfortunately, it takes accidents and catastrophes for people to change their minds. And then there are those who never learn. I guess this is what defines us as human beings.
(4) On the other hand, accidents and catastrophes also stimulate human inventiveness. Japan (together with America, I think) developed a massive contraption called ALPS to filter radioactive substances out of water. Highly complicated but works great. I hope one day Japan can export this technology to recoup at least some of the massive amounts of money going into the clean-up in Fukushima, and use it for compensating all those people affected most by this mess.
(5) I really hope that it'll never happen, please believe me, but from a purely statistically point of view, the next nuclear accident is going to happen either in Latin America or somewhere in the middle of Europe (a simple question of mathematical probability). I really don't want to wake up one day having to say: I knew it was critical. That would be thethird fourth one during my life time. Didn't they claim it would only happen every 10,000 years or so -- statistically fool-proof, so to speak?
(6) The nuclear industry is very powerful and they have many people sitting in governments. I'd say: stop subsidizing this industry and use all that money to both push/improve alternative energy sources and start looking for/developing new energy generation technology.
(7) I don't know enough about nuclear fusion to say whether it's better, safer, cheaper, or more effective than fission. Gut feeling tells me: I have my doubts.
(8 ) It's true, something's up with the climate. Japan has had new record highs (rainfall, summer heat, size of typhoons, sudden appearance of destructive whirlwinds building up in concrete-covered cities) for three years in a row. Meanwhile the hole in the ozone layer above the North Pole has almost disappeared (at least that's what I read). True, the North Pole is melting at record speed, but at the same time the South Pole is freezing over at record speed (a few kilometres a day, at least that's what I read). Not sure what it all means though: maybe the world is about to tilt.
(9) A last note, but this is pure science fiction: some Japanese researchers envision reactors on the moon and transporting the energy to earth either via a huge cable dangling in space, or via microwaves... ... can you hear that buzzing, sizzling, crackling sound?
Japan is eager to fulfill the emission targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol. Right now they can't. So the current government decided to switch reactors back on -- against the expressed will of the vast majority of Japanese people, the claim being (as always has been) that nuclear energy is "cheap" and "clean" -- they now added "safe" back to the list. Actually, one of the Satsumasendai reactors in Kyushu has gone online last Tuesday, after almost three years of Japan being a nuclear energy-free country. The next reactor switch-on is scheduled for October. Yes, they underwent rigorous tests and only half of all reactors are likely to pass it. But they had declared nuclear to be safe, clean and cheap before. The real tragedy is that the Fukushima reactors were the oldest in the country and scheduled to go offline a little later in 2011 to be decommissioned. Ta-da, the quake was faster, a quake that had been overdue by a decade and more -- at least from a purely statistical point of view.
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither an opponent nor a proponent of nuclear power, simply because I achnowledge the need of industrialised and so-called developing countries for quick access to energy, lots of energy. Actually, most of our wealth today is based on tapping into fast energy sources -- whether we like it or not.
But please don't get fooled by the nuclear industry argument that nuclear energy is "clean" and "cheap". It is the standard argument of a greedy billion dollars/euros and trillions of yen industry. Apart from producing 10,000 of tons of nuclear waste that nobody knows what to do with (so much for "clean" and "cost effective" -- maybe ship it to the moon!), nuclear energy is not really cheap. For one, it's massively subsidized with tax-payers' money. And second, there are massive costs arising from reactor decomissioning after end of use and, more importantly, inestimable cost arising in the wake of accidents -- costs that are simply not factored into the equation. Still the nuclear industry claims that it's the "cheapest" -- that's the simple faith of greedy neoliberals. Granted though: nuclear energy is the fastest, and as of today, there are few working alternatives yet.
However, vast areas of land have been lost after Tschernobyl. Maybe not so much of a problem there, but in Japan it's a real tragedy, as more than 70% of the country consists of inhabitable mountain forests. Any stretch of even land is needed. And today, four years after the meltdowns, there are still 10,000s of displaced people living in interim shelters, very much like the ones you see at construction sites. Alcoholism and suicide rates among these people have been soaring due to depression. Yes, it's probably also the Japanese government's fault. But if anything like this happened anywhere else in the world, better start praying cos I'm sure governments are the last to count on for help.
[end of rant -- calming down a bit now]
(1) Anything that happened in Europe, especially in Germany, after March 2011 really is a bad joke! We read the news here: It never had anything to do with the nuclear accident in Japan.
(2) If Finnland or Sweden decided to build more reactors, I'd say: "Fine". They have few to no quakes there. But Japan? Or California? Or any other country located on the Ring of Fire? Think! And besides, during all those years before 2011, the 54 reactors in Japan delivered only 30% of the total amount of energy needed -- only that much!
(3) Unfortunately, it takes accidents and catastrophes for people to change their minds. And then there are those who never learn. I guess this is what defines us as human beings.
(4) On the other hand, accidents and catastrophes also stimulate human inventiveness. Japan (together with America, I think) developed a massive contraption called ALPS to filter radioactive substances out of water. Highly complicated but works great. I hope one day Japan can export this technology to recoup at least some of the massive amounts of money going into the clean-up in Fukushima, and use it for compensating all those people affected most by this mess.
(5) I really hope that it'll never happen, please believe me, but from a purely statistically point of view, the next nuclear accident is going to happen either in Latin America or somewhere in the middle of Europe (a simple question of mathematical probability). I really don't want to wake up one day having to say: I knew it was critical. That would be the
(6) The nuclear industry is very powerful and they have many people sitting in governments. I'd say: stop subsidizing this industry and use all that money to both push/improve alternative energy sources and start looking for/developing new energy generation technology.
(7) I don't know enough about nuclear fusion to say whether it's better, safer, cheaper, or more effective than fission. Gut feeling tells me: I have my doubts.
(8 ) It's true, something's up with the climate. Japan has had new record highs (rainfall, summer heat, size of typhoons, sudden appearance of destructive whirlwinds building up in concrete-covered cities) for three years in a row. Meanwhile the hole in the ozone layer above the North Pole has almost disappeared (at least that's what I read). True, the North Pole is melting at record speed, but at the same time the South Pole is freezing over at record speed (a few kilometres a day, at least that's what I read). Not sure what it all means though: maybe the world is about to tilt.
(9) A last note, but this is pure science fiction: some Japanese researchers envision reactors on the moon and transporting the energy to earth either via a huge cable dangling in space, or via microwaves... ... can you hear that buzzing, sizzling, crackling sound?
P.S.: Sadly enough, it seems, Japan is unlikely to phase out nuclear power (like anyone else). Why? Because doing that would also mean they had to admit they literally burned trillions and trillions of yen over six decades in making that technology work in the first place. Said differently, the investment hasn't amortized yet -- at least in Japan.
Ha, just read this piece of news, perfect timing (15 August 2015):
Japan raises warning level on volcano 50 km from just-restarted nuclear plant
Level 4 means: get prepared for evacuation.
Aint't life exciting But don't worry, it's far enough away and we get this kind of stuff here every other week or so.
Japan raises warning level on volcano 50 km from just-restarted nuclear plant
Level 4 means: get prepared for evacuation.
Aint't life exciting
But don't worry, it's far enough away and we get this kind of stuff here every other week or so.
I am not sure what/who you are contradicting.Script said:
Yes I saw in the news that Japan was turning on shuttered reactors. The drag on the economy from using conventional (NG? Oil?) energy sources had to be significant. We tend to take energy for granted but it makes almost everything else possible.
In hindsight we can point to many flaws in the design and management of Fukushima. Looks like they should have shut it down even sooner, but if they didn't clean out the site it might have still been a significant ecological disaster. It seems like the storage of so much material in a small area may have been convenient for the manager until the tsunami hit.
I see nuclear as a bridge technology. Relatively low cost energy to use until we get something better. I don't expect us to be depending on today's technology 100 years from now, but it strikes me as premature to shutter them all today. As Fukushima teaches us, there are probably a fraction of the reactors in operation that should be shut down yesterday.
Government subsidies can influence marginal decisions but not prop up an explicitly unsustainable technology. The cost of decommissioning and dealing with waste is indeed a huge issue and the early older reactors are less friendly to the environment than modern technology.
Regarding waste, sending it to the moon is too dangerous. Space launches do not always succeed, so a failed launch could make a bad situation worse. I have long posited injecting waste into a tectonic subduction zone, perhaps deep under water. It would take time, but that seems a durable place to put it.
Yes Fukushima is a real tragedy and the world wishes you well with your hard recovery. Hopefully restarting the stable nuclear plants, while probably unpopular, will help.
I question their overall policy too. The problem with too much reliance on wind/solar is that the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine, so conventional power plants must be used to keep the grid up. It is the nature of efficient power plants, that you cant turn them on and off quickly.
One interesting thing that Elon Musk (the electric car guy) is betting on, is a massive build out of residential storage batteries to level out energy demand and provide some grid support. Of course the cynic in me sees this as another strategy to mine government subsidies.
Earthquakes are not the only risk factor, but we pretty much know where the faults are, and all plants need to consider the geography and other hazards.
In fact it is human nature to over-react. In the US the nuclear industry lost a lot of momentum after a minor accidental (release) at 3 mile island (1979). The Fukushima accident has repercussions for the nuclear industry all around the world. More safety is always good, but a purely emotional response like we get from politicians is not always the best path.
Yes human ingenuity is remarkable, but most would prefer that we didn't need such inventions (like oil spill skimmers, etc).
I don't like conspiracy theories but due to the emotionally charged nature of nuclear power, I suspect any number of lesser accidents are suppressed or under reported. Unfortunately it is also human nature that we need a few deaths every so often to keep us focussed on the risk. It is remarkable to me how casual some of these plants are managed.
I don't think it is very powerful here. From my perspective government has slowed down nuclear progress more than helped it. but opinions vary.
Agreed... The sun is a fusion reaction so lots of energy involved. I would remind people that the Mr Fusion energy source from Back to the Future is pure fantasy. I am open minded about new energy sources.
We should not discount how much energy we still waste. So room for improvement all around.
I have been paying attention to this since back when they were warning about climate cooling (global winter). The earth has always been either getting warmer or cooler, and we are between ice ages. Our resources would be better spent adapting to climate change that will happen no matter how much the government taxes carbon. While all that capital could be much better spent on solving real problems.
Not completely science fiction but serious solar collector in orbit would not suffer from clouds and atmospheric absorption. The energy could be transmitted down to the surface using microwaves or something like that. Of course this is not without risk too... I suspect the accuracy of this down stream of power, could be the ray gun from hell if off course. These solar collector in space would block heat energy from the earth cooling it down. 8) 8) Maybe the government could use their global warming tax, to build that. (not serious).
JR
Pip
Well-known member
Helium-3 is a very interesting subject and plays into this scenario.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408558/mining-the-moon/
http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408558/mining-the-moon/
http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html
Perhaps when we build our orbital solar collectors, they can also harvest Helium-3 from the solar wind above our atmosphere.
Going to the moon to harvest fusion fuel seems extreme but avoiding those pesky energetic neutrons seems useful.
JR
PS I was thinking about climate change, and since we are between ice ages, when the next ice age starts will the politicians take a victory lap for preventing global warming? ;D Then they will have to shift gears and blame the global cooling on carbon emissions.
Going to the moon to harvest fusion fuel seems extreme but avoiding those pesky energetic neutrons seems useful.
JR
PS I was thinking about climate change, and since we are between ice ages, when the next ice age starts will the politicians take a victory lap for preventing global warming? ;D Then they will have to shift gears and blame the global cooling on carbon emissions.
I once thought this was a good idea, but as we still don't know the exact nature of the earth's core nuclear reactions (that produce the heating and convection of the mantle) it could end in a catastrophe if we buggered up the nuclear reaction producing the Earth's magnetic field. We would all get fried by the Sun's radiation if that happened, non-functioning compasses would be the least of our worries.
DaveP
DaveP said:
That sounds like a script for a new sci-fi thriller, but extra points for knowing that there is an active reaction driving the core temperature and not just hot melted rock slowly cooling of.
I suspect even the tons of nuclear waste would not interfere with the plate tectonics, but I am not a geophysicist.
JR
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
There are vastly more people killed by cars than by nuclear accidents, yet we are quite happy to keep using them because they are so convenient. As John points out, nuclear has this "emotional" over-reaction attached to it. A bit of cold, clear perspective is always a good thing.
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
There are a number of folks trying slightly different angles on nuclear fusion power.
This one looked interesting a few months back....
http://www.eweek.com/news/lockheed-martin-claims-sustainable-fusion-is-within-its-grasp.html
This one looked interesting a few months back....
http://www.eweek.com/news/lockheed-martin-claims-sustainable-fusion-is-within-its-grasp.html
Andy Peters
Well-known member
Matt Nolan said:
Yeah, I happened to be out at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab right when this article appeared, and mentioned it to a person working on the NIF project. He just rolled his eyes.
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
Haha! Well, it's nice to have some healthy rivalry and competition. The laser approach is certainly an interesting one too. I'm pretty sure I saw something about some South Koreans getting some good headway with a more traditional Tokamak recently.Andy Peters said:
The Helium 3 mining on the Moon is slightly crazy. Especially given the caveats in the other link. But, if such a thing were to happen, how do you determine who owns the Moon? Surely it belongs to everybody, and nobody. Perhaps for such a thing to be pulled off, it would require massive international co-operation anyhow. That could be a good thing.
