Thread: Nuclear Fusion

Right... since the world is all up in a hissy-fit about Global Warming, people have started to look for alternative energy sources. However, one potential source of power has been worked on by scientists for quite a while before the whole climate change furore, in hope of bringing a much safer, and much more powerful source of energy into existance.

Nuclear Fusion. Harnessing the power of the sun in order to create a vast abundance of energy, and you don't even need to use radioactive materials as fuel for the reactor. Just two different isotopes of hydrogen. Of course, like with any nuclear process, fusion does produce its fair share of radiation, but in terms of radioactive waste, it is virtually nil compared to Nuclear Fission reactors (the only real waste is replaced, irradiated reactor parts... but this is low level radioactive waste and is easy to handle and deal with compared to the high level waste that is produced by fission reactors). Overall, Fusion is a very tasty goal for science, and for the world (a hydrogen economy would require such a vast amount of energy to flourish, something only Fusion can provide). Plus, its extremely hard to use fusion reactors to proliferate weapons grade radioactive material, without extensive and expensive modifications, which would be hard to conceal.

Of course, not everyone agrees. Thus I've put this in the extended discussion to see what people thought of it. It would be interesting to see how people take fusion (and also see the misconceptions).

technically we already have archived nuclear fusion: link

its extremely hard to use fusion reactors to proliferate weapons grade radioactive material[/b]

you are right on that account, but fusors can irradiate metal and the metal could be used in a dirty bomb.

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

technically we already have archived nuclear fusion: link

you are right on that account, but fusors can irradiate metal and the metal could be used in a dirty bomb.[/b]

I meant at least achieve a state of fusion which can be made stable and produce a net energy output. Whereas with the irradiated metal, the metal wouldn't be as chemically toxic as something that comes out of a nuclear fission reactor. Even the metal's half-life is much smaller than something that comes out of a fission reactor. And then, low-activation materials (Vanadium and Carbon Fibre/Nanotubes, etc) can be used instead of normal materials to decrease the radioactivity of the irradiated part. All in all, one can significantly reduce the level of radioactivity in the waste from a fusion reactor, even though without extra measures, the waste output is tiny compared to a fission reactor. One would just have to be careful with tritium emissions, though since that has a short half-life (12 years, well... compared to other radioactive materials), it would prevent long-term build-up in the atmosphere.

Conveniently we just studied this in school today. It works pretty much perfectly, as in no waste products, lots of energy can be obtained etc. The one major flaw is just getting the process going, which is so far very difficult as very high temperatures have to be maintained. I think that this will become a possible fuel in decades or centuries to come. That or a superconductor that works at room temperature.

I havnt got much time, so ill just say this:
Its the future! And i dont think its likely to cause major problems. As far as im aware fusion reactors should be much safer then fission reactors.

Hey, if it doesn't work and something goes horribly wrong, at least we'll go out with a bang. A very, very big bang.

I wonder how long it will take to design a fusion reactor safe enough to put near densely populated area's like we do now with fission reactors?

I used to read a lot about it some time ago, when I was bored. Mostly here on European Fusion Development Agreement site. From there you can go to the JET site, which is the fusion generator if I'm right. There is lots of info there, so check it out. If I remember correctly, the Demo version will be completed in 2015 and that fusion generators should be commonly used everywhere by 2050.
Oh oh! And I found a movie of a generator in action here.

We have the Grand Gulf nulcear power plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi. I don't remember there ever being a problem with it. If that thing goes Chernobyl, I'm only about 90 miles from it, but I'm not worried. In fact, one of my favorite places to go is a state park ranger tower right by it where you can climb up and see the Mississippi River, a ton of forest, Louisiana on the other side of the river, and a really close view of the power plant. I go there to have moments of peace.

Even if we would dump nuclear waste right in the open, it would damage the planet less then a coal-powered plant would do. I don't understand why greenpeace and such miss this. I find it very egocentric to be afraid of the radioactive waste and such, since it really mostly affects humans.

Bascially:

"OHHH! SCARY!!! INFISIBLE POWERS TAHT KILLZ US! :0"

Silly scared people.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Even if we would dump nuclear waste right in the open, it would damage the planet less then a coal-powered plant would do. I don't understand why greenpeace and such miss this. I find it very egocentric to be afraid of the radioactive waste and such, since it really mostly affects humans.

Bascially:

"OHHH! SCARY!!! INFISIBLE POWERS TAHT KILLZ US! :0"

Silly scared people.[/b]

The thing about waste from nuclear fission plants is that its not only radioactive, chemically... its also highly toxic , so its basically a situation of "If the radiation doesn't kill ya, the toxicity will..." or the reverse. Of course, fusion reactors won't produce such type of waste (only irradiated core parts). So in a way, Greenpeace has every right to worry about nuclear waste. Just not from Fusion reactors... (and yeah, stupid people are funny... radiation is the new boogie-man to them)

since it really mostly affects humans.[/b]

Not really, there are tons of creatures that are affected by nuclear waste.

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

Not really, there are tons of creatures that are affected by nuclear waste.[/b]

I am sorry, I wasn't too clear, I meant psychologically, I don't think a single animal still cares about Chernobyl. I mean that the reactor exploding at Chernobyl did as much environmental damage as what a normal seized country does in a year.