• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

Of course their big drawback is nuclear waste.
Click to expand...
are you sure you are not just repeating something you think may be true?

How much volume of "nuclear waste" of any significant risk has been produced by the nuclear industry

As already noted, the volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m3 of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m3 of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste1.
Click to expand...

That's a football field 1 meter deep....for the entirel world's nuclear fleet
which contains 90% reusable power vi IFR or remanufacturing fuel rods.

Every seen a coal waste pile???
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html
scary stuff and nearly unregulated.

Perhaps inform yourself.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/
 
macdoc said:
are you sure you are not just repeating something you think may be true?

How much volume of "nuclear waste" of any significant risk has been produced by the nuclear industry



That's a football field 1 meter deep....for the entirel world's nuclear fleet
which contains 90% reusable power vi IFR or remanufacturing fuel rods.

Every seen a coal waste pile???
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html
scary stuff and nearly unregulated.

Perhaps inform yourself.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/
Click to expand...

And the overwhelming majority of that is very low level predominantly alpha/beta decay emission waste that is very simple and relatively inexpensive to store once you get past the nucleo-phobe rhetoric and unfortunate public policy over-reactions of the last 3 decades or so.
 
ceptimus said:
Who knows? No one has made one yet.

Theoretically they should be safer than fission reactors, if we can ever make a practical working one
Click to expand...

Yeah. ITER doesn't initiate fusion until 2020. Power output and efficiency are question marks.
 
BenBurch said:
I think ITER will work, but will be a dead end anyway. A much simpler solution will be found.
Click to expand...

The term technology implies a hack. A little salting, a little catalyzing and suitable energy generating schemes are plausible, but problematic (read as expensive to develop even with dedicated and well-funded programs over a period of many decades). The potential for short-cuts are not unreasonable sounding, but generally more speculative than demonstrated.

For instance: the ICF pellet anti-proton fission-fusion process which lies at the heart of the ICAN-II propulsion system could be developed into a grid supplemental system that could be brought online in relatively short-order and lay inactive when un-needed. In fact the entire system could be largely automated with a minimal need for operational and maintenance FTEs. It would have several "off" switches, the process does not "run away," the worst thing that happens is the system breaks down and stops and maybe a few grams of tritium and U238 along with a handful of micrograms of various other radioisotopes are released into the local environment. A serious hazard for a few hours over a few square kilometers? The frequency of such failures would ultimately play a large role in deciding the practicality of such a scheme but, that is a matter more of engineering (both physical and civil) than physics.
 
I always think it is odd that you aiming to create something as hot as the sun, and then using it to make steam. It seems so... inelegant.

Given the capital requirements*, I think the most economical location for a fusion reactor is about 150-Gm from here.

Especially as the cost of photovoltaics is dropping rapidly - 12-19% in 2013 and on track for another 3-12% in 2014 according to the NREL

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/15405.html

October 20, 2014

Distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) system prices dropped by 12 - 19 percent nationwide in 2013, according to the third edition of a jointly written report on PV pricing trends from the Energy Department's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). In addition, 2014 prices are expected to drop another 3 - 12 percent, depending on system location and market segment. Industry analysts expect this trend to continue over the next couple of years, keeping the nation on track to meet the DOE SunShot Initiative's 2020 targets.
Click to expand...

Full PDF report here



The IET Magazine quoted the director of operations at the Cullham Centre for Fusion Energy (Home of the JET) as saying that we could build a working fusion reactor with today's technology - it is just that the fusion plant would have a lifetime of 2-years, and a capital cost of $10Bn. (I suppose it does mean that in comparison the running costs would be negligible...)

“We could actually build a reactor now, but it would not be economic because whilst the neutrons give up their energy and produce the heat we need to generate steam, they also damage the materials we have available now. The physics of fusion is now well mostly understood and resolved, but what is not resolved is the engineering consequences of generating these neutrons.

“You could build a reactor now with today's materials, but it wouldn't be economic because you would have to build a new reactor or remove and replace to core of the machine within two years. This includes everything inside the plasma chamber; ten billions dollar’s worth of plant.

“The machines we have available at the minute are designed to only run for short bursts. The JET can only sustain plasma for 30 or 40 seconds because the coils get hot. In principal you could keep the plasma running for hours, but your coils and power supplies would basically cook. It is not a physics limitation but a balance of plant limitation.”
Click to expand...
 
jimbob said:
I always think it is odd that you aiming to create something as hot as the sun, and then using it to make steam. It seems so... inelegant.
Click to expand...

Some of the harder to create reactions lead to nothing but charged particles, which basically means they create electricity directly. At first we'll likely be stuck with neutrons though.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Some of the harder to create reactions lead to nothing but charged particles, which basically means they create electricity directly. At first we'll likely be stuck with neutrons though.
Click to expand...
That's a fascinating idea! Tap electrons directly from some reaction and feed them straight into the grid. Is it possible in principle?
 
jimbob said:
I always think it is odd that you aiming to create something as hot as the sun, and then using it to make steam. It seems so... inelegant.

Given the capital requirements*, I think the most economical location for a fusion reactor is about 150-Gm from here.

Especially as the cost of photovoltaics is dropping rapidly - 12-19% in 2013 and on track for another 3-12% in 2014 according to the NREL

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/15405.html



Full PDF report here



The IET Magazine quoted the director of operations at the Cullham Centre for Fusion Energy (Home of the JET) as saying that we could build a working fusion reactor with today's technology - it is just that the fusion plant would have a lifetime of 2-years, and a capital cost of $10Bn. (I suppose it does mean that in comparison the running costs would be negligible...)
Click to expand...


The major problem of all renewable is that we need bulk power at precise timing. This is not possible with renewable even a combination thereof, without huge storage capacity, or a complete change on how we have people working in industry using energy. Both which may or may not be workable but require far more investment than just putting a lot of cell on the ground collecting.

Probably an easier solution would be to cover some desert with solar, make them fabricate H2 directly even inneficiently, then transport that back somewhere else to be used.

THat is why by the way we are still relying on coal, gas, oil, and nuclear to generate baseload electricity rather than carpet places with solar : we need reliable stable energy production for the industry (residential electricity barely cover 10% consumption, and IIRC was it 30% for commercial ? Then the rest is industry). Which is why despite having so much energy generated by solar cell, despite that germany still need to have stable coal fired generator for its industry (indsutry which consider moving out due to energy cost - thanks stupid nuclear abandon).

So fusion has the best of both worlds : near infinite fuel and bulk generation at time we want as we are used to.

But if somebody solve the stockage and bulk production problem with renewable, that would be great, but so far it looks that it is as easy to solve as fusion ;).
 
A mix of renewables would be better at evening out the generation - as would a larger market region, for both generation and distribution, and consumption. In the UK I would like a tidal barrage on the Severn Estuary, which has the claimed potential for 20% of the UK's energy needs and predictably - albeit inflexibly.

I also like the idea of preferential tariffs to encourage the use of plug-in hybrids as a massive distributed battery storage system.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Some of the harder to create reactions lead to nothing but charged particles, which basically means they create electricity directly. At first we'll likely be stuck with neutrons though.
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of work on what have been termed "solid-state" reactors, a process that has some similarity to nuclear batteries.

Here's an example that explains itself pretty well. My initial interest was more related to propulsion potentials, but like the ICAN-II system, this would make a nice power source as well.

"Dusty Plasma Based Fission Fragment Nuclear Reactor"
full paper at:http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/aiaa05.pdf

abstract - We propose an innovative nuclear power generation system design using dusty radioactive (fissile or not) material plasma as a fuel. The fission fragments or decay products accelerated during the disintegration process to velocities of 3{5% of the speed of light are trapped and collected in a simple combination of electric and magnetic fields resulting in a highly efficient (90%), non-Carnot, DC power supply. In a conventional nuclear reactor this high kinetic energy of the fission fragments is dissipated by collisions to generate heat, which is converted to electrical power with efficiencies of no more than 50%. Alternatively, the fission fragments produced in our dusty plasma reactor can be used directly for providing thrust. The highly directional fission fragment exhaust can produce a specific impulse of one million seconds resulting in burnout velocities several thousand times those attainable today. Previous concepts suffered from impractical or inadequate methods to cool the fission fuel. In this work the heating problem is overcome by dividing the solid fuel into small dust particles and thereby increasing the surface to volume ratio of the fuel. The small size of the fuel particle allows adequate cooling to occur by the emission of thermal radiation.
Click to expand...
 
Aepervius said:
But if somebody solve the stockage and bulk production problem with renewable, that would be great, but so far it looks that it is as easy to solve as fusion ;).
Click to expand...

Hydro/current-generators are good, renewable, base-load power supplies; pumped hydro that used excess solar/wind during their peak cycles (mid-day for solar and sunrise sunset for wind) to pump water up into storage reservoirs which is then released through turbines during the off-peak times to generate steady power and smooth the renewable generation footprint works quite well.
 
macdoc said:
are you sure you are not just repeating something you think may be true?

How much volume of "nuclear waste" of any significant risk has been produced by the nuclear industry



That's a football field 1 meter deep....for the entirel world's nuclear fleet
which contains 90% reusable power vi IFR or remanufacturing fuel rods.

Every seen a coal waste pile???
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html
scary stuff and nearly unregulated.

Perhaps inform yourself.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/
Click to expand...

So. No problem at all! Want any of that high level waste in your backyard, any at all?

As for low level medical isotope waste. Might as well just pile it on top of those mining tailings then?
 
Aepervius said:
Probably an easier solution would be to cover some desert with solar, make them fabricate H2 directly even inneficiently, then transport that back somewhere else to be used.
Click to expand...

What effect does that have on coyote and roadrunner? Comic reference aside, wouldn't covering a desert with solar panels have an environmental effect?
 
So. No problem at all! Want any of that high level waste in your backyard, any at all?
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything???...just inflammatory nonsense.....fuel rods retain 90% of their energy and an IFR will extract most of that with current technology.
They are safely handled and in some areas recycled for use.

ALL technology has risks.....nuclear for power generation is and has been exceptionally safe.

Hospital waste and other low level....there are standard and simple protocols to deal with it and way way too much unwarranted fear mongering. We evolved in a sea of radiation and some city dwellers in the middle east live in a city with higher levels of background radiation than nuclear workers are allowed....yet show a low cancer rate.
Look up hormesis.

Unfortunately there are risks out there to the biome...birth control hormones to name one of many that do not have adequate or any controls on their dispersal.
Don't be a nuclear knee jerk.

It's a hellish sight better than any fossil fueled energy source in terms of environmental safety.
 
macdoc said:
What has that got to do with anything???...just inflammatory nonsense.....
Don't be a nuclear knee jerk.
Click to expand...
These expressions might better have been omitted. They add nothing to your argument.
It's a hellish sight better than any fossil fueled energy source in terms of environmental safety.
Click to expand...
Could you provide sources for that assertion?
 
Craig B said:
Could you provide sources for that assertion?
Click to expand...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23i6mp/til_a_coal_power_station_puts_100_times_more/
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...an_nuclear_waste_and_what_is_the_exact_reason

I suppose I could have linked lmgtfy.

Even purely in terms of radioactivity, coal plants are worse than nuclear plants. Nuclear plants then produce no CO2, SOx, NOx, or coal ash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom