[stuartr]

I am on a little crusade recently in support of the development of fusion technology. It was inspired by a visit to the Princeton Plasma Physics lab this january. Yes, I am a history student who tours physics labs in his free time. I will take this opportunity to remind you that you are all headphone nuts. I am sure you are all saying by now "what the f#ck is he doing posting about nuclear fusion on a headphone site?" Well, this is the members' lounge, and think about how cool a headphone amp powered by a fusion cell. So anyway, on to the topic at hand.

I think the most important thing for humanity in the next 50 years (or however long it takes for that matter) is the development of efficient and cost-effective fusion technology. This is a VERY difficult problem, but solving it would be the greatest leap forward since the industrial revolution. It would solve the problem of the environment, of the world dependency on a non-renewable resource, and would contribute to the development of democratic governments throughout the oil-soaked regions of the world.
Just a cute little fact: the DAILY requirements for a 1000MW reactor (sufficient for a small city):
Coal: 9000tons of coal with the following waste: 30,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide, 600 tons Sulfur Dioxide, 80 Tons Nitrogen Dioxide, 25 lbs Uranium and 60 lbs Thorium (both extremely toxic and radioactive). All these compounds are poisonous.
Fusion: 1 lb Deteurium (completely safe) 3.0 lbs Lithium (highly reactive, but otherwise safe) 1.5 lbs Tritium (completely safe). Waste: 4.0 lbs Helium.
Hopefully inhaled by the plant workers at the end of the day to make their voices sound funny.
It is a no brainer. Conservatively, every government in the world should be donating at least 10% of its budget to research this technology. But no, this is not happening. I personally am doing everything I can to help, even though that is not that much. I urge anyone who can to become interested in this field, write your congresspeople, donate if you can, etc. etc. This is an area that really could change the world, and everyone should do what they can to help. Yeah, so now that you are all thoroughly convinced that I am insane, I will go back to talking about headphones, and I will never mention the word fusion here again, and certainly not the word Tokomak.
Ahem. Thanks for bothering to read this, if anyone does....
Stu

 

[shivohum]

How does fusion compare to other renewable energy sources like solar, wind, etc.?

 

[morphsci]

I agree with your sentiments but I must correct one error. Tritium is not completely safe. It is a beta emitter with a 12.6 year half-life. It is relatively safe as far as external exposure goes but is a major concern for internal exposure since it forms an oxide that is a surrogate for water. That being said the hazards are much less than the massive amount of coal fly ash produced by coal fired power plants in the United States alone.

 

[stuartr]

It is capable of producing far more energy, and it is not dependent on climate, geography and so on. I forgot to give links, which was stupid. I will give the link. http://ippex.pppl.gov/ That should be right. That is where I got my facts on the output of the reactor. They have a good fact sheet too.

 

[stuartr]

Yes, I fudged it a bit for Tritium. I had a professor who worked at Los Alamos for awhile (though he could not tell me what he did there...), and he said they had to be scanned for the tritium content in their body ever few days. It very easily saturates the body, which is bad, but it very easily leaves it too. I think I also remember hearing that it is possible, and has been done, to completely replace all water in the body with D2O, with no ill effect...pretty fun. I wonder if it makes you significantly heavier....hmmm. I suppose it would have too.

 

[ai0tron]

I want fusion power!!

 

[redshifter]

stuartr,
i am totally with you on this. however, even if we did solve the problem of fusion power, do you think the oil executives who currently run the us would allow it to cut into their profits?

 

[setmenu]

Hi Stuartr
Do you remember cold fusion?

Setmenu

 

[gaineso]

Hey Stuartr,

We won't go into all the technologies that never existed, such as the 100 mpg carburetor. If it had existed, don't you think GM would have had the power to put it in production and completely take over, monopolistically and worse than Bill G., the entire world's automotive market?

Until they repeal the laws of physics, such BS can not exist.

Meanwhile, Fusion is a neat idea. The only problem is, while we, the human race, have some ideas for containment and useful application, the technology is just about as far away, right this minute, as Captain Kirk's Warp Drive. I hope that research into this field continues, but meanwhile, lets work on what we can do now.

Yes, I drive one of those GAS-GUZZLER SUVs. I need it to carry tools and equipment for work. 800+ lbs of equipment makes the Durango about the smallest thing capable, since my average round robin of 6 to 8 customers in a week involves 800 to 1200 miles. A mini-van, from experience, will die horribly. Anything currently available and smaller, will die horribly from abuse.

Therefore, we need a workhorse like the Durango with a far more efficient engine. Chrysler has come out with the 4.7, which does about 15 to 20% better, but Ford has some OHC multi-valves that are a lot better. Even Toyota, while they can't match the rugged, beat me, kick me, abuse me I love it reliability of big American V8s, gets some serious power from high efficiecy OHC multi-valve engines.

And around town, Honda is coming out with a Hybrid Civic. The cuurent small one, I think it's called Prious unless that's the Toyota, gets 55 MPG and probably more. It's just too small for these old bones to crawl in anfd out of though. My SOs Accord is almost too small.

What's possible for cars? I have a 1989 Ford Crown Victoria. 302 aka 5.0. Gets 25 to 26 MPG on the highway, 18 to 20 in town. Not earth saving, although not bad. My point is, 13 years later, what do we have, maybe 5%, be generous 10% inprovement.

You know what? It ain't gonna change until we vote at the booth and with our wallets and demand change.

Power. Ther's a lot of good technology out there for improvements to Fossil plants. Another thing that must be demanded. And, Chernobyl aside, no nuclear plant in the free world has caused any radiation related diseases in anyone, ever. The problem with waste is primarily the fact that the only thing that's ever been done is argue. The human race is more than smart enough to solve this little riddle.

Nuclear is clean and safe, and we could get into a VERY long and VERY rancorous argument about it. I really don't want to, so let's just stay with the potential improvements in Fossil plants.

New clean burning technology for coal is being built into a JEA plant, Northside Jacksonville. Supposed to produce 40% more power from the same amount of fuel. All kinds of precipitators, so that you can stick your head in the stack and breath clean hot air.

Peak demand, gas and oil fired, 30 second or less start-up turbines, clean exhaust, and only run when needed. Easy to set up, comes on a trailer and wires into system about like a sub-station. Build farms of them or place where needed. In use now.

Naural gas, of course is very clean. Efficiency is being improved.

Bunker fuel: Precipitator technology is improving to take out the sulfer.

A 10% improvement, reduction, in fossil fuel use, hell I don't know the statistics, but the difference would be the most worthwhile thing done in the last 50 years.

Of course, There are Lies, There are Damn Lies and there are Statistics. But 10% reduction in fossil use is very significant and very doable IF WE GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND DEMAND IT.

End of rant -- for now.

Sorry stuartr. I guess you hit something I needed to spout off a bit about too.

 

[stuartr]

redshifter: that is a legitimate concern, but I think if they are smart, there is as much money in it for them the development of new fuel sources as there is in squeezing the earth dry. Perhaps I am being naive. They could use their enormous resources to switch to isolating the isotopes of hydrogen needed for fusion technology, and make up the rest of their money in manufacturing the very complex and costly materials needed to make a fusion reactor.

gaines: Your points are extremely valid. I agree with every single one. I think we have to do what you are saying simultaneously to cover our ass. But I would not say that fusion is as far away as the warp drive. It is extremely far away, but the point is that was have a reactor that is stable and can power a small city. The problem is that it costs more to maintain the reaction than it produces. We need to achieve self-sustaining ignited fusion plasma. It is hard, but it is certainly worth trying. So for now, I think gaines is right, but we should also continue to strive for fusion technology. Physics was considered a mature science (i.e. nothing more to be learned) in 1905, until a short paper was published by a patent office clerk.