Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

Thread: nuclear fusion anyone?

  1. #1
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,475
    Thanks
    1,755
    Thanked
    1,323 times in 988 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    nuclear fusion anyone?

    while the BBC is busy reporting on BS stories about Drag Race and whether young lovers should dump their partner before university other sites bother to report on things that are vaguely interesting and important:

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1WI13F

    It would be nice if we can make it happen. I didn't think the Oxford research project had found a sustainable lasing source for industrial scale-up yet though. Has there been a breakthrough or are we just doing it because the Chinese are? I hope this isn't dependent on their funding/involvement...

  2. #2
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Obligatory XKCD:



    2040 is still 21 years out, so...

  3. Received thanks from:

    ik9000 (03-10-2019),raygdunn (03-10-2019)

  4. #3
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,829
    Thanks
    550
    Thanked
    777 times in 651 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-PRO USB 3.1
      • CPU:
      • i7 5960X o/c to 4.6GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte G1 GTX980Ti
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Enthoo Luxe wiv perspex window
      • Operating System:
      • Win10 64 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator XB270HU 1440 IPS GSync 144Hz
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Why worry about something that isn't going to happen......
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
    like a chihuahua urinating on a towering inferno...

  5. #4
    Senior Member Smudger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    St Albans
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    663
    Thanked
    617 times in 449 posts
    • Smudger's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gbyte GA-970A-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • AMD FX8320 Black Edition
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 2x8G CML16GX3M2A1600C10
      • Storage:
      • 1x240Gb Corsair M500, 2TB TOSHIBA DT01ACA200
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon HD4890 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520
      • Case:
      • Akasa Zen
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 24"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 200Mbit

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Already been done...


  6. Received thanks from:

    Mr_Jon (03-10-2019)

  7. #5
    Grumpy and VERY old :( g8ina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    6,683
    Thanks
    2,539
    Thanked
    1,635 times in 1,068 posts
    • g8ina's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz 3.40 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3.
      • Storage:
      • 250GB SSD system, 250GB SSD Data + 2TB data, + 8TB NAS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon HD 6870
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama 22"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100MB unlimited

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    JET at Culham Labs has been doing this since at LEAST the mid 70s.

    In fact, I just picked up an info leaflet just last night at my camera club, havent read it yet, will report back shortly.
    Cheers, David



  8. #6
    Grumpy and VERY old :( g8ina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    6,683
    Thanks
    2,539
    Thanked
    1,635 times in 1,068 posts
    • g8ina's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz 3.40 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3.
      • Storage:
      • 250GB SSD system, 250GB SSD Data + 2TB data, + 8TB NAS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon HD 6870
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama 22"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100MB unlimited

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    and apparently they achieved 16MW back in 1997 !!!
    Cheers, David



  9. #7
    Grumpy and VERY old :( g8ina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    6,683
    Thanks
    2,539
    Thanked
    1,635 times in 1,068 posts
    • g8ina's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z75 Pro3
      • CPU:
      • Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz 3.40 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3.
      • Storage:
      • 250GB SSD system, 250GB SSD Data + 2TB data, + 8TB NAS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon HD 6870
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama 22"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100MB unlimited

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    and ITER is our best bet. Googling that shouold bring u up to speed.
    Cheers, David



  10. #8
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,475
    Thanks
    1,755
    Thanked
    1,323 times in 988 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Yes, proof of concept has been nailed for some time, but the issue has always been finding a sustainable lasing material that is abundant enough and economical enough to make the process viable on an industrial scale. When I last checked a few years ago that was still not resolved.

  11. #9
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    2040 is still 21 years out, so...
    Don't worry, its a government project. 21 year target means 28 years and 400% over budget.

  12. #10
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,475
    Thanks
    1,755
    Thanked
    1,323 times in 988 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    or else potentially world-beating only to be cancelled part-way after a change of government. cough *TSR2* cough.

  13. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    11,824
    Thanks
    816
    Thanked
    516 times in 356 posts

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Mmmm TSR2, Born to Bomb..

  14. #12
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,470
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Still, $220M is quite a lot of money to invest? Seems like more than a speculative/token amount.

  15. #13
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked
    186 times in 145 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    The issue with fission isn't the spent fuel (the quantities in involved is tiny), it's the rest of the reactor. Bombarding any material with neutrons will form strange and exciting radionuclides, so the vast quantities of stuff that makes up the reactor structure becomes low-grade nuclear waste - not hot enough to where it needs cooling, but radioactive enough that no-one wants it near them. Most fusions reactions (including the deuterium-tritium one used in ITER) release neutrons as part of the reaction, and as these can't be contained by magnetic fields they bombard the walls of the tokamak.

    So fusion is not clean (probably about the same amount of nuclear waste as a fission plant), we aren't running out of fissionable material yet, and fusion costs orders of magnitude more than fission (infinitely more, going by the investment against energy delivered to the grid). Why are we doing this again?

  16. #14
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,427
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked
    404 times in 291 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post
    The issue with fission isn't the spent fuel (the quantities in involved is tiny), it's the rest of the reactor. Bombarding any material with neutrons will form strange and exciting radionuclides, so the vast quantities of stuff that makes up the reactor structure becomes low-grade nuclear waste - not hot enough to where it needs cooling, but radioactive enough that no-one wants it near them. Most fusions reactions (including the deuterium-tritium one used in ITER) release neutrons as part of the reaction, and as these can't be contained by magnetic fields they bombard the walls of the tokamak.

    So fusion is not clean (probably about the same amount of nuclear waste as a fission plant), we aren't running out of fissionable material yet, and fusion costs orders of magnitude more than fission (infinitely more, going by the investment against energy delivered to the grid). Why are we doing this again?
    Indeed, are there any Gen 3 Type II reactors online yet? Gen 4 should fission everything. As you say, the issue is the decomissioning of the plant. Where there's not a massive amount of waste from the production of energy in new designs, the amount of low level waste is huge when it has had its day.

    This is one of the reasons Fukushima was such a stupid set up. If you look at the history, you can say that the level of quake they had was a 1 in 1000 year event (very roughly). From that you can say that a 7.0 quake will be around a 1 in 100 year event. The sea wall is not the only factor here, the elevation is also a factor and not just the elevation of the reactors (sufficient) but the elevation of the emergency systems to stop a plant blakc out (much lower). Look at how hard it is to decomission nuclear sites. We have 50 year old nuclear subs sat rotting as it's easier and safer to let them sit, contained for now. It's the same with reactor buildings. Robots fry in the dosey environment very quickly and even now we're limited as to how long they'll be operable for. So it's sensible to let reactors sit and for the nasty stuff to decay before you start tearing it apart. Look at the new containment around Chernobyl and you'll see how long a process this can be. And it's quite probable you'll need active cooling for those reactors / fuel rods even when they are shut down.

    So a nuclear site is probably a risk for ~150 years, assuming you don't just cordon it off and maintain the building. And Fukishima is at risk of 1.5 tsunamis which would flood their emergency generators for that time. Oh and they didn't protect the generators because hey, nothing is gonna happen to take out external power AND our backups, right? RIGHT?

    As I said, stoopid. So the issue as far as I'm concerned is not the reactor and its waste but the legacy it leaves and how that's managed. At the moment, it really isn't very well.

    And as stated above, fusion provides the same issue. So why are we doing this? Simples:

    Without fusion, we can't create enough antimatter for the matter-antimatter reactor that's gonna take us off this planet when we've screwed it completely.

    That and the world's energy demands are going up and up and transitioning the poor off wood and coal and oil is very hard to do when their governments don't have enough poke to stop everyone murdering each other. If you have enough chooch from a central, properly managed fusion station then you can interconnect it and sell it to these countries. Maybe drive up the standard of living enough so they aren't killing each other or, if they are, at least they can use ray guns.

    Also remember in first world countries, hydrocarbons are currently being directly burned to make things go and, whilst it may be utterly stupid at the moment, the future is electric. That's a whole lotta energy that needs to be supplied by the grid and not by tankers full of happy boom boom juice.

    According to my little red dot of judgement, there are 15 spelling mistakes in this. I careth not.

  17. #15
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,470
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post
    So fusion is not clean (probably about the same amount of nuclear waste as a fission plant),
    That's not even remotely true. As far as actually concerning high-level waste is concerned, you're dealing with pretty much just reactor components, not thousands of tons of spent fuel to reprocess and store on top of reactor components. The high-level waste also doesn't remain high-level for nearly as long as fission waste products so realistic storage and disposal is far more straightforward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post
    Why are we doing this again?
    Because uranium is relatively scarce, thorium less so but less proven as a fuel, but either way they're quite finite. Given the timescale needed for fusion R&D it's sensible to start before the need becomes critical. Also there's effectively no proliferation risk with fusion, far less waste, very little accident potential, and so on. It's not just a school science project to keep people busy.

  18. #16
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,470
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: nuclear fusion anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by philehidiot View Post
    And as stated above, fusion provides the same issue.
    It really doesn't. There is no risk of decay heat for a fusion reactor, so no requirement for external power should the reactor trip. The same can be said of more advanced fission designs but we're still waiting on walk-away safe reactors to get built, and they're safe because of thermal design, not because of inherent safety of the fuel/process.

    With fusion reactors, the reaction is difficult to sustain so a failure leads to the reactor pretty much just stopping. There's no massive lump of fission products to meltdown without sufficient cooling, no graphite moderators to catch fire, no control rods to get stuck. Even in a deliberate, catastrophic containment breach you have a worst-case of a tritium leak, which is still of no substantial concern to health.

    There is great incentive to develop fusion power reactors for the above reasons and more, it's not just a sideways step from fission in terms of safety, etc.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •