|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Asante]
#7793361 - 12/23/07 05:58 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The energy release from the fission of U-235 is pitiful compared to that of the fusion of Duterium.
I hope that we can successfully produce (more importantly I guess would be containing this reaction) within the next 10-20 years, else we really are going to be in the shit 
Even with all these advancements in nuclear reactor technology (like liquid metal cooling & fast breeder reactors) fission isn't really feasible in the long term.

The energy that is produced in a fusion reaction is phenomenal. This is partly why I can only hope that we produce a successful, stable fusion reactor in the next 20 years, because there are many factors which hinder this (like the plasma requirement and the cost of containment).
I do believe we'll crack it.. maybe in the next 50 years. I certainly hope we do it soon though
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,792
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Cepheus]
#7793443 - 12/23/07 06:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I consider fission useful mainly for three things:
1..as a primary energy crutch to get by - to give zero CO2, low-pollution energy while we figure out fusion. In the nearby future, right now, we need something relatively clean with a massive energy output, and right now only fission can fill that void. This will take long. 2..as a lightweight high output fuel for space travel and the moon and mars colonies, again until we figure out fusion, in this case until we can fuse in a relatively small reactor. This will take longer. 3..as a nuclear explosive, to trigger fusion bombs in defense of earth (and colonies) against asteroid impacts, here too until we find a way to trigger a massive fusion cascade without it, in a portable package. This will take the longest.
Even if we can burn DT we aren't out of the woods yet. We're only out of the woods once we can burn pure Deuterium, since this fuel is naturally abundant and non-radioactive, as opposed to Tritium which to day has to be made in fission reactors. Once we can burn pure Deuterium, it will supply us with Tritium without fission, which we can burn in lower-tech DT plants, and it will supply us with Helium-3 without having to go to the moon to get it.
Once we can burn DD we can take Uranium out of the loop and we won't be dependent on Lithium-6 either. This is a great help in preventing atomic bomb technology proliferation, as every country in the world can produce Deuterium fuel, which occurs in all water. You simply place an order with Shell Fusion they build a couple of fusion plants and a deuterium production plant and your country's an energy producer, independent of oil and international politics.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Cepheus]
#7794479 - 12/24/07 12:47 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cepheus said: Even with all these advancements in nuclear reactor technology (like liquid metal cooling & fast breeder reactors) fission isn't really feasible in the long term.
what about thorium fission reactors? india is spending a lot of money creating the technology and thorium is much more abundant than uranium
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Asante]
#7794718 - 12/24/07 03:16 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> I consider fission useful mainly for three things:
You forgot the most important...
4) Creation of medical isotopes
> what about thorium fission reactors?
Still have the problem of short reactor lifetimes (aprox 30 years) and radioactive waste that will be around long after humans have died out. Fission, for energy production, is a pollution nightmare.
I'm convinced we could be running on fusion power now, but those that control the world won't let it happen. Fusion is free energy, almost literally. Those that have global empires created on the sale of energy don't want to see it become free. In their mind, it is much better to string people out on dirty fission, building multi-billion dollar reactors for the next hundred years or so. (The same people are behind the "global warming" scare.... raises fossil fuel based energy prices and gets everybody on board for fission based power production.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
Quote:
Cepheus said: Even with all these advancements in nuclear reactor technology (like liquid metal cooling & fast breeder reactors) fission isn't really feasible in the long term.
what about thorium fission reactors? india is spending a lot of money creating the technology and thorium is much more abundant than uranium
Thats what a breeder reactor is; one that uses thorium and breeds fuel (i.e produces U235 or P239) at a rate faster than it consumes it.
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Cepheus]
#7794825 - 12/24/07 06:31 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Thats what a breeder reactor is; one that uses thorium and breeds fuel
The true definition of a breeder reactor is a reactor that consumes both fissionable and fertile fuel and produces fissionable fuel (plus energy). Thorium is irrelevant to the definition, beyond being a fertile fuel.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Seuss]
#7794839 - 12/24/07 06:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well yeah, if we're going into the semantics. Most breeder reactors use thorium as a fuel though.
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Cepheus]
#7794865 - 12/24/07 07:34 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Most breeder reactors use thorium as a fuel though.
Most? Really? I'm not aware of a single thorium based breeder reactor that is in production use rather than experimental use... but I have been out of the field for a decade, so things may have changed.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Cepheus
Balance




Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Seuss]
#7794880 - 12/24/07 07:53 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Thermal breeding reactors can use Thorium exclusively which decays and produces fissible U233.
Pressurized light water breeder reactors like the one at Shippingport (well, before it was decommissioned) ran on thorium 
I thought they were more widespread than this but apparently they are not.. Technology of the future I guess
-------------------- "I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" Free Spore Ring Europe Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution
Open Source. Freedom. GNU/Linux Addicting is not a word.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: The Nuclear Fusion Feasibility Poll [Re: Cepheus]
#7795269 - 12/24/07 11:03 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
my understanding of a breeder reactor is a reactor that "breeds" fuel
in other words it used a fissile material to produce energy plus more fissile material such as plutonium or uranium
one of the main drawbacks of thorium fission is that its easy to make bombs or something from its progeny... its more of a security issue (uranium is very easy to control since it is mined in so few places) because thorium is much more common than uranium
|
|