Nuclear Fusion: Possible?

[Dolbri]

Gravitons are many orders of magnitude more plausible than tachyons.

However, tachyons are many orders of magnitude more awesome than gravitons, so that evens out.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I agree, but are the scientists researching cold fusion on the same level as those looking for tachyons?

I don't know, I guess.

[New Kereptica]

I agree, but are the scientists researching cold fusion on the same level as those looking for tachyons?

I don't know, I guess.

I don't think there really are that many in either field, so it's rather difficult to compare.

[Seishin no Ryuu]

I agree, but are the scientists researching cold fusion on the same level as those looking for tachyons?

I don't know, I guess.

whenever I think of Tachyons, I think of Will Ferrell in The Land of The Lost movie

[Discount Liquor World]

As for nuclear fusion as a means of generating electricity? I think it will always be "20 years in the future" because the science has reached a dead-end and we simply will never beable to break the laws of physics enough to make it a sustainable, positive-energy source.

Wat? We don't have to break any laws of physics for it.

We can achieve contained fusion just fine. It just fizzles out since we can't yet contain the plasma efficiently enough - it contacts the reactor walls, heat is transferred, plasma cools, fusion reaction stops.

Our sole problem is to contain the plasma in a more efficient fashion. It's merely a technical question. An engineering problem. 'tis all.

Thats why its impossible. All fusion reactors to date have dealt with the fact that the energy required to contain the fusion reaction was at best, equal to the energy that could be produced from such a reaction. Every reactor since the 1970's, no matter the advancement of science and practical engineering, has produced a reactor thats net energy gain was zero. Thats physics busting humanities balls.

[Dolbri]

Thats why its impossible. All fusion reactors to date have dealt with the fact that the energy required to contain the fusion reaction was at best, equal to the energy that could be produced from such a reaction. Every reactor since the 1970's, no matter the advancement of science and practical engineering, has produced a reactor thats net energy gain was zero. Thats physics busting humanities balls.

First off, there haven't exactly been a lot of fusion reactors, mainly because politicians don't like spending money on long term projects. You can't blame scientists for a lack of funding.
Secondly, of the few reactors that have been built, each consecutive one obtained better results. ITER will, in all probability, be able to produce net energy.

Fusion IS making progress, all it needs is time and/or money.

[Nicheton]

The Idea behind nuclear fusion is that atoms of very light mass (A.E. Hydrogen and Helium) fly around at incredibly high speeds, fast enough to, when they collide, fuse together into a denser atom (Carbon). The energy we wish to harness is release upon impact, giving off radiation. The sun operates by using gravity to force these atoms to collide, and we are damn well near close to doing such with magnetic fields. The idea of using nano machines to accomplish this is rendered impossible by the fact the machines would break from the sheer force necessary to pull two atoms into one, especially on the sub atomic scale, which is impossible to begin with.

[Cameroi]

sure its possible,
and some day we may even be able to generate energy by doing so.

maybe even inexpensively mass produced hydrogen fuel cells too.

but it won't be free.
it probably won't even be cheep.

and in the mean time we've got dozzens (well moare then a half dozzen anyway)
of practical and proven ways of generating energy without the use of combustion in any form already.

the principal obstical to changing over to them being nothing other then the politics of greed.

[Phenia]

sure its possible,
and some day we may even be able to generate energy by doing so.

maybe even inexpensively mass produced hydrogen fuel cells too.

but it won't be free.
it probably won't even be cheep.

and in the mean time we've got dozzens (well moare then a half dozzen anyway)
of practical and proven ways of generating energy without the use of combustion in any form already.

the principal obstical to changing over to them being nothing other then the politics of greed.

We can generate energy from nuclear fusion right now. It just costs more energy to create and sustain the reaction. If this energy cost can continue to be lowered by advances in engineering and physics, then it will a plentiful and efficient source of energy. Most of those non-combustion based energy production means - solar, wind, hydro, etc - are not plentiful sources of energy. Efficient, yes, but solar power requires too many square feet of panels per watt, it cannot meet our energy needs without taking unreasonably large tracts of land.

For example, a proposed plan to use the entire Sahara desert for solar-thermal power would only supply 20% of Europe's current energy needs. So if we had 4 more Sahara Deserts, then solar power could provide electricity. To Europe.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Fusion power on earth is certainly possible.

The idea that it is "nuclear power without nuclear waste" is wrong though. It will always involve hard radiation, and unless it is at a safe distance (eg, Sol) that will create nuclear waste.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

sure its possible,
and some day we may even be able to generate energy by doing so.

maybe even inexpensively mass produced hydrogen fuel cells too.

but it won't be free.
it probably won't even be cheep.

and in the mean time we've got dozzens (well moare then a half dozzen anyway)
of practical and proven ways of generating energy without the use of combustion in any form already.

the principal obstical to changing over to them being nothing other then the politics of greed.

We can generate energy from nuclear fusion right now. It just costs more energy to create and sustain the reaction. If this energy cost can continue to be lowered by advances in engineering and physics, then it will a plentiful and efficient source of energy. Most of those non-combustion based energy production means - solar, wind, hydro, etc - are not plentiful sources of energy. Efficient, yes, but solar power requires too many square feet of panels per watt, it cannot meet our energy needs without taking unreasonably large tracts of land.

For example, a proposed plan to use the entire Sahara desert for solar-thermal power would only supply 20% of Europe's current energy needs. So if we had 4 more Sahara Deserts, then solar power could provide electricity. To Europe.

I skimmed that. It doesn't say anything about using "the entire Sahara desert."

[Risottia]

In my opinion, Nuclear Fusion is possible, we just haven't reached the level of technology needed. I am interested to hear the opinions of all the NS players(Who I know are intelligent in their own way)

For those of you who don't really know what I'm talking about please reference this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Locally_cold_fusion

Nuclear fusion is of course possible. See the Sun, Bikini or Tsar Bomba.
As for cold fusion, I don't know: a professor at my department was having some minor results with a modified Fleischmann-and-Pons experiment, but ENI (energy company) shut his funding and took away everything from the lab. Btw the professor died some months after, so I guess that IF there was something working, it's locked away in some supersecret vault.
I think that the best route to controlled fusion is the tokamaks - ITER is will be ignited 9 years from now if everything goes well.

Btw: just to have another go at mr.George "D'oh-blya" Bush: In December 2007, the United States zeroed funding for ITER in fiscal year 2008. (source wiki)

And to have another go at Greenpeace: Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International said that "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy". "Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."

Technophobical idiots.

[Risottia]

For example, a proposed plan to use the entire Sahara desert for solar-thermal power would only supply 20% of Europe's current energy needs. So if we had 4 more Sahara Deserts, then solar power could provide electricity. To Europe.

I skimmed that. It doesn't say anything about using "the entire Sahara desert."

see wiki:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation
Iirc, TREC documents say that it would be enough to create a thermal-solar plant of an extension equal to 1/10 of the area of Sahara to fulfill all the energy demands of the whole planet in 2020 - assuming the 2006 rate of growth.

[Risottia]

Fusion power on earth is certainly possible.

The idea that it is "nuclear power without nuclear waste" is wrong though. It will always involve hard radiation, and unless it is at a safe distance (eg, Sol) that will create nuclear waste.

Yep, but the radioactive waste you have from fusion is just the elements of the internal cover of the tokamak - which is comparable to the radioactivity of the shielding elements of a fission reactor. Nothing comparable to spent fission fuel (which contains radioactive cesium, plutonium, thorium, cadmium, barium, strontium, calcium...)

[Gelgisith]

I would just like to point out that achieving cold nuclear fusion is possible

Citation, please?

So those scientists that pursue [cold fusion] are like those who look for tachyons and gravitons?

Gravitons are many orders of magnitude more plausible than tachyons.

More than that, gravitons are necessary for the standard model (and all it's derivatives) to be correct.

[Dolbri]

I would just like to point out that achieving cold nuclear fusion is possible

Citation, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

I know wiki isn't suppose to be used as a source, but the page contains references.

I didn't mean the hypothetical, mysterious, unreproducible type of fusion that Fleischmann and Pons thought they had found. I meant muon induced fusion, which has been well demonstrated (it's a simple idea, too). The only problem is that it requires muons to work, and those are not abundantly available.

EDIT: this is also the kind of fusion the OP was referring to.

[Treznor]

Nuclear fusion is possible. In fact, we've already achieved it. The island of Bikini Atol is proof positive of that fact.

What you're talking about is containable, sustainable, energy efficient fusion, which is another animal all together

It turns out we have that, too. The Navy is still funding it.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

For example, a proposed plan to use the entire Sahara desert for solar-thermal power would only supply 20% of Europe's current energy needs. So if we had 4 more Sahara Deserts, then solar power could provide electricity. To Europe.

I skimmed that. It doesn't say anything about using "the entire Sahara desert."

see wiki:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation
Iirc, TREC documents say that it would be enough to create a thermal-solar plant of an extension equal to 1/10 of the area of Sahara to fulfill all the energy demands of the whole planet in 2020 - assuming the 2006 rate of growth.

Just to make that plain: you're agreeing with me, right?

You only have to notice how the surface of the planet gets hotter as the sun shines on it, to realize just how much energy is available from sunlight. Try warming your back yard with an electric heater. It's a LOT of energy, shining down on us every day.

I want to rant about this Heinlein story I once read. But that would go off-topic.

[SERBIJANAC]

We can generate energy from nuclear fusion right now. It just costs more energy to create and sustain the reaction. If this energy cost can continue to be lowered by advances in engineering and physics, then it will a plentiful and efficient source of energy. Most of those non-combustion based energy production means - solar, wind, hydro, etc - are not plentiful sources of energy. Efficient, yes,.

hmm energy in electric form can be generated for whole world from water resources.
the energy power in rivers is enough for 1/4 ,1/3 of needed power.

tidal energy and energy of waves and ocean currents,too.
also some big projects for inland seas ,lakes, land depressions and further...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_dam


geotermal energy by heating watter inside earth can give alot of power also.

1% is in ground water.., lakes ,rivers have 0,02.% of total water on earth.
future is not in hidrogen but its oxide.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Fusion power on earth is certainly possible.

The idea that it is "nuclear power without nuclear waste" is wrong though. It will always involve hard radiation, and unless it is at a safe distance (eg, Sol) that will create nuclear waste.

Yep, but the radioactive waste you have from fusion is just the elements of the internal cover of the tokamak - which is comparable to the radioactivity of the shielding elements of a fission reactor. Nothing comparable to spent fission fuel (which contains radioactive cesium, plutonium, thorium, cadmium, barium, strontium, calcium...)

Yes. You get much more nasty stuff by breaking down heavy nucleii, than by adding to stable ones.

But you still get nasty stuff. Kinda rules out "fusion batteries" which can be safely disposed of.

The ideal power source isn't centralized, it isn't producer/consumer based. It's cheap, disposable or recyclable, and scales down economically.

On a possibly unrelated note, low-environmental-impact and low initial investment energy storage is still important, if we discover a centralized, high investment source of energy ... like hot fusion.

[Ifreann]

Gravitons are many orders of magnitude more plausible than tachyons.

However, tachyons are many orders of magnitude more awesome than gravitons, so that evens out.

If Star Trek has taught us anything its that tachyons can do fucking anything.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Gravitons are many orders of magnitude more plausible than tachyons.

However, tachyons are many orders of magnitude more awesome than gravitons, so that evens out.

If Star Trek has taught us anything its that tachyons can do fucking anything.

These tachyons you speak of ... if they fuck anything, keep them out of my bedroom or I'll set the cat on them.

[Risottia]

Just to make that plain: you're agreeing with me, right?

I think so.

You only have to notice how the surface of the planet gets hotter as the sun shines on it, to realize just how much energy is available from sunlight. Try warming your back yard with an electric heater. It's a LOT of energy, shining down on us every day.

I want to rant about this Heinlein story I once read. But that would go off-topic.

That would be "Friday", about the Shipstones, right?

[Risottia]

future is not in hidrogen but its oxide.

But... but... DHMO is an ASPHIXIANT! And it's used in NUCLEAR PLANTS!

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Just to make that plain: you're agreeing with me, right?

I think so.

You only have to notice how the surface of the planet gets hotter as the sun shines on it, to realize just how much energy is available from sunlight. Try warming your back yard with an electric heater. It's a LOT of energy, shining down on us every day.

I want to rant about this Heinlein story I once read. But that would go off-topic.

That would be "Friday", about the Shipstones, right?

Hmm, probably not. It was a story about a young fellow (Heinlein wrote to an audience) who invented a kind of solar panel made simply from clay. If I remember correctly, the story went that his patent was stolen by vested interests in energy, he had no chance of making any money from it, but somehow released the secret and the whole world lived happily ever after with free electricity.

It was one of his early works. Before he turned into a fat and self-indulgent egotist. "Stranger in a strange land" was his last good book. And it's not all good.

I must also recommend "Spaceship Galileo." A short novel, and I think ironical. If anyone is silly enough to read a book I liked thirty years ago, don't click the spoiler. It will spoil the plot for you (that's why it's called a 'spoiler.')

The last few chapters are an extraordinary (and probably ironical) resort to the Godwin to end a story which is all about striving for the impossible. I learnt a lot from that book. I loved the idea of a cranky old reject from the space industry teaching me how to build a rocket, and then me (as one of the child protagonists) flying to the moon ... but the barefist combat with escaped Nazis living on the moon finally broke the spell. Heinie, you were kidding all along, right?