Fusion Reactor for France

OK, maybe I missed the boat on this one. I admit I haven't been trying to keep up on Nuclear energy research, but the last I knew no scientists had ever successfully, and repeatedly, been able to produce a controlled fusion reaction.

How do you heat deuterium and tritium up to temperatures "many times hotter than the center of the sun"? Why with an exploding (or rather IMploding) fission bomb of course, yielding an UNcontrolled fusion reaction, or hydrogen bomb.

Cold fusion, (not really COLD, but certainly cooler than the Sun's center!) was supposed to be the key, but that approach has come up a dead end.

So they are going back to Thermonuclear, eh? Safer, no runaway reactions, no meltdowns? Hmmmm.... Glad its going to be in France, not in the USA! If it does work, maybe our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will see some benefit, but for now we ought to be putting more resources into alternative energy, including solar and windpower, and yes, unfortunately, nuclear fission, a proven technology. By the time we have working nucler fusion, we can use it to power rockets to send all our nuclear fission waste to the Sun! Maybe by that time Matter Transporter Beam technology will be a reality and we can "beam" the waste into space!

"All ahead, Warp Speed, Mr. Scott!"

(In Fond Memory of James Doohan, Actor, who portrayed Star Trek's Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, a fine example for Scotsmen and Engineers everywhere)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Scott

:-(

My link did not work. For some reason, making the URL active on this forum negates any underscore mark used in a URL, probably because an underscore is added to the entire URL. Underscore underscored becomes just a space, I guess. To view some interesting info on our favorite fictional engineer (how many fictional engineers do you know?) just copy and paste the URL below into your browser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Scott

Scotty was the best. I recently saw one of the first episodes of Star Trek and its amazing how the characters we all loved were already developed. Just good chemistry I guess.

As for fusion, it's generally accepted knowledge that fusion is not a practical alternative energy. This is a misconception. Fusion is not only possible, but more practical than ethanol or wind farms when yield to investment is considered. It is simply out of style and our no nothing, no research, useless and tasteless media perpetuates the myth that it's impractical.

That "good chemistry" is really the genius of Gene Roddenberry at working in developing, casting, writing, and producing Star Trek. Not that Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, Takai, et al, did not do good work, because the did. However, Roddenberry deserves the major credit as creator of the Star Trek series. He also recruited talented writers to continue his work and their legacy lives on in the many spinoffs of themes, plots, and characters which continue to show up throughout the Star Trek universe.

As for fusion, if the Conventional Wisdom (and I am not a big fan of CW anyway) that "fusion is not a practical alternative energy" source is wrong, why have the best brains on the planet been unable to harness it after over 50 years of trying? On the other hand, there must be some merit to it, otherwise the governments of the major industrialized nations of the world would not be cooperating and pooling resources to try to develop it.

Roger Pink said, "Fusion is not only possible, but more practical than ethanol or wind farms when yield to investment is considered."

How can you say it is more practical if billions of dollars are still needed just to start a major research project to find a practical technology to control it? I admit I do not like the direction that ethanol research and development is taking. At best it is an energy conversion technology and at worst a diversion of resources (from food). However, wind energy is natural, available , free, and renews itself continuously. Wind energy comes indirectly from the sun so it is inexhaustible resource. In time, its cost/benefit ration (yield to investment?) will only get better as we move up the learning curve with this technology and investment and operating costs drop.

Direct solar-electric energy technology also continues to become more practical as advances in solar cell manufacturing and technology lower its costs while raising output as well. Other forms of solar energy, including solar-thermal-electric generation show promise as well where large steerable mirror arrays can focus solar heat to generate steam to power turbo-generators.

Interestingly, and fortunately, these two energy sources, solar and wind, are most abundant in the regions with the highest population growth rates in the US, the West and Southwest.

When I consider an alternative fuel source, I consider the cost to bring it to market, the energy output, the ability of the technology to meet energy demands and order of magnitude greater than today (for the energy needs of the next generation).

A gallon of Ethanol, which is simply alcohol made from corn or another grain, will cost you about $2.50 at the pump and gets about 10 mpg less than gasoline. Ethanol is made from corn which must be grown, harvested, fermented, extracted, and shipped for little to know savings. Most imporantly though, it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces.

As for wind power, last year the total worldwide energy capacity for wind farms was roughly 60 MegaWatts. Niagara Falls produced 2400 MegaWatts of power. So all the power from all the windfarms in the world added together produced 3% of the energy produced at Niagara Falls. Wind farms, though good for a few random areas are utterly impractical as a largescale solution.

"How can you say it is more practical if billions of dollars are still needed just to start a major research project to find a practical technology to control it"

Every alternative fuel costs billions of dollars to make it work. VCs are pouring billions into Ethanol which has no potential at all. There is a misconception about science that it is free to pursue whatever research it wishes. The ivory tower is a myth. Science is driven by economics just like everything else. Scientists need grants to pursue research and it's corporations and government that give out the grants. The government and corporations are usually nontechnical and fall for the hype and so we have 1000 scientists researching carbon nanotubes. Do you really think carbon nanotubes are that important? It's terrible. Without money, only the priviledged few can work on Fusion and with few working on it, the results have been slow in coming, simply the return on investment. The good news is that things fall back into favor, which Fusion undoubtably will eventually. Here's why Fusion is a no brainer.

The fusion reactor being built that started this chain will have a capacity of 500 MWatts. This is a reactor with rudimentary fusion technology and it already can outpower ethanol and wind by a lot. The fuel for nuclear fusion is water and the output is helium. There are no radioactive materials like in fission. No fall-outs, no melt downs, no uranium or plutonium, nothing like that.

Total energy consumption in the world today consists of 44% Oil, 26% Natural gas, 25% Coal, 2.4% hydroelectric power, 2.2% nuclear power, and .4% renewable energy. Clearly wind and ethanol is not getting it done. We need a real solution to power us through the next century, and that solution has to be Fusion since it is the only alternative fuel with the potential to exceeding our energy needs.

Oh, I forgot to mention, solar power is also a possible solution, unfortunately very little money is being spent on that area of research as well because it fell out of favor in the eighties. However, at it's best, it couldn't compete with fusion.

Roger,Roger,Roger......

Where to start?

Get off the Ethanol kick. I never brought that up or suggested it. You only presented it as a "straw man" that you could easily kick apart. See my own comments on Ethanol. We are not in disagreement on that.

You commit a logical fallacy. Just because there is not a large generating base of wind power today does not mean that it could not have a significant impact on our future. By your same logic, fusion should not be pursued because currently the megawatts being generated by fusion is ZERO!

Who ever said they had to be "wind farms" anyway? Many people have installed "personal wind generators" on their property and actually send power back to the grid at times, "selling" it to the power companies, although at times they must also "buy" power as well. Still, the net effect is less dependence on public production.

Carbon nanotubes? Give ME a break! What has that got to do with the discussion of alternative energy research? Do you think that physicists turned on by nuclear research are going to be interested in working on "carbon nanotubes" just because it is being "hyped". "1000 scientists", is that another number being pulled out of your head, or another part of your body?

"The fusion reactor being built that started this chain will have a capacity of 500 MWatts. This is a reactor with rudimentary fusion technology and it already can outpower ethanol and wind by a lot. The fuel for nuclear fusion is water and the output is helium."

Did we really read the same article? There you go again with the "Ethanol", have you been drinking it? (grin) I reread the article and saw no mention of any claimed power capacity. In fact, it is a "experimental" reactor that is being built. "If all goes well", they hope to have a "demonstration power plant" by 2040, 34 years from now! That means NO power production until at LEAST 2040! "Outpower ethanol and wind by a lot", indeed!?

And what about "the fuel for nuclear fusion is water"? I thought that it was deuterium and tritium, as mentioned in the article. Certainly, there is a small percentage of those hydrogen isotopes in H2O, (1 in 6400, or about .015 %) but they have to be concentrated somehow.(Remember "heavy water"? It is deuterium oxide enriched water, and is used as a neutron moderator in uranium fission reactors) Also, fusion cannot take place until the fuel is heated to "temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun." So, to be practical the reactor must be hot enough to turn the heavy water into plasma that can melt right through any material in existance. That is why research is being done to contain plasma magnetically. So, there is hope!

"We need a real solution to power us through the next century." Did you mean the 21st or the 22nd century? Even the most hopeful "Officials project that 10-20% of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century." By the END of the century. By your own numbers, nuclear (fission), hydroelectric, and renewable energy are already producing 5% of the world's total NOW! Certainly, "even a Caveman" would understand that more research and investment in those areas will increase that percentage at a faster rate than what is projected for fusion in the article.

Am I suggesting that we don't pursue nuclear fusion? Of course not, but it is just one of many possible energy sources, including Wind, Solar, and nuclear fission, all of which have much more near-term promise than fusion.

And for goodness sake, stop talking about ethanol! ;)

I agree to disagree. I'm gonna refrain from name calling and just say time will tell. Just so it's clear on where I stand. I believe Solar Power and Fusion will replace Fossil Fuels eventually as the primary source of electrical power. Additionally, I believe the slow going in Fusion research is a result of a lack of funding, not a lack of promise. Finally I believe room temperature fusion with muonium is possible.

guys, i m new...student here seeking opportunity to get close to any latest creation/innovation, which might perhaps make me someone @ SEA region..kidding!!. Rite, I totally agree with Williams. Billions for a reactor. Dividing those budgets into other potential alternative and write off all risks. I am quite dumb actually and never gone any futher than a common degree. So, pls if I offend any seniors around here, I sincerely apologize to you all.

YO DUDE GET YOUR FACTS STRIAGHT. They r not going to invest 10 tp 20 billions dollars and end up with something as worthless as you describe. First off the reaction is caused by pointing 190 cold beam amplified directed quantified laser light beams at a hole the size of a bb. from specific triangulations the resulting dense mass of light cuases fusion at a controlled spot. This is fusion light and then will be transferred to collecting cells much like solar panels. when the reaction happens it produces more energy than the world is currently using. It only take 5 volts total to power the laser beam. in order to amplify light all you have to do is bend it. so initially fire a small pulse then let tubing wound up 100 times amplify light naturally.190 of the amplified lights to be exact.