16 replies to this topic

[Crazykenny]

The Tokomak Reactor, clean fusion power for everyone. No waste materials and almost limitless power. Seems to good to be true, but its very very very expensive. I wanna know what you guys think of it?

[G-sus]

well would be a good thing if it could run more than a few miliseconds now...
but ever thought of the negative side of almost unlimited power supply?
we´d all be dead by global warming in a few years because every machine produces heat
and if power is almost for free what do ya think will happen...
btw the uranium will last for like another 200 years and its for the time the most reliable kind of
producing power.

Edited by G-sus, 30 April 2007 - 14:28.

[E.V.E.]

Quite Impressive. Heard long time ago that this was a experimental Power Source.

Interessting.

- E.V.E.

[Dauth]

A fusion reactor produces heat to make steam to drive generators, this is much better than no power. uranium produces heat to make steam and drive generators, coal produces... you get the idea.

Fusion can run at 104% efficiency (meaning it generates power not energy) for a few milliseconds but the principle is sound. it will be a possible source of energy unless soem eco-nut stops it with false science.

[Nerdsturm]

Wouldn't this just share most of the same problems as nuclear energy, though? Nuclear energy produces plenty of power, the biggest problem is just if anything goes wrong you end up with Chernobyl, and the effect of a fusion plant blowing its top would be even worse. I don't know if a fusion plant would create nuclear waste like a fission plant does, but I don't think the waste is too hard to dispose of anyways. It's interesting to see the amount of energy physicists can create, but I can't see it as a useful power supply.

[Dauth]

Fusion produces Helium, yes the inert gas,

[Nerdsturm]

Chernobyl was caused by the reactor overheating and pressurizing the coolant water to too high a level and causing the reactor to explode, and I'm assuming even a fusion plant that used Helium to spin the turbines rather than water would still need water to cool it. Helium used that way would still be dangerous, anyways, since inert gases can still spread radiation like any other. I suppose that the engineers who designed this thing probably have at least a few solutions to the problems raised by fisson plants, since if they didn't they probably wouldn't have invested the incredible amount of money it will take to build it. And I want to see it built, just not next to my house.

[Zeke]

I saw a documentary about that incident in the discovery channel, not pretty *shudders*

@topic: I heard of something like this, Is this the one that generates heat like the sun?

[Rich19]

Nerdsturm, on 30 May 2007, 22:10, said:

Wouldn't this just share most of the same problems as nuclear energy, though? Nuclear energy produces plenty of power, the biggest problem is just if anything goes wrong you end up with Chernobyl, and the effect of a fusion plant blowing its top would be even worse. I don't know if a fusion plant would create nuclear waste like a fission plant does, but I don't think the waste is too hard to dispose of anyways. It's interesting to see the amount of energy physicists can create, but I can't see it as a useful power supply.

The biggest problem is getting rid of nuclear waste. Sure you'll get Chernobyl if something goes wrong, but an oil depot going up (like Aylesbury here in the UK about a year ago) can happen as well.

[Strategia]

In Chernobyl, the main problem wasn't the water, or the ensuing fire, it was the radiation.

Fusion reactors use no uranium, and yes, even though the metal of the reactor itself becomes radioactive due to the alpha radiation produced by the reaction, it can be insulated and (if not activated) will return to normal radiation levels within a reasonable time-frame. Uranium and plutonium, on the other hand, remain highly radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

Moreover, if the reaction itself goes awry, the plasma will expand, touch the reactor walls, become contaminated and collapse again. The reactor might be irreparably damaged, but there is no disaster.

In a fission powerplant, if the control rods are extracted from the reactor, the reaction will increase in power tremendously and you will have a disaster on your hands. In a fusion reactor, however, even if the plasma didn't collapse back in on itself, it would expand rapidly and dissipate. Again, no disaster.

Apart from financial issues, once we get persistent fusion reactions running and a stable source of hydrogen (which shouldn't be all that hard, really) to keep it running, what exactly is the downside of fusion power?

[Dauth]

The fact its a bugger to get materials to fuse unless we hit 1 million kelvin?

[Strategia]

Successful tests have already been performed with fusion reactors, and the ITER project and its follow-up aim to go directly towards commercial production of electricity using fusion power.

[Dauth]

Yes i believe we have had a net production of 4% for about 3 miliseconds. Fusion is a good idea but its 50 years away.

[Strategia]

E.g. most of us will still be around when the first permanent fusion power plant opens up shop, probably.

[Nerdsturm]

In order to create eletrical energy these plants would still use water to spin turbines, though, wouldn't they? If they did, that would mean in the event that the reaction does go awry, even if it does halt itself quickly, the excess energy would be transfered to the water and could easily cause a steam explosion like at Chernobly.

[Strategia]

Exactly, a steam explosion, thus not likely to cause a lot of damage even inside the facility itself. Sure, in the worst case, the entire facility may become unusable but there will be no collateral damage. (Not unless the steam blows out a wall or something.)

[Eddy01741]

IIRC, France is setting up their ITER miniturized fusion power plant, which is in a donut design like this (i researched this for science 2 years ago). It's a donut design, with extremely powerful magnets holding the plasma inside. THe Plasma is the product of fusion, and this plasma is at an EXTREMELY hot temperature, they use some heat exchangers to harness this immense heat to make water into superheated steam, then they run the expanding steam through turbines to gernerate heat. Do note that to start up the generator and maintain it, you need a external power source to start the initial fission reaction that gives enough heat to start the fusion reaction and maintain it using supermagnets. BUt the fusion generator just about puts out that power five fold, so you feed in 100 megawatts from your normal oil/coal/nuclear powerplant, and then the fusion generator uses that and creates 500 megawatts. Also, it's not as volatile as the fission reactors, since the only radiation comes from the initial fission reaction starting the fusion reaction.