more arguments over fusion reactor

[wheresmyplacebo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4328597.stm

:banghead:

[Indrid Cold]

Wow... When did they make fusion work??? A couple of years ago I'm sure it was still just theory...

[twisted_trinity]

where ever they put it....make sure it's very very very far from people....i don't want to be anywhere near anything nuclear....but then again i don't really aggree with anything nuclear and think that we should really be looking into renewable energy that doesn't cause a threat.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Wow... When did they make fusion work??? A couple of years ago I'm sure it was still just theory...


theyve been making it work for years, its just a bit expensive and uneconomical as in they use more enrgry getting it started than what they get out of the brief period it works

i just want to see it built, and the region that doesnt get it built, will get the job of making the resources anyway so

[wheresmyplacebo]

where ever they put it....make sure it's very very very far from people....i don't want to be anywhere near anything nuclear....but then again i don't really aggree with anything nuclear and think that we should really be looking into renewable energy that doesn't cause a threat.


ahhhh

the by product of nuclear fusion is just helium, which isnt radioactive, unlike the by product of existing fission reactors

in its nature, if it got out of control, just turning off the supply of fuel would suffice, plus there would be other control methods anyway

and the only thing thats radioactive is the container where fuel is stored (tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) and the overall container as neutrons and radiation are produced in the process, but the radiation is what gets used to make the heat to make the electricity

if we got it working, itd be a big achievement, and at current usage levels, the whole of the eu area would only need ONE reactor, and then the bare minumum of fossil fuel power stations will be needed to supplement supply, which are stable and output levels can be controlled well, whic his why its used as main source at moment, other than cheapness

[ShyBoy]

The difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion with regards to safety, as far as my belief goes:

nuclear fission will just keep getting hotter until it explodes, that's there are incredibly strong safety measures and water cooling systems in place, incase it does become 'runaway'.

nuclear fusion needs a steady stream of fuel being input into it, rather than a 'lump'. These fuels merge and produce energy, you just turn off the tap and they stop combining, fission doesn't have two reactants as such just splitting the one, which causes more to split, and so on and so on until all the energy has been released and you have lots of energy and lots of radioactive waste.

Fission is seen by many the clean, green energy source of the future.

Although many others still beleive hydrogen is the way to go.

Hold on.. doesn't fission use hydrogen? (At least, I'm sure it does in the sun)

eta: if we put it in japan it is at risk from earthquakes, but Japan does have lots and lots of nuclear energy and they are probably as close to experts as there are. America, well, they have everything already, don't think we want to see it there. Europe - in theory it would be good, we have lots of beurocracy though, but perhaps thats a good thing.

Why not China? Developing nation, tonnes of graduates etc, proved they can do things efficiently and cheaply (putting a satellite in space for less than a tenth of what americans pay... on the first go). Russia had chernobyl, dont think we want to put it there.

I say France would be nice :chin: but they're quite a racist country apparently, centre of international research? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

See how they can draw it out into a big long debate though :p maybe they should draw straws :D

[Indrid Cold]

theyve been making it work for years, its just a bit expensive and uneconomical as in they use more enrgry getting it started than what they get out of the brief period it works

i just want to see it built, and the region that doesnt get it built, will get the job of making the resources anyway so
I was thinking about cold fusion... Sorry :blush:

[Teh_Gerbil]

Oh, just build it already. Who gives a toss?

FFS, Anything that isn't fossil fuels is better. Nuclear is also less polluting than fossil fuels, and safer. So two plants failed? One massivley? Well... its hardly a TERRIBLE record is it? And we are lucky the USSR Delt with Chernobyl quickly, or it could have been ALOT worse.

Fusion is the way forward for now. :thumb:

[wheresmyplacebo]

Oh, just build it already. Who gives a toss?

FFS, Anything that isn't fossil fuels is better. Nuclear is also less polluting than fossil fuels, and safer. So two plants failed? One massivley? Well... its hardly a TERRIBLE record is it? And we are lucky the USSR Delt with Chernobyl quickly, or it could have been ALOT worse.

Fusion is the way forward for now. :thumb:


its nuclear but not the way we know it, so dont get confused between fission and fusion, both requires extremely different conditions and fuels and produce completly different level of pollution

[morrocan roll]

The difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion with regards to safety, as far as my belief goes:

nuclear fission will just keep getting hotter until it explodes, that's there are incredibly strong safety measures and water cooling systems in place, incase it does become 'runaway'.

nuclear fusion needs a steady stream of fuel being input into it, rather than a 'lump'. These fuels merge and produce energy, you just turn off the tap and they stop combining, fission doesn't have two reactants as such just splitting the one, which causes more to split, and so on and so on until all the energy has been released and you have lots of energy and lots of radioactive waste.

Fission is seen by many the clean, green energy source of the future.

Although many others still beleive hydrogen is the way to go.

Hold on.. doesn't fission use hydrogen? (At least, I'm sure it does in the sun)

eta: if we put it in japan it is at risk from earthquakes, but Japan does have lots and lots of nuclear energy and they are probably as close to experts as there are. America, well, they have everything already, don't think we want to see it there. Europe - in theory it would be good, we have lots of beurocracy though, but perhaps thats a good thing.

Why not China? Developing nation, tonnes of graduates etc, proved they can do things efficiently and cheaply (putting a satellite in space for less than a tenth of what americans pay... on the first go). Russia had chernobyl, dont think we want to put it there.

I say France would be nice :chin: but they're quite a racist country apparently, centre of international research? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

See how they can draw it out into a big long debate though :p maybe they should draw straws :D
did any of that make any sense to anyone?

[Fiend_85]

As far as I'm aware, if fusion worked, we have enough resources to provide electricity for the entire planet for the next thousand years. So before any idiot starts having an ignorant paddy about fusion power because they don't understand it, think about that.

It's unbelivably safe, and massivly powerful. Fossil Fuels lasted a hundred years, give or take a half century. Fusion can do the entire planet for 1000 years. That is absolutly incredible.

[Mist]

Fusion is the way of the future, but of course some stupid wanky politicians will argue over everything.

They should just build the thing.