Nuclear fusion and the end of energy problems claim

[Villhelm]

Nuclear fusion and the "end of energy problems" claim

Hi,

Is it me, or does the following claim seem naive?

"If we can achieve fusion here on earth, then the world's energy problem will be solved."

As I understand it, our energy problems are more to do with greed and waste than because there's simply not enough "renewable" sources, so would not our "needs" simply grow to encompass what's made available (much as they have with many other resources)?

 

[QuantumPion]

Nuclear fission power provides mostly the same benefits as nuclear fusion would - practically unlimited, cheap fuel with no pollution. Our energy problems are purely political.

 

[mathman]

Nuclear fission power provides mostly the same benefits as nuclear fusion would - practically unlimited, cheap fuel with no pollution. Our energy problems are purely political.

There are two major flaws in your picture. Nuclear waste just keeps accumulating and power plants ultimately have to be decommissioned.

 

[QuantumPion]

There are two major flaws in your picture. Nuclear waste just keeps accumulating and power plants ultimately have to be decommissioned.

Nuclear waste is only accumulating in the U.S. due to political decision to ban reprocessing.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the decommissioning comment. Nuclear plants can and have been "green-fielded".

 

[Nik_2213]

Snag with fission plants is that a lot of the decommissioned material will stay 'hot' for geological times. Been suggested that neutron activation would speed up the process...

 

[russ_watters]

Is it me, or does the following claim seem naive?

"If we can achieve fusion here on earth, then the world's energy problem will be solved."

As I understand it, our energy problems are more to do with greed and waste than because there's simply not enough "renewable" sources, so would not our "needs" simply grow to encompass what's made available (much as they have with many other resources)?

That's really not a nuclear power question, but an energy use question. If we get cheap, renewable or nearly limitless energy for electric power, our usage will certainly grow. But how much? Economics will certainly take over and moderate our usage to limit wastefulness somewhat, but certainly a developed nation like the US could find a way to double or triple its electricity usage...

...But can it increase enough to turn an essentially limitless resource like fission or fusion fuel into a limited resource? Unlikely. We'd need our power usage to grow by an order of magnitude or two for fission fuel to be a concern within the next few hundred years and there is substantially more fusion fuel available.

 

[russ_watters]

Snag with fission plants is that a lot of the decommissioned material will stay 'hot' for geological times.

So what?

 

[Stanley514]

Currently the cheapest energy source is coal.You would need to have something really cheap
to beat it.Nuclear fusion is not going to be extremely cheap at least because of radioactivity management problems.
Some researches promise relitively unexpensive fusion plants with fast ignition laser approach.
But it still requires lot of development.

 

[Villhelm]

"Snag with fission plants is that a lot of the decommissioned material will stay 'hot' for geological times."

But what are the real-term health impacts of spent nuclear fuel with / without reprocessing as opposed to current non-nuclear power generation waste?

 

[Astronuc]

But what are the real-term health impacts of spent nuclear fuel with / without reprocessing as opposed to current non-nuclear power generation waste?

That's a rather vague question. One has to consider how spent nuclear fuel is handled/stored/transported and ultimately diposed of. Then consider the same for reprocessed spent fuel, and coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric, . . . .

One has to consider the dispostion of waste streams in all cases, and consider the consequences to public health as a result of exposure to the waste streams.

For example, coal ash, which contains heavy metals accumulates at many power plant sites. What is the health consequences of exposure to heavy metals? Are people being exposed to coal waste - either at the plant or at or near the mine.

What are the health consequences for exposure to waste from oil?

. . . .


This thread is drifting off topic, and it's not really about nuclear energy as much as it is about energy policy and the impact of the waste or by-products of energy production.

 

[Kalrag]

When I look at the fusion reactor designs, it says that it take 5 million amps to create fusion. It would take several nuclear power plants to even power the fusion reactor. I deem it unreliable.

 

[Astronuc]

When I look at the fusion reactor designs, it says that it take 5 million amps to create fusion. It would take several nuclear power plants to even power the fusion reactor. I deem it unreliable.

What is the basis of one's declaration. I suggest one do the calculations.

High current, low voltage.

 

[QuantumPion]

According to Wikipedia, the ITER tokamak is designed to produce 500 MW of output power with 50 MW of input power. I imagine that the various equipment consuming that input power operates at a voltage higher than 10 V.

As a little aside, since there have been two fusion-bashing threads lately:

It makes one wonder - why are the people whom are typically in favor of policies such as eliminating carbon dioxide emissions and subsidizing solar and wind power so opposed to fusion power research? You would think they would be all in favor of an energy technology that has the potential to completely replace all conventional power generation sources with no radioactive byproducts. I often hear claims that the research should be abandoned because "it won't work" or "it's too expensive", yet these same people go on to proclaim that solar and wind power are the future and should receive heavy government subsidies. /rant

 

[mheslep]

According to Wikipedia, the ITER tokamak is designed to produce 500 MW of output power with 50 MW of input power.[...]

Yes, for 8 minutes.

As a little aside, since there have been two fusion-bashing threads lately:

It makes one wonder - why are the people whom are typically in favor of policies such as eliminating carbon dioxide emissions and subsidizing solar and wind power so opposed to fusion power research? You would think they would be all in favor of an energy technology that has the potential to completely replace all conventional power generation sources with no radioactive byproducts. I often hear claims that the research should be abandoned because "it won't work" or "it's too expensive", yet these same people go on to proclaim that solar and wind power are the future and should receive heavy government subsidies. /rant

'Fusion power research' includes many different approaches and magnetic containment Tokamaks (i.e. ITER) are only one of them. As it happens I fall on the side of continuing ITER research, but just barely. I'm skeptical for several reasons: 1) We don't know technically if ITER will work at all - the history of containment fusion is strewn with numerous plasma instability surprises and there may very well be more to come. 2) We don't know that ITER will ever be commercially viable even it produces 10:1 continuously. http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf" , predicting that the neutron flux would forever (or nearly) make the containment vessel maintenance uneconomic, and that a plant would only come in one size - gigantic, risky for investors. By contrast, we _know_ the current technical performance of solar and wind, know that they work at least within the bounds of their variability issues. We know what they cost even if expensive (solar), and we know that the cost continues to fall over time per joule rendered.

 

[QuantumPion]

Yes, for 8 minutes.
'Fusion power research' includes many different approaches and magnetic containment Tokamaks (i.e. ITER) are only one of them. As it happens I fall on the side of continuing ITER research, but just barely. I'm skeptical for several reasons: 1) We don't know technically if ITER will work at all - the history of containment fusion is strewn with numerous plasma instability surprises and there may very well be more to come. 2) We don't know that ITER will ever be commercially viable even it produces 10:1 continuously. http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf" , predicting that the neutron flux would forever (or nearly) make the containment vessel maintenance uneconomic, and that a plant would only come in one size - gigantic, risky for investors. By contrast, we _know_ the current technical performance of solar and wind, know that they work at least within the bounds of their variability issues. We know what they cost even if expensive (solar), and we know that the cost continues to fall per joule rendered.

Fair enough. My point of view is that considering how much money governments spend on other projects and social policies, a few billion over a decade is a paltry amount considering the possible benefits.

 

[russ_watters]

two fusion-bashing threads lately:

It makes one wonder - why are the people whom are typically in favor of policies such as eliminating carbon dioxide emissions and subsidizing solar and wind power so opposed to fusion power research? You would think they would be all in favor of an energy technology that has the potential to completely replace all conventional power generation sources with no radioactive byproducts. I often hear claims that the research should be abandoned because "it won't work" or "it's too expensive", yet these same people go on to proclaim that solar and wind power are the future and should receive heavy government subsidies. /rant

I don't really qualify as "apposed to fusion power research", but the issue is that you're comparing things that aren't equivalent. Funding for fusion research is just that - funding for research. Funding for a wind plant results in an actual power plant being built. So they can't really be compared as if the dollars spent are for the same purpose. If you can only do one and not the other, the one you do has to be the constructing of power plants now.

Fusion should certainly be researched because of the tantalizing possibilities that it holds, but it really is just like buying an expensive lottery ticket with an unknown (and possibly nonexistant) chance of winning. But because even if you win with funding today, it won't pay out for a couple of decades, you still need to be doing things now to provide clean and preferably renewable electricity for those couple of decades, otherwise current problems will get a lot worse while we wait for the drawing to see if we won.

 

[AlexES16]

Baah some times humanity have to touch its! Ba·$%$%$& and give it a try, we are not wussies.

 

[gmax137]

...You would think they would be all in favor of an energy technology that has the potential to completely replace all conventional power generation sources with no radioactive byproducts. I often hear claims that the research should be abandoned because "it won't work" or "it's too expensive", yet these same people go on to proclaim that solar and wind power are the future and should receive heavy government subsidies. /rant

If you look at some of the blogs/sites where energy policy etc. is discussed, it won't be long before you see the posts from people who believe that more energy production would be 'bad' and the cheaper any technology for producing power, the 'worse' the technology will be in the long run. I can't follow their reasoning, but I think it comes down to: 'look how messed up the world is with the power we're producing now.' Back to nature, blah blah bla

 

[Drakkith]

The benefits and drawbacks of fusion power generation are being exaggerated by both sides to some degree. (Not in this thread, but in general) Part of the problem is that we have no way of seeing into the future to see how long a reactor can last under neutron flux, or how efficient our reactors will be, and various other questions. IF we can get fusion power up and running, and IF it is cleaner, cheaper, and with more abundant fuel than anything else, it COULD drastically alter many things. It is NOT the end all be all of technology, nor will it solve every problem known to man, or even come close. It looks like it has the potential to provide massive amounts of power with a very abundant fuel source, but until it happens we won't know for sure just how beneficial it will be.