Simple Question about Fusion For Power

229
0
Why the hell don't we put more money into this? I mean, infinite free clean energy you think would be a drive but it don't seem to be.

I mean, the more I think about it the more I wonder why...
 
35
0
man i hear ya. maybe because it doesnt produce more power than it uses yet and not enough people know about it. but with more money things would definitely start moving faster. fusion is the future.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,705
4,927
Fusion power is not infinite, free, or completely clean but we do already put a considerable amount into researching it.
 
1,432
451
Why the hell don't we put more money into this?
what's stopping you from putting all of your money into it? I know that sounds pissy, but I mean really, can you answer that question?
 
149
0
maybe because it doesnt produce more power than it uses yet.
I cant tell if this is a joke? You do realize that outputting more energy than is inputted breaks the laws of physics...
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
I cant tell if this is a joke? You do realize that outputting more energy than is inputted breaks the laws of physics...
Not in the sense he means. He means sustaining a reaction using less energy than you get out of the reaction.
 
472
0
infinite free clean energy
Not so.

From the knowhow we have gained in the past few years, we can estimate that we would have fuel (on Earth) for nuclear fusion for the next few hundred years.

This energy is definetly not free. Without talking about the cost of the nuclear fuel, or any other installation: to sustain nuclear fusion, on Earth, you need to reach a temperature of 100'000'000K (100million degree). Try to imagine how much that cost.

The idea of clean is also relative. At this temperature, the particles collision and produce an outstanding amount of energy, but not only in its purest form. There are many particles, very exotic, created from reactions like these, that carry energy of many MeV, which it might even reach the TeV in some case. No one knows how these particles would react with the sheilding environment. Therefore, if you believe that existing nuclear power plant create radioactive waste, just wait for the exotism created from fusion power.

But, there is energy available, which is not too expensive. Work is being done on research reactors, that could see a commercial version in a near future.

Cheers
 
229
0
fatra2 said:
From the knowhow we have gained in the past few years, we can estimate that we would have fuel (on Earth) for nuclear fusion for the next few hundred years.
From WIKI (Yes, I know, if you want better sources I can certainly oblige): "Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the 1995 global power output of about 100 EJ/yr (= 1 x 1020 J/yr) and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years."

gmax137 said:
what's stopping you from putting all of your money into it? I know that sounds pissy, but I mean really, can you answer that question?
People would be more likely to fund if it they saw the government take the lead. It's never even mentioned, we are instead funding corn power, wind power, possibly more nuclear power (which is cool with me), light power and other things like that that we all know can't output enough power to do it alone (except of course nuclear power, but we only have fuel for a few hundred years for that).

Fusion power is not infinite, free, or completely clean but we do already put a considerable amount into researching it.
A considerable amount is very subjective. Just a tiny pinch of the money from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we could all be flying around in space cars because we have so much energy from fusion.

And yes, I know it's not strictly infinite (but longer than the life of the earth), strictly clean (but pure deuterium plants would be extremely clean I imagine) and strictly free (we only need water for deuterium plants)... but it's better than anything else possible right? I'm assuming we would find methods to extract lithium with no trouble from the sea and in time the initial cost of research/construction will be forgotten and power will be flowing pretty hard.

Or, where have I gone wrong? Is the greatest source of ridiculous energy sitting right in front of us but no-one wants to put a reasonable effort?

EDIT: I guess it could be that this thing is such in it's infancy that it's just not a reasonable thing to push it to quickly. We may not be able to see the same results in a reasonable time frame and it's better we use low hanging fruit for power in the near future. But I dunno.
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,705
4,927
People would be more likely to fund if it they saw the government take the lead. It's never even mentioned, we are instead funding corn power, wind power, possibly more nuclear power (which is cool with me), light power and other things like that that we all know can't output enough power to do it alone (except of course nuclear power, but we only have fuel for a few hundred years for that).
Have you looked for information on fusion funding? It's out there. Google it. And recognize, there is a difference between funding fission and fusion. Fusion funding is for research and fission funding funds actual power plants.
A considerable amount is very subjective. Just a tiny pinch of the money from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we could all be flying around in space cars because we have so much energy from fusion.
That's absurd.
...strictly clean (but pure deuterium plants would be extremely clean I imagine)
It isn't too bad, but understand that the reactor would turn itself and anything around it inside its containment system radioactive.
and strictly free (we only need water for deuterium plants)...
You still need to turn that water into nuclear fuel - its not like you can just pump it out of the ocean and into the power plant. And you still need to build the power plant!
but it's better than anything else possible right?
Maybe, but only maybe: we don't even know if it is "possible" yet!
I'm assuming we would find methods to extract lithium with no trouble from the sea and in time the initial cost of research/construction will be forgotten and power will be flowing pretty hard.
Extracting one chemical from another requires energy - there is no way around the first law of thermo. And construction cost is never forgotten in a good economic analysis. Fusion plants will no doubt be extremely expensive.
Or, where have I gone wrong? Is the greatest source of ridiculous energy sitting right in front of us but no-one wants to put a reasonable effort?
What's reasonable? It's already in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Here's a single international project that is funded for a projected cost of $14 billion over 30 years, or $450 million a year (probably front-end loaded for construction). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
 
148
0
I suggest reading what Eric Drexler wrote about it. Also read the comments. He had some good feedback. The bottom line is that the capital costs for tokamak style fusion are extremely high and there doesn't appear to be any prospect for reducing the costs anywhere close to a fission power plant.

http://metamodern.com/2010/01/20/why-fusion-won%E2%80%99t-provide-power/" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
229
0
Whelp, that was fun.

There are some serious problems but all of the problems have solutions with separate problems so we just need to get to problem solving.

"Why fusion won’t provide power" Should be called, why fusion won't provide power in the near future. I imagine as fusion becomes more and more attractive because development costs go down, we run out of easy oil/uranium and power requirements go up we will start building them seriously. There were surely similar problems with our current systems when they were in their infancy... possibly not as complex but problems none the less.

But it's just too soon to be practical.
 
149
0
So when do you all think that we will have fusion power of any kind (tokama, polywell, etc) be a put to real use? Or do you think that it will never be viable?
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
Not so.

From the knowhow we have gained in the past few years, we can estimate that we would have fuel (on Earth) for nuclear fusion for the next few hundred years.
For D+T fusion? With the available deuterium, a few hundred years is many orders of magnitude too low assuming today's energy load. Are you assuming some extraordinary increase in load?

[...]The idea of clean is also relative. At this temperature, the particles collision and produce an outstanding amount of energy, but not only in its purest form. There are many particles, very exotic, created from reactions like these, that carry energy of many MeV, which it might even reach the TeV in some case. No one knows how these particles would react with the sheilding environment.
There are difficult neutron activation and tritium handling issues, but this makes no sense. Other than neutrons and alphas, to what 'many' and 'very exotic' particles are you referring? What D+T fusion reaction or side reaction makes TeV particles? The interactions of neutrons with materials is well documented.
 
472
0
There are difficult neutron activation and tritium handling issues, but this makes no sense. Other than neutrons and alphas, to what 'many' and 'very exotic' particles are you referring? What D+T fusion reaction or side reaction makes TeV particles? The interactions of neutrons with materials is well documented.
Hi there,

Were you ever in an environment of more than 100 million degrees? If not, I can tell you that no one has. Therefore, it is difficult to know what type of particles will be created from such fusion.

Theory tells us many things, but without any experimental facts, it is hard to know precisely what will be the end result of such fusion.

Secondly, by clean I understand that it has no or very little radioactivity (that could be dangerous to humans). With such high energy particles, how will the sheilding resist over the years. It is also quite known that the danger of fission power plant does not only reside in the fission products, but also in the residual shielding materials, that has to be dismantled at the end. This is where the workers from a NPP get alot and alot of radiation exposure. To come back to the fusion, how do you know that the shielding material will not react in a very ackward way when exposed to this type of super high energy particle flux???

Cheers
 
148
0
My take is that tokamak style fusion won't be a practical power source during the current century. I would continue tokamak research, but spend more money on other approaches that probably won't work, but the cost of investigating them is low enough to make it cost effective to do the research to figure if they will work or not.

The solution isn't urgent. With breeder reactors we have enough Uranium and Thorium to last for thousands of years.
 

QuantumPion

Science Advisor
Gold Member
902
42
Hi there,

Were you ever in an environment of more than 100 million degrees? If not, I can tell you that no one has. Therefore, it is difficult to know what type of particles will be created from such fusion.

Theory tells us many things, but without any experimental facts, it is hard to know precisely what will be the end result of such fusion.

Secondly, by clean I understand that it has no or very little radioactivity (that could be dangerous to humans). With such high energy particles, how will the sheilding resist over the years. It is also quite known that the danger of fission power plant does not only reside in the fission products, but also in the residual shielding materials, that has to be dismantled at the end. This is where the workers from a NPP get alot and alot of radiation exposure. To come back to the fusion, how do you know that the shielding material will not react in a very ackward way when exposed to this type of super high energy particle flux???

Cheers
100 million kelvin is only ~10 keV average per particle. That is not very high energy nuclear-ly speaking.

Nuclear fission spent fuel and structural materials have long-lasting radioactivity mainly due to fission products and transuranics. Generally the products of direct neutron activation are shorter lived isotopes.
 

QuantumPion

Science Advisor
Gold Member
902
42
Yep, but that assumes away the safety and proliferation issues with fission.
By the time the NRC gets around to licensing a new fast reactor design, all the third world dictators will have nuclear weapons anyway. :grumpy:
 
148
0
Hey guys,

When I commented that we had plenty of time to solve the problem of fusion power I wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Let's try to get back on topic.
 

Related Threads for: Simple Question about Fusion For Power

  • Posted
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
37
Views
9K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top