Nuclear Fusion anyone?

[NJArtist]

Is there any major organization out there doing some heavy duty research into making nuclear fusion a reliable/feasible/efficient source of energy? I mean, Bush keeps talking bout drillin in the Arctic, but at most, we should all be able to see that this is only a temporary solution so today's increasing demands for fuel. I feel that it would be a better idea to direct more funds towards research into nuclear fusion and battery technology rather than keep drilling.

On a side note, isn't it just slightly coincidental that Bush, from "Black Gold" country, wants to open up the Arctic for drilling? It's obvious that he's trying to pay back some people by giving them favors...it's complete BS! Think about how much money is to be made by opening up the Arctic for drilling...the rat bastard.

Anyways...nuclear fusion as a reliable/common source of energy, what do you guys think? 30? 40? 50? years away?

 

[Kanalua]

Trying to pay back all us Americans who have been flooding foreign oil markets with our money, then getting screwed by the same nations. You know we give millions of $US to our OPEC friends, just to get jacked up the @ss by them later on. Drill the Arctic, and screw OPEC for good.

ps - damn, wouldn;t have to do all that if someone did get a feasble fusion system up and running...(besides the sun of course).

 

[rahvin]

<<Trying to pay back all us Americans who have been flooding foreign oil markets with our money, then getting screwed by the same nations. You know we give millions of $US to our OPEC friends, just to get jacked up the @ss by them later on. Drill the Arctic, and screw OPEC for good>>

Repeat after me. The USA is OPEC's Bitch.

The USA will NEVER control sufficient stores of petroleum reserves to effect world prices one cent. Drilling ANWAR will have no effect on crude oil prices or the price you pay at the pump. You are living in a delusion if you think that drilling a wild life refuge is going to &quot;screw OPEC&quot;.

The solution to our energy problems isn't more oil, it NEVER have been. Deployment of Fusion and Fission reactors, and renewable power sources to power our grid and Fuel Cell based automobiles will eliminate US consumption of Fossil fuels and will free us from OPEC.

Don't be stupid and don't buy the party line.

<<Is there any major organization out there doing some heavy duty research into making nuclear fusion a reliable/feasible/efficient source of energy?>>

There has been intense research for the past 40 years. In fact for the past 40 years science has been saying 20 years till we have commercially deployable hot fusion. They are still saying 20 years, this time they might be right though, there have been a couple big break throughs in the past couple years in understanding how to control the reaction. It's still uncharted territory though, give it time. I do agree though, research funding should be increased, it's too bad they killed the superconduction supercollider, it would have given them the info they needed to get fusion quicker.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Scientists are saying that at current progression, we'll have commercial fusion reactors in 40-50 years. It could be done faster but there is one problem: money. The budget for nuclear fusion is pathetically low. This is the only reason we have to wait so long. Scientists have made fusion reactors about 1000 times as powerful as the original ones and they are now at the break even point.

Anybody got any info. on the ITER reactor?

 

[Kanalua]

rahvin: the best scientists can't even agree when fusion will be feasible. 20 years? 40-50 years? They've been saying that since the 80s (same timeline they were saying about when we'd destroy the ozone, our environment, etc...)

Screw OPEC, let's play hardball with them, If we'd have drilled ANWAR 10+ years ago, we wouldn't have to deal with OPEC's crap. We give billions of $US to them and we are, as you say, Their B!tch. You seem like you want to keep it that way.



<< The USA will NEVER control sufficient stores of petroleum reserves to effect world prices one cent. Drilling ANWAR will have no effect on crude oil prices or the price you pay at the pump. You are living in a delusion if you think that drilling a wild life refuge is going to &quot;screw OPEC&quot;. >>



you need to brush up on your economy skills, and your geological info. If we exploited all of our oil sources domestically, OPEC would lose 40% of its business. Your a fool if you think that wont effect the market for crude oil prices (Aggregate demand would shift to the left driving prices down along the supply curve, that for you in simple Econ110 language).

Only bitter algore-ist like you keep the US from b!tch slapping OPEC.

 

[rahvin]

<<you need to brush up on your economy skills, and your geological info. If we exploited all of our oil sources domestically, OPEC would lose 40% of its business. Your a fool if you think that wont effect the market for crude oil prices (Aggregate demand would shift to the left driving prices down along the supply curve, that for you in simple Econ110 language).>>

No, you are an idiot with no understanding of the issue. The USA purchases less than 10% of it's oil from OPEC nations. Tapping all our reserves and pumping at full volume we wouldn't have the capacity to even come close to 10% of the volume OPEC can do with 50% of their wells non producing. The US does NOT have the capacity to effect world oil prices ONE cent. We haven't had the ability to control oil prices since oil was discovered and tapped in the gulf states.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/tbld1_d5.html

http://www.cnie.org/nle/eng-3.html

Learn about an issue before you open your mouth.

 

[Kanalua]

you need to read more stuff Joseph P. Riva,Jr. published....he'd agree with me...we've got Indonesia, Latin America, etc, including our own. Indonesia, and Latin America would be more than willing to sell oil to us below the market cost. We'd screw OPEC.



<< The USA purchases less than 10% of it's oil from OPEC nations. Tapping all our reserves and pumping at full volume we wouldn't have the capacity to even come close to 10% of the volume OPEC can do with 50% of their wells non producing. >>



you're logic is flawed, we purchase some 40% of OPEC oil, you iegit. We stop buying from them and THEY lose 40% of their business, who cares about our capasity to theirs? You gotta think things through before you get the hot fingers on the keyboard...you learn one day, kid. If you knew anything about the real world, you'd know that if a company (or monopolist org.) lost 40% of its business, it would restructure its business pratices...OPEC would have to lower their prices to compete with new sources of Oil (Is - the US, Indonesia, Latin America).

Go hug a tree...

 

[axelfox]

There is a company down in San Diego that is doing Nuclear Fusion research..but I forgot what they were called. Our Nuclear Technology class went down to visit them.

 

[NJArtist]

I think I know about most of the current technology going into making fusion possible (dropping &quot;fuel pellets&quot; and causing them to implode using lasers, giant capacitators, heat/plasma/magnetic contaiment)...I'm just saying that they deserve more funding from Bush (or chimp?).

I know that the Nuclear Physics lab at Princeton, one of the leading centers of the study on fusion technology, had a big funding cut in the last 5-6 years.

It's just not fair that we're wasting all this money and only end up being OPEC's biotch....I hate it.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Yeah, you know you like me.

 

[NJArtist]

lol

 

[Elledan]

With proper funding and intensive research, nuclear fusion might be profitable (i.e. generating more energy than needed to operate the reactor) around 2015.

So far it doesn't appear that the US will play a big role in the development of nuclear fusion. Bush et al. are just too obsessed by oil and lasers. The UK, Netherlands and some other European countries are doing quite some research on nuclear fusion.

Fusion Power - UKAEA Fusion at Culham

 

[NJArtist]

Interesting...definitely Bush is catering to his oil buddies from Texas, any body with some common sense would realize that drilling in the arctic is pointless, at most it drops our gas prices like what, $.01?!?! There's just not enough of it here stateside, otherwise, would we NEED OPEC? The problem with energy is dualfold:

1) how do we create it economically and biologically friendly
2) how do we store it once we do create it

Ask any car manufacturer who sells cars in Cali (they are being mandated to sell a certain percentage of ZEV vehicles in the coming years), the biggest issue today is that battery technology is increasing at a tortoises rate.

 

[Elledan]

There's also a very interesting thread on powersources going on in Highly Technical. You might find it useful.

 

[rahvin]

<<you're logic is flawed, we purchase some 40% of OPEC oil, you iegit. We stop buying from them and THEY lose 40% of their business, who cares about our capasity to theirs? You gotta think things through before you get the hot fingers on the keyboard...you learn one day, kid. If you knew anything about the real world, you'd know that if a company (or monopolist org.) lost 40% of its business, it would restructure its business pratices...OPEC would have to lower their prices to compete with new sources of Oil (Is - the US, Indonesia, Latin America).>>

Gawd, you can't get stupider can you?

&quot;Experts estimate the amount of recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain at 3 billion to 7 billion barrels -- compared to U.S. consumption of 6.7 billion barrels a year.&quot;

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:XT4vUgoh_A8:www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv90.html+ANWAR+oil+reserves&amp;hl=en

Lets assume for a minute that we drill ANWAR and they are able to pull as much oil per day out of it as they are out of the Prudhoe bay field (roughly 1 million barrels a day). Placed on the world market this oil would compete in price against OPEC oil and supply and demand would determine the price. Using my link above from the DOE you will notice that in 1999 OPEC produced 34.2 million barrels a day. ANWAR produces 1 million a day and OPEC will simply produce 33.2 million barrels a day and they STILL CONTROL THE PRICE.

I understand that logic may be tough for you and you apparently failed mathmatics, but the hard fact is that OPEC controls enough world supply of oil to control the price and THEY ALWAYS WILL. The USA is OPEC's bitch and we always will be as long as we rely on oil. Now the question is, was that explanation to difficult for your simple mind to understand?

 

[Elledan]

I agree with rahvin. OPEC controls the world's largest supply of crude oil (nearly all oil on this planet is collected under the surface of the Middle-East and surrounding areas), so no matter how many of those tiny oil drips the US uses to power its engines, the largest oil supply will still be under the control of OPEC and since so many countries depend on this oil supply, the OPEC controls the price of crude oil.

BTW, the US will never be able to sustain itself with just the oil from ANWAR. If the US would use solely oil from this reservoir, it would be depleted within 5 years, if not earlier.

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

Funny how capitalism holds back progression.

 

[Tripleshot]

Funny,only myopic shrub butt lickers keep waving this banner about the &quot;benifits&quot; to our country to open drilling in AWR,for a paultry 292 day US supply that won't even get to market until 10-12 years from now.

This is a back door attempt to raid other pristeen areas,some here in Utah, for more gains for energy companies, at the expense of the environment and posterity. Purely partison politics and retribution for Clinton administration environmental protectionist strategy.


Noticed in todays news,shrubs energy girl is putting the legal authority for the drilling of AWR on the fast track. Thats a sign that more is on the way. No wonder Cheney is stonewalling GAO on who he consulted with for developing this energy policy. When the public finds out, this administration will be toast.

 

[etech]

Ok, how will oil companies drilling in ANWR and PAYING the US government royalties hold back fusion research. Answer, it won't.

It will help keep some US dollars at home, give some Americans some jobs and pave the way to also tapping into the natural gas reserves that are on the North Slope.
Wow, that sounds just terrible doesn't it.

Do some research into the first generation fuel cells, anyone want to make a guess what they will run on. Hint, it isn't H2 and can be found in large quantities on the North Slope of, let's say it all together, Alaska.

Who the hell said that the oil in ANWR was going to reduce oil prices?
It sure wasn't Pres. Bush.


Who here that says drilling on US soil is wrong will guarantee that the Middle East will be stable for the next 10 years?
When you can do that then I will agree that we do not need secure sources of energy.

So to sum it up, a stabler source of current energy, more jobs for Americans, more funds to the treasurey which can be used for research. Damn you all have convinced me, that's a bad idea.

Fusion is a great idea, but it would be stupid to count on a research breakthrough. GW isn't stupid.

 

[Kosugi]

About Fusion,

Back in the mid 80's a good friend and ex-roomate of mine from college days (I graduated in 71!) was working for Westinghouse in Fusion related areas. They were predicting 20-50 years.


I still hear 20-50 years, but I don't think Westinghouse is leading research anymore. It is mostly a state funded exercise.


Fusion, the inevitable and eventual power source for just about everything, doesn't get funded enough, imo.

Among its major problems are not budget related though. Two types of fusion are sought after. Both involve different flavors of Hydrogen. The first, and most abundant is Deuterium. For a deuterium based reactor to generate more power than it consumes, it must maintain temperatures at the core above 70 million degrees!

The other, and potentially more useful, form of fusion uses a Hydrogen isotope called Tritium. However, a Tritium reactor's &quot;break-even&quot; point is 440 million degrees! But the potential on returns is actually higher with Tritium than deuterium.

So, how do hold on to something that hot? That is the question.


Deuterium and tritium are produced naturally. As a matter of fact, they occur in relative abundance in salt water! You could extract enough Deuterium from 8 gallons of sea water that would equate to the energy potential in 10,000 gallons of gasoline (I don't know if I said that right).

So, there is hope for our long term energy needs. The unfortunate thing with today's fossil fuel use is that those same fossil fuels are used produce things such as plastic. When it is all said and done, I will not miss gasoline, but I will miss plastic (or perhaps my son will, or his kids).

You can make synthetic plastics from such things as corn husks and plants, but it is never of the same high quality.

 

[Elledan]

<< Among its major problems are not budget related though. Two types of fusion are sought after. Both involve different flavors of Hydrogen. The first, and most abundant is Deuterium. For a deuterium based reactor to generate more power than it consumes, it must maintain temperatures at the core above 70 million degrees!

The other, and potentially more useful, form of fusion uses a Hydrogen isotope called Tritium. However, a Tritium reactor's &quot;break-even&quot; point is 440 million degrees! But the potential on returns is actually higher with Tritium than deuterium.

So, how do hold on to something that hot? That is the question. >>

Magnetic fields are very suitable for holding the plasma. It's the method currently used in Tokamaks (fusion reactor).

Problems with fusion currently involve:
- The 'ash' (helium-atoms) must be removed before it chokes the fusion process. However, if too much helium is removed, the reaction will go too fast and will terminate.
- Removal of excess heat.
- The absorption of neutrons in the surrounding reactor wall.
- The conversion of the neuron's energy.

If we solve those problems, nothing can stop the development of profitable reactors. Of course, funding will be important too.

Because the US is so reluctant to fund fusion research, I think that the first fusion reactor suitable for producing energy will be developed in Eastern Asia (e.g. Japan) or Europe.

 

[etech]

C'mon guys, answer just one of my points.


Who here that says drilling on US soil is wrong will guarantee that the Middle East will be stable for the next 10 years?
When you can do that then I will agree that we do not need secure sources of energy.

 

[bigdog1218]

i don't know about the oil stuff, but i don't think we'll see fusion in our lifetime, i hope i'm wrong, but when someones says 20-50 years, which is a pretty big gap, i don't think they have any idea when this technology will be ready, hopefull i'm wrong, but i think its pretty long off