-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Will Nuclear Fusion ever pan out? *POLL*
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
In the history of just about every invention that does work there was a point where it didn't work. In the history of every process that is economically viable there was a point where it was too expensive to be worth it. Nuclear fusion will eventually be a reality. The science is solid and the benefits incalculable. It's just a matter of working out how to make it pay for itself. We've been playing with nuclear power for only a little over 50 years and look how far we've come. It would be short-sighted to not believe that we can make similar advances in the next 50. It's not a question of "if" fusion power becomes viable, it's only a question of "when?".
There are a number of different types of fusion reaction that could be achieved - some with significant benefits over others.
The most feasible at present is the reaction between Deuterium (Hydrogen-2) and Tritium (Hydrogen-3). Deuterium is found in trace quantities in natural water. Tritium, as it is intensely radioactive, is not found naturally but is produced in certain types of fission reactors. Most practical fusion desigs use Lithium which is 'bred' into Tritium by the neutron radiation from the fusion reaction.
The problem with the D-T reaction is the intense neutron radiation produced. This has a nasty habit of inducing radioactivity in materials that are exposed to it, as well as degrading the materials. A key area of research is 'low activation' materials that do not develop such intense radioactivity. However, it is expected that spent lithium fuel assemblies (which include heat exchangers and other key reactor components) will become intensely radioactive. The ITER project, which will attempt to build a protoype near power-station size fusion reactor is expected to produce about 30k tons of radioactive waste during its life, but differing from fission waste in that the vast majority of this waste is short-lived (no significant radioactivity left after 100 years).
There is much theoretical interest in other reactions (e.g. deuterium - deuterium fusion) which use different fuels (and avoid the need for lithium which is toxic, flammable and highly reactive) or which produce considerably less neutrons (so less radioactive waste). Unfortunately, these reactions are many times harder to produce - requiring temperatures 10s or hundreds of times higher. Despite the disadvatages, it seems likely that D-T will be the mainstay of fusion for a long time to come.
The other problem with fusion is the immense price - it's expected that the ITER project is predicted to cost $10 - 15 billion to build. This is a considerable increase over protoype fission reactors - and fission have already had a tough enough time competeing with non-nuclear energy in price. It may, unfortunately, be the case that fusion reactors remains too expensive to be anything other than a specialist research tool.
Nevertheless, there are likely to be some useful spinoffs from fusion research:
Massive sized high-precision superconducting coils, could have substantial benefits if used to build new electricity generators and transformers - A large power-station retrofitted with superconducting gensets and transformers could bring in additional revenues of more than $1million/month in efficiency savings.
Advanced materials could bring benefits in construction, chemical handling and managing radioactive waste.
The most feasible at present is the reaction between Deuterium (Hydrogen-2) and Tritium (Hydrogen-3). Deuterium is found in trace quantities in natural water. Tritium, as it is intensely radioactive, is not found naturally but is produced in certain types of fission reactors. Most practical fusion desigs use Lithium which is 'bred' into Tritium by the neutron radiation from the fusion reaction.
The problem with the D-T reaction is the intense neutron radiation produced. This has a nasty habit of inducing radioactivity in materials that are exposed to it, as well as degrading the materials. A key area of research is 'low activation' materials that do not develop such intense radioactivity. However, it is expected that spent lithium fuel assemblies (which include heat exchangers and other key reactor components) will become intensely radioactive. The ITER project, which will attempt to build a protoype near power-station size fusion reactor is expected to produce about 30k tons of radioactive waste during its life, but differing from fission waste in that the vast majority of this waste is short-lived (no significant radioactivity left after 100 years).
There is much theoretical interest in other reactions (e.g. deuterium - deuterium fusion) which use different fuels (and avoid the need for lithium which is toxic, flammable and highly reactive) or which produce considerably less neutrons (so less radioactive waste). Unfortunately, these reactions are many times harder to produce - requiring temperatures 10s or hundreds of times higher. Despite the disadvatages, it seems likely that D-T will be the mainstay of fusion for a long time to come.
The other problem with fusion is the immense price - it's expected that the ITER project is predicted to cost $10 - 15 billion to build. This is a considerable increase over protoype fission reactors - and fission have already had a tough enough time competeing with non-nuclear energy in price. It may, unfortunately, be the case that fusion reactors remains too expensive to be anything other than a specialist research tool.
Nevertheless, there are likely to be some useful spinoffs from fusion research:
Massive sized high-precision superconducting coils, could have substantial benefits if used to build new electricity generators and transformers - A large power-station retrofitted with superconducting gensets and transformers could bring in additional revenues of more than $1million/month in efficiency savings.
Advanced materials could bring benefits in construction, chemical handling and managing radioactive waste.
neutralizer
Lifer
Eventually, we'll get technologically advanced to make it work.
I do live in the US u Bafooon.
Guess what? I'm a Nuclear Eng. working at a Nuclear power plant! We only make electricity 😛
You lose this one, you know sooooo much 😛
10MW? WTF is that? We stick out 2600MW! 😛
You can't even build a f*@#ing dam anymore without getting sued.
We own dams and get lawsuits because of the fish.
Do you live in the US?
What are blackout/brownouts?
Watch the news last 5 years?
We (the US) already over use our current production rate especially in the summer.
Are we building any? They take 5 years to build.
Why are most power companies in the US building gas turbines?
Because they can.
Why not Nuclear? We happen to be the most efficient US plant, Duke makes a killing off of us but no plans for another like us. Just coal and gas.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
May I not believe who you say you are for a moment?! You're a nuclear engineer, but don't mention that the 10 MW took 12 MW to produce?! (or some amount, whatever it is, greater than 10MW) I think any nuclear engineer would see that as a much larger issue than the output level. That's like saying a new model of car doesn't compare to the current models, because the new model only has a 1 gallon gas tank, while failing to notice that they don't have a motor that will work for the new model. edit: and claiming you're an automotive engineer.
Yes, however the h-bomb produces a lot of energy and then burns out. The theory behind the fussion reactor is that it'll be self maintaining (for the lack of a better term). In other words, it'll be kidna like a fire, burning by itself, all we'll need to do is just provide a constant flow of fuel.
Some theory for those who don't know. The fussion reaction will occur if the hydrogen gas is heated to a certain point. So there will need to be an initial jolt of energy. Many people don't konw that there's usually a small a-bomb inside the h-bobm to act as that initial power source. Once the gas mass in a fussion reactor is heated up initially (I'm talking about millions of degrees here) the theory is that part of the energy of fussion reaction will be spent on maintaining that temperature. Of course there's a matter of keeping the gas contained and under high pressure. Gas at temperatures of million degrees will be under enormous pressure and will tend to expand. A very strong magenetic field (or some other method) will be required to maintain that pressure. In the case of our Sun, suns own gravity acts as the container.
You are missing the whole point that the two of us are going back and forth on.
I never said Fusion sucks or couldn't supply the US with cheap reliable power.
I simply try to get my point (forgetting who I am), look what we have now and look how many we are building or are planning to build = 0, none, zilch,????. Yet we are money makers for any power company. What US business does not aggressively pursue money making items? None, but where are the new Nuclear plants?
Where is the power industry going to be in 10 years with the current operating Nuclear units? Some plants will not be producing electricity, My plant is one of the lucky ones who received a NRC license extension for 40 years.
nucear fusion and fission are well defined and observed. Fusion can occur simply by slamming two elements together to make new elements. Requires tons of energy. Fission is...well has been experienced.
now cold fusion on the other hand is the holy grail. the huge debacle in the 80's pretty much shot down serious project funding up to now. its now looked upon as something of a 'perpetual motion' sort of fantasy. It's the holy grail because it would provide a seemingly neverending source of energy.
now cold fusion on the other hand is the holy grail. the huge debacle in the 80's pretty much shot down serious project funding up to now. its now looked upon as something of a 'perpetual motion' sort of fantasy. It's the holy grail because it would provide a seemingly neverending source of energy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
