By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I don't really understand why more funding isn't given to nuclear fusion research. It has the potential to produce all the power we will ever need without the drawbacks of nuclear fission yet the US spend only 500m USD a year on research - the equivalent of 1 stealth bomber. The EU spend a bit more but not by much. Sure it's a gamble but one that pays off hugely if they manage to get it working well.
The problem with fusion is we're a long way off cracking it, to the point where it's not definitely possible yet. All experiments so far have required considerably more power input than that produced. Nice toys*, but not of any practical use. So any return on financial investment is likely a very long way off, which discourages money from being poured into a vastly expensive research hole.
It probably needs a significant breakthrough in the lab (or multimillion-pound, factory-sized experimental facility) to kick start any serious funding.
The problem with fusion is we're a long way off cracking it, to the point where it's not definitely possible yet. All experiments so far have required considerably more power input than that produced. Nice toys*, but not of any practical use. So any return on financial investment is likely a very long way off, which discourages money from being poured into a vastly expensive research hole.
It probably needs a significant breakthrough in the lab (or multimillion-pound, factory-sized experimental facility) to kick start any serious funding.
* Build yourself one ...
Morning Guthers.
They are getting very close, they have already gotten more energy out a fusion reactor than was put into the fuel but not more than the entire experiment consumes. There is hope Sparc which is a much smaller experiment (like you’ve cited) could get there:
More funding would at least give them a shot of cracking it and given it could power our civilisation for the rest of its existence without any climate issues it surely worth the investment risk? We know it’s possible, the sun reminds us of that every day it shines and hydrogen bombs prove that it’s possible in an uncontained way.
I just think it’s worth governments throwing money at it at this point given it’s safe and zero-carbon.
They are getting very close, they have already gotten more energy out a fusion reactor than was put into the fuel but not more than the entire experiment consumes. There is hope Sparc which is a much smaller experiment (like you’ve cited) could get there:
More funding would at least give them a shot of cracking it and given it could power our civilisation for the rest of its existence without any climate issues it surely worth the investment risk? We know it’s possible, the sun reminds us of that every day it shines and hydrogen bombs prove that it’s possible in an uncontained way.
I just think it’s worth governments throwing money at it at this point given it’s safe and zero-carbon.
The sun has gravity on its side (solar generation actually might be the best and cheapest way of harnessing fusion power) and hydrogen bombs only sustain a reaction for thousandths of a second (tho it takes some minutes to distribute the excess heat). The MIT system is, as yet, only theoretical.
There is every reason to put money into research - except financial return. While government budgets are tightly squeezed and shareholders inhibit company boldness, there is unlikely to be a huge amount of cash available. Especially when you have proven, ongoing projects such as the LHC gobbling up vast amounts of the available science funding.
I always feel a little sorry for Hahn. It is the ultimate schoolboy dream to do big science in one's own bedroom/garden shed.
The sun has gravity on its side (solar generation actually might be the best and cheapest way of harnessing fusion power) and hydrogen bombs only sustain a reaction for thousandths of a second (tho it takes some minutes to distribute the excess heat). The MIT system is, as yet, only theoretical.
There is every reason to put money into research - except financial return. While government budgets are tightly squeezed and shareholders inhibit company boldness, there is unlikely to be a huge amount of cash available. Especially when you have proven, ongoing projects such as the LHC gobbling up vast amounts of the available science funding.
I always feel a little sorry for Hahn. It is the ultimate schoolboy dream to do big science in one's own bedroom/garden shed.
I agree with most of that, although there is a case that can be made that the 15bn+ funding for the LHC would be better sent to ITER over the shorter term. The LHC is brilliant but it's not the most pressing scientific need - it just has better lobbyists.
With regards to solar you are right that it is a good way to harness fusion energy, it is however subject to the location, weather etc which wouldn't be the case for a fusion reactor. Reactors could also be made as sealed units centrally and shipped where they were needed (they already do this for fission) which wouldn't be the case for a fixed solar array.
Ideally we would have both, assuming that fusion ever works.
The French are probably the most adavnced at nuclear engineering I believe the Americans are still shaken by the McDermott incident and will be for some while.
There are a number of problems with nuclear fusion a major one is cooling the reactor, presently creating a lot of problems, another is what to do with the waste.
Then of course there is the relatviely new threat of terrorism
I agree with most of that, although there is a case that can be made that the 15bn+ funding for the LHC would be better sent to ITER over the shorter term. The LHC is brilliant but it's not the most pressing scientific need - it just has better lobbyists.
With regards to solar you are right that it is a good way to harness fusion energy, it is however subject to the location, weather etc which wouldn't be the case for a fusion reactor. Reactors could also be made as sealed units centrally and shipped where they were needed (they already do this for fission) which wouldn't be the case for a fixed solar array.
Ideally we would have both, assuming that fusion ever works.
SB
For me, the next important breakthroughs will be in large-scale energy storage, to smooth out variations in both supply and demand.
The French are probably the most adavnced at nuclear engineering I believe the Americans are still shaken by the McDermott incident and will be for some while.
There are a number of problems with nuclear fusion a major one is cooling the reactor, presently creating a lot of problems, another is what to do with the waste.
Then of course there is the relatviely new threat of terrorism
Not sure about that. The French are part of the ITER project, they don't have their own project. The US are part of ITER but also have their own facility in the US which uses lasers instead so they are much more involved than the French.
What waste? There is no long lived nuclear waste from nuclear fusion - that's the entire point. I think this needs to be made clear so there is no scaremongering. There is also no risk of meltdown.
If it can be made to work it's basically the ultimate power generation system.
Not sure about that. The French are part of the ITER project, they don't have their own project. The US are part of ITER but also have their own facility in the US which uses lasers instead so they are much more involved than the French.
What waste? There is no long lived nuclear waste from nuclear fusion - that's the entire point. I think this needs to be made clear so there is no scaremongering. There is also no risk of meltdown.
If it can be made to work it's basically the ultimate power generation system.
SB
[Post edited 10 May 2019 11:06]
Everyone is all like "It's fine dont worry about it" and then a black hole opens above the planet and the Rapture begins.
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
The French are probably the most adavnced at nuclear engineering I believe the Americans are still shaken by the McDermott incident and will be for some while.
There are a number of problems with nuclear fusion a major one is cooling the reactor, presently creating a lot of problems, another is what to do with the waste.
Then of course there is the relatviely new threat of terrorism
The waste from a fusion reaction is not particularly radioactive, given the product is inert helium (something we're running a bit short of, incidentally). The fuel is just variants of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). Decommissioning of old facilities would be the biggest issue, as the internal structure of the core becomes the most radioactive bit.
Terrorism is a limited issue, as the most an attack would likely be able to do is break the reactor and stop it working. Without the magnetic containment field, a plasma reaction would dissipate pretty much instantly.
You'll have to explain that a bit more I'm afraid.
SB
Yahweh will ensure we pay for messing with natural laws my brother!
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
If small-scale (i.e non-stellar!) systems can liberate energy via nuclear fusion, for a nett energy 'gain', that would be a great assistance, certainly if it could be practicable in the short term. But while policy is driven by 'financial return' the mindset is wrong.
It's great that technological mitigation is being discussed more, but we must never lose sight of the inescapable if unpalatable truth that we live on a finite planet, with a massive human population, demanding an ever higher 'standard of living'. That doesn't work.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
Everyone is all like "It's fine dont worry about it" and then a black hole opens above the planet and the Rapture begins.
Hawking Radiation.
And the Revelation of St John does not allude to black holes. Tho, like John Bolton's war with Iran, it could be an attempt to immanetise the eschaton.
Storage is very important & even on a small scale, currenty available, could reduce demands on the grid but batteris are presently very expensive. I generate much more energy per 24hr than I can use so I get money back from the grid my problem is that batteries to allow me to use all the energy ~I generate are not cost affective, that is something government could address but politics are against it
One of the new O/S wind farms will be constructed on the Dogger bank by Norwegians, the power will be snet back to Norway to pump water up to mountain reservoirs (e.g. the same as the one in Wales) and will be run down via existing Hydro stations at peak demand periods.
The waste from a fusion reaction is not particularly radioactive, given the product is inert helium (something we're running a bit short of, incidentally). The fuel is just variants of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). Decommissioning of old facilities would be the biggest issue, as the internal structure of the core becomes the most radioactive bit.
Terrorism is a limited issue, as the most an attack would likely be able to do is break the reactor and stop it working. Without the magnetic containment field, a plasma reaction would dissipate pretty much instantly.
"Decommissioning of old facilities would be the biggest issue, as the internal structure of the core becomes the most radioactive bit. " Thanks, that is the bit I meant; currently I understand the taxpayer is coughing up circa £2 Bn a year in decommisioning works.
As for terrorism I was thinking along the lines of as drones become more powerful etc.
If small-scale (i.e non-stellar!) systems can liberate energy via nuclear fusion, for a nett energy 'gain', that would be a great assistance, certainly if it could be practicable in the short term. But while policy is driven by 'financial return' the mindset is wrong.
It's great that technological mitigation is being discussed more, but we must never lose sight of the inescapable if unpalatable truth that we live on a finite planet, with a massive human population, demanding an ever higher 'standard of living'. That doesn't work.
You assume that population increase and 'higher standard of living' cannot be accommodated with technological advances. We certainly need to change how we live but if the change is a better diet and less reliance on consumerism then we have made an advance and one that lessens our impact on the, this part of your post is right, finite planet.
In fact the advances we can make do not even have to be technological. Social organisation has as big a part to play and can influence people's reproductive strategy away from large 'safety in numbers' ways of having a stake in the future's gene pool to the more manageable two and not much more children per couple that is sustainable and concentrates more care upon each child.
You assume that population increase and 'higher standard of living' cannot be accommodated with technological advances. We certainly need to change how we live but if the change is a better diet and less reliance on consumerism then we have made an advance and one that lessens our impact on the, this part of your post is right, finite planet.
In fact the advances we can make do not even have to be technological. Social organisation has as big a part to play and can influence people's reproductive strategy away from large 'safety in numbers' ways of having a stake in the future's gene pool to the more manageable two and not much more children per couple that is sustainable and concentrates more care upon each child.
Fair enough, but I'm not just concerned about the planet managing to support humans without hitting tipping points. I'd prefer to see no further extinctions, and recovery of habitats and endangered species.
I know that is idealistic.
I think the risk with putting too much emphasis on technology-based mitigation is that the whole thing is too high geared and anthropocentric.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
Fair enough, but I'm not just concerned about the planet managing to support humans without hitting tipping points. I'd prefer to see no further extinctions, and recovery of habitats and endangered species.
I know that is idealistic.
I think the risk with putting too much emphasis on technology-based mitigation is that the whole thing is too high geared and anthropocentric.
And also risks engendering complacency, when that's the last thing we need. I mean a shrug of the shoulders and thinking " oh it's OK, no need to worry, new technology + curbing human population growth will sort everything out".
And also risks engendering complacency, when that's the last thing we need. I mean a shrug of the shoulders and thinking " oh it's OK, no need to worry, new technology + curbing human population growth will sort everything out".
[Post edited 10 May 2019 19:36]
A techno-fix is more of the same mentality that got us here in the first place (akin to the 'green revolution'......Mosanto, round up etc....)
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
