5 ms·

"As background, fusion is the physical principle by which the sun produces heat and sunlight as it fuses together hydrogen atoms, not to mention being the chemi

by streety 18y ago

"As background, fusion is the physical principle by which the sun produces heat and sunlight as it fuses together hydrogen atoms, not to mention being the chemical reaction that unleashes the H-bomb's lethal and terrifying force." On reading this I was doubting the value of the article. I shall continue . . . edit: Later on there is also the following The exhibit "tried to explain to people how the reactor would work, why it was a good thing (no radioactive waste left after the reaction, for one, and no greenhouse gases are produced) and why it was hard to do." I'm getting out of my depth here but it was my understanding that thermal fusion releases large numbers of neutrons which lead to the containment vessel to slowly become radioactive. I would love to be corrected.

raganwald 18y ago
I think there's some ambiguity in saying "The exhibit tried to explain why fusion is a good thing." One can take the view that fusion is a good thing and the exhibit is trying to explain that fact, or take the view that the ehibit is trying to explain that fusion is a good thing, without saying anything about whether it is or isn't. I took the article as a whole as suggesting that research into fusion on this scale is not a good thing, and it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable, but nobody knows how to contain it. Which suggests to me that the article is in accord with you on that subject. So overall, I don't think the article is suggesting that fusion is good, or clean, but rather the article makes the point that fusion's supporters hope that in forty years or so we might have something that is good or clean.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable ...Which is an absurd thing for that critic to say when even fusion's proponents admit that even if it could be made to work, it would not likely be economically competitive.
  - raganwald 18y ago
    Well, I think you may have a different definition of desirable. The exact quote from the article is: Nobel laureate in physics Pierre-Gilles de Gennes is once supposed to have said about the problem of fusion power in general, "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." I'm thinking that when a Nobel laureate in physics says that an idea is pretty, he is not suggesting that it is economically feasible or even workable. Nor is he saying that we should build it regardless, he is merely saying that it's an attractive idea, but technically impossible given what he knew when he said it.
    - Retric 18y ago
      Or you can read it as: "We can't build it today so it's not useful today." Which is not the same thing as "Based on the known laws of physics this will never work."
jmackinn 18y ago
You are in fact correct already. One of the research goals of ITER is to experiment with different materials being subjected to the neutron flux in order to determine the radioactive byproducts and their theoretic half-lives. They are also proposing that the neutrons be used to facilitate the production of tritium from lithium and hydrogen as well as using the neutrons as the main source of energy output for the system. While the article is extremely interesting I find that costs and time periods for this kind of science are misrepresented. Not that $5 billion isn't a lot of money, but it is on par, if not lower than many other energy projects. The Alberta Tar Sands alone have had more than $30 billion invested in the past decade. It also does not come close to the investment originally made into fission power production and continually made to produce next generation reactors. Without 'risky science' we don't move forward. Our efficiency may increase; a better stone for making axes means a tree can be cut faster, but by making great leaps forward in science, we may no longer need the axe, or even the tree. The ITER, the LHC, the Manhattan Project, are (were) investments in our future and the future of science and understanding. While some of these projects may fail, the cost of not trying is far greater.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  It also does not come close to the investment originally made into fission power production and continually made to produce next generation reactors. The difference is that there is no place in the market for fusion reactors. In light of the existing half-billion-year [Edit: half-trillion-year] fuel supply for fission reactors, the drive to create fusion reactors is nonsensical.
  - jmackinn 18y ago
    I believe the same argument was used for why we should just stick with oil. The energy density and potential output is far higher (theoretically) with fusion than with fission. You may also want to check your figures on the half a billion year fuel supply. At current rates of use, uranium fuels will last about 1000 years. Thorium is an alternative option for fission power; however, this is yet unproven in large scale deployment. There is also the fact that fusion reactors will produce far less high-level (long half-life) radioactive waste. 50 years ago, and even today, critics believed that there was no place for fission power but now it appears to be our greatest alternative to providing base load power over hydrocarbon based plants. The uses of fusion technology are not only limited to power production either. Fission power has resulted in advances in materials, medicine, the understanding of basic atomic science. There is no doubt that properly understanding fusion will lead to many advances in other fields.

by streety 18y ago

raganwald 18y ago

I think there's some ambiguity in saying "The exhibit tried to explain why fusion is a good thing." One can take the view that fusion is a good thing and the exhibit is trying to explain that fact, or take the view that the ehibit is trying to explain that fusion is a good thing, without saying anything about whether it is or isn't. I took the article as a whole as suggesting that research into fusion on this scale is not a good thing, and it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable, but nobody knows how to contain it. Which suggests to me that the article is in accord with you on that subject. So overall, I don't think the article is suggesting that fusion is good, or clean, but rather the article makes the point that fusion's supporters hope that in forty years or so we might have something that is good or clean.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable ...Which is an absurd thing for that critic to say when even fusion's proponents admit that even if it could be made to work, it would not likely be economically competitive.
- raganwald 18y ago
  Well, I think you may have a different definition of desirable. The exact quote from the article is: Nobel laureate in physics Pierre-Gilles de Gennes is once supposed to have said about the problem of fusion power in general, "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." I'm thinking that when a Nobel laureate in physics says that an idea is pretty, he is not suggesting that it is economically feasible or even workable. Nor is he saying that we should build it regardless, he is merely saying that it's an attractive idea, but technically impossible given what he knew when he said it.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Or you can read it as: "We can't build it today so it's not useful today." Which is not the same thing as "Based on the known laws of physics this will never work."

jmackinn 18y ago

You are in fact correct already. One of the research goals of ITER is to experiment with different materials being subjected to the neutron flux in order to determine the radioactive byproducts and their theoretic half-lives. They are also proposing that the neutrons be used to facilitate the production of tritium from lithium and hydrogen as well as using the neutrons as the main source of energy output for the system. While the article is extremely interesting I find that costs and time periods for this kind of science are misrepresented. Not that $5 billion isn't a lot of money, but it is on par, if not lower than many other energy projects. The Alberta Tar Sands alone have had more than $30 billion invested in the past decade. It also does not come close to the investment originally made into fission power production and continually made to produce next generation reactors. Without 'risky science' we don't move forward. Our efficiency may increase; a better stone for making axes means a tree can be cut faster, but by making great leaps forward in science, we may no longer need the axe, or even the tree. The ITER, the LHC, the Manhattan Project, are (were) investments in our future and the future of science and understanding. While some of these projects may fail, the cost of not trying is far greater.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
It also does not come close to the investment originally made into fission power production and continually made to produce next generation reactors. The difference is that there is no place in the market for fusion reactors. In light of the existing half-billion-year [Edit: half-trillion-year] fuel supply for fission reactors, the drive to create fusion reactors is nonsensical.
- jmackinn 18y ago
  I believe the same argument was used for why we should just stick with oil. The energy density and potential output is far higher (theoretically) with fusion than with fission. You may also want to check your figures on the half a billion year fuel supply. At current rates of use, uranium fuels will last about 1000 years. Thorium is an alternative option for fission power; however, this is yet unproven in large scale deployment. There is also the fact that fusion reactors will produce far less high-level (long half-life) radioactive waste. 50 years ago, and even today, critics believed that there was no place for fission power but now it appears to be our greatest alternative to providing base load power over hydrocarbon based plants. The uses of fusion technology are not only limited to power production either. Fission power has resulted in advances in materials, medicine, the understanding of basic atomic science. There is no doubt that properly understanding fusion will lead to many advances in other fields.