Where's the fusion discussion? Sure, it's not there yet and requires a lot of research, but it might become a reasonably cheap and even safe way of getting nuclear energy in like 2050.
[quote]Fusion power offers the prospect of an almost inexhaustible source of energy for future generations, but it also presents so far insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges.
The main hope is centred on tokamak reactors which confine a deuterium-tritium plasma magnetically.[/quote]
[url]http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power/[/url]
[QUOTE=Aide;47399441][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c[/media][/QUOTE]
how have i not seen this guy before? the animation is amazing
[QUOTE=mitterdoo;47402593]how have i not seen this guy before? the animation is amazing[/QUOTE]
Kurzgesagt is amazing. The music is awesome, especially their video explaining Ebola
Good summarizing video for starters in general, this is something that should be broadcasted instead of the media's scare tactics of nuclear power.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;47402866]Good summarizing video for starters in general, this is something that should be broadcasted instead of the media's scare tactics of nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
This video, and And [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL] should be common introduction material.
[QUOTE=richard9311;47402938]This video, and And [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL] should be common introduction material.[/QUOTE]
I feel this is a valid documentary as well:
[video=youtube;P9M__yYbsZ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4[/video]
it doesn't really scratch the issue much though, just explains the basic facts about how much of the world's power is run off of nuclear. PWRs are bad not only because they are inefficient energy wise, they also have low fuel burn-up which means much more waste, and they have to be actively cooled. Sodium reactors have been demonstrated for decades in naval test reactors on land based systems and pool-type designs based on sodium are even more stable, efficient, and have a much larger tolerance when it comes to run-away heating, since sodium has a much higher heat capacity and pumping mechanisms for these reactors don't actually employ moving parts
[QUOTE=FPtje;47399732]Where's the fusion discussion? Sure, it's not there yet and requires a lot of research, but it might become a reasonably cheap and even safe way of getting nuclear energy in like 2050.
[URL]http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power/[/URL][/QUOTE]
While this story of mine certainly has no meaning on the greater scheme of things I am inclined to believe it.
I once sat next to a nuclear physicist on a flight from Tokoyo to Boston. He was a pretty cool dude and was talkative. His work related to fusion and he thought it was at least 70 years off. And he said he thought that would be the first working reactor, like a proof of concept at some government research facility, not large scale use of fusion.
He also said "the scientific community has been saying fusion is 20 to 50 years off for the past 50 years. I'm not inclined to believe that number today."
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;47403292]While this story of mine certainly has no meaning on the greater scheme of things I am inclined to believe it.
I once sat next to a nuclear physicist on a flight from Tokoyo to Boston. He was a pretty cool dude and was talkative. His work related to fusion and he thought it was at least 70 years off. And he said he thought that would be the first working reactor, like a proof of concept at some government research facility, not large scale use of fusion.
He also said "the scientific community has been saying fusion is 20 to 50 years off for the past 50 years. I'm not inclined to believe that number today."[/QUOTE]
while he probably has more experience and knows what he's talking about, there [I]is[/I] ITER which by all reckoning [I]should[/I] be big enough to break even and baring any unforseen difficulties, it [I]should[/I] be done and running in 5-10 years, on the plus side, building the LHC, engineers have gotten good practice at building large scale stuff
Large scale didn't actually mean "big things." We've been building big things for a long time.
I meant wide spread use / adoption. Aka lots of reactors.
LHC will actually help them understand some fusion stuff (more so what happens when you smash atoms together) but it itself isn't a fusion reactor. The physicist was in Japan because he was at an "atom smasher" like the LHC. Guess the company he did research for rented time on it.
[quote]LWR - cheap[/quote]
Because the US Navy dumped billions of dollars into so they could have nuclear powered ships.
[editline]27th March 2015[/editline]
If only they had dumped that money into LFTR. On the other hand, it might not be a good idea to have seaborne salt fueled reactors. I suspect it's water soluble unlike uranium oxide.
[editline]27th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=FPtje;47399732]Where's the fusion discussion? Sure, it's not there yet and requires a lot of research, but it might become a reasonably cheap and even safe way of getting nuclear energy in like 2050.
[url]http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power/[/url][/QUOTE]
I was just going to make a comment about fusion power but then I had this crazy idea.
Has anyone ever considered fusion bomb heated geothermal energy? We used to test nuclear weapons reasonably safely underground. I have to wonder, how hot did these underground detonations heat the surrounding earth? Could they have tapped into that heat to boil water?
It's insane but an interesting thought.
I was hoping the video went into detail about the newer reactors (referenced as the safer, more effective, and technologically brilliant in the video).
Does anyone have more information on these?
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;47403662]Large scale didn't actually mean "big things." We've been building big things for a long time.
I meant wide spread use / adoption. Aka lots of reactors.
LHC will actually help them understand some fusion stuff (more so what happens when you smash atoms together) but it itself isn't a fusion reactor. The physicist was in Japan because he was at an "atom smasher" like the LHC. Guess the company he did research for rented time on it.[/QUOTE]
lemme rephrase that... the experience gained by working on very large super-conducting magnets and their manufacturing has taught us a lot about making very large super-conducting magnets for fusion reactors
i wasn't saying the LHC is a fusion reactor, but the magnets developed for it, and the lessons learned (like installing shunts every 10m to prevent it melting) are helping develop reactors like ITER
[QUOTE=Smoot;47410206]I was hoping the video went into detail about the newer reactors (referenced as the safer, more effective, and technologically brilliant in the video).
Does anyone have more information on these?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsjQNtr8Zjo[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.