[img]http://imgkk.com/i/1jhp.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23408073[/url]
[quote]The world's largest bid to harness the power of fusion has entered a "critical" phase in southern France.
The Iter project at Cadarache in Provence is receiving the first of about one million components for its experimental reactor.
Dogged by massive cost rises and long delays, building work is currently nearly two years behind schedule.
...
The plant at JET has managed to achieve fusion reactions in very short bursts but required the use of more power than it was able to produce.
The reactor at Iter is on a much larger scale and is designed to generate 10 times more power - 500 MW - than it will consume.
...
Under an initial plan, it had once been hoped to achieve the first plasma by the middle of the last decade.
Then, after a redesign, a new deadline of November 2020 was set but that too is now in doubt. Managers say they are doubling shifts to accelerate the pace of construction. It's thought that even a start date during 2021 may be challenging.[/quote]
if people didn't keep running off with all of the money that would help
I really wish this would get more funding.
It's a very interesting project, and I hope that we'll learn a lot about fusion power from it. The sooner the better.
[QUOTE=booster;41748227]I really wish this would get more funding.
It's a very interesting project, and I hope that we'll learn a lot about fusion power from it. The sooner the better.[/QUOTE]
We already know a lot about it. If it wasn't so expensive we could finally throw out the other shit renewable energy.
At least it will be done eventually, hopefully they will be able to learn more from this larger scale operation and improve it further. They are hoping to generate 500mw over 15 mins from 50mw electricity and 0.5 grams of Hydrogen if I remember correctly.
It feels like getting fusion or fusion/fission power up and running is the first step to solving our pollution problem; if they did manage to improve it to the point of generating enough electricity to power the world in the next 100-300 years, combined with technologies for combating greenhouse gasses, we might just be able to not irreversibly (Or at least for tens of thousands of years) screw the planet over and likely doom ourselves and a large portion of the species on Earth to extinction.
[QUOTE=Ice Tea;41748251]We already know a lot about it. If it wasn't so expensive we could finally throw out the other shit renewable energy.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong here, my info might be a bit outdated.
I remember a quote from a physicist named Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, saying something like "[I]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]"
Isn't it this problem what ITER is basically trying to solve?
I remember that one fusion project in the 80's. It feels like I'm reading the article again.
Perhaps this time though it won't end in failure.
[QUOTE=booster;41748318]
Isn't it this problem what ITER is basically trying to solve?[/QUOTE]
Yes and no.
The problem is that it usually costs the same if not more electricity to maintain the 11 million degrees needed for the reaction. They try to contain as much heat as possible but I think the main issue they had originally was that protons and electrons were flying out, cooling down, bouncing off the walls of the container and then going back into the centre of the reaction, cooling it more. I think this newer design uses lithium plating to absorb the protons/electrons, allowing them to greatly decrease the wasted heat.
I don't know if that is the only technique they are using to improve upon the others, but I think essentially the issue faced is maintaining the reaction without having to keep pumping massive amounts of energy into it.
[QUOTE=booster;41748318]Correct me if I'm wrong here, my info might be a bit outdated.
I remember a quote from a physicist named Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, saying something like "[I]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]"
Isn't it this problem what ITER is basically trying to solve?[/QUOTE]
we've been able to contain fusion for a while, the problem is doing it without using huge quantities of energy (electromagnets)
I hope they keep it going with this project, would breathe new life into interests into nuclear physics for power generation. That and it's the only way to power the planet without using up major resources, or polluting the planet. I kinda want thorium reactors to come online, you can get them very small because of the minimal shielding required, as well as the incredibly common fuel. They're also inherently safe, at least the LFTR model is. Reactor overheating? Fuel plug melts and it drains into a containment vessel. Fusion reactor is damaged? You lose heating and fusion grinds to a halt. Your fission reactor just exploded? Half of europe gets irradiated.
Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible way a fusion reactor could fail?
[QUOTE=IKTM;41767583]Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible way a fusion reactor could fail?[/QUOTE]
If something goes wrong the reaction basically just stops, but any time you're dealing with heat there's an explosion risk. (In the power generating part, not the fusion part, though an explosion of pressurized steam could damage the reactor and release radioactive substances)
But it can't melt down like a fission reactor and completely destroy everything. Even in a worst case scenario, like a terrorist attack, none of the byproducts of fusion are dangerous beyond a couple hundred years so there's no chance of another Chernobyl or Fukushima.
You could probably build the reactor in a reinforced hole that directs all the energy from an explosion upwards so the damage is minimal.
[QUOTE=OvB;41767907]You could probably build the reactor in a reinforced hole that directs all the energy from an explosion upwards so the damage is minimal.[/QUOTE]
Build a turbine that turns explosions into electricity
a win either way
[QUOTE=IKTM;41767583]Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible way a fusion reactor could fail?[/QUOTE]
Due to the extremely specific conditions required for nuclear fusion, if the reactor was breached, the reaction would stop in seconds.
It's good and bad, because there's no risk of a catastrophic meltdown like in nuclear fission, but it also makes it hard to produce a practical reactor. Previous fusion reactors have worked properly, but they take more energy then they produce, so the only thing that's accomplished is scientific knowledge. ITER will produce five hundred megawatts for every fifty megawatts given, so it's safe and efficient.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41767954]Build a turbine that turns explosions into electricity
a win either way[/QUOTE]
"Due to the recent terror attack on the ITER facility, Electricity prices will drop by 50 % for the next 3 weeks"
if the reactor would be punctured, the hundreds of thousands of degrees hot plasma would cause the air around to instantly explode at contact, there would be a radiation burst, but nothing that would linger around for thousands of years, just something that would sit around until the plasma cools down, which would happen very very quickly.
[QUOTE=booster;41748318]Correct me if I'm wrong here, my info might be a bit outdated.
I remember a quote from a physicist named Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, saying something like "[I]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]"
Isn't it this problem what ITER is basically trying to solve?[/QUOTE]
We know how to make the box and we know how to make the sun, the problem is making it so that it can both be sustained for long periods and so that it produces more energy than we put in to start and keep it up.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=IKTM;41767583]Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible way a fusion reactor could fail?[/QUOTE]
Reaction stops almost instantly, there will be some radiation leak but not much (nothing close to a fission reactor, and it would be short lived). If anything it's the hot matter inside the reactor I'd be worried about, but even if it's extremely hot it's a relatively small amount (I still wouldn't want to be in the reactor chamber).
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41771330]if the reactor would be punctured, the hundreds of thousands of degrees hot plasma would cause the air around to instantly explode at contact, there would be a radiation burst, but nothing that would linger around for thousands of years, just something that would sit around until the plasma cools down, which would happen very very quickly.[/QUOTE]
That's not even really important, the hot plasma part. Firstly, the "containment" of the plasma is purely magnetic. If the magnetic field fails, the plasma will expand and lose it's massive temperature within fraction of second, and barely even damage the coating of the reactor.
People don't realize that while we are trying to "squeeze" and "pressuize" plasma, there's still hilariously thin gas flying around because it's at so preposterous temperatures where the inside pressure is massive - if I remember it right, the entire reactor will contain not even an entire kilogram worth of the fusion material at all times. Generally the entire fusion deal is more up the "farts in a paper bag" alley rather than "the melting inferno of satan's semen in a plastic cup" which old fissile reactors were.
If there was a breach, the radiation release would be MINUTE compared to Long Island and Fukushima, barely worth mentioning. I think they probably wouldn't even evacuate the site.
There is danger of explosions but only because of the high pressure water system (which can explode in a coal plant just as well).
[QUOTE=IKTM;41767583]Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible way a fusion reactor could fail?[/QUOTE]
It really wouldn't be that bad, there'd maybe be a small explosion but really the reaction just stops dead.
I'm always impressed over the heat generated in those things.
Ain't it like over 100 million Celsius?
[QUOTE=booster;41771656]I'm always impressed over the heat generated in those things.
Ain't it like over 100 million Celsius?[/QUOTE]
150 Million C according to the ITER website
[QUOTE=Cushie;41748271]At least it will be done eventually, hopefully they will be able to learn more from this larger scale operation and improve it further. They are hoping to generate [B]500mw over 15 mins from 50mw electricity and 0.5 grams of Hydrogen if I remember correctly.[/B]
It feels like getting fusion or fusion/fission power up and running is the first step to solving our pollution problem; if they did manage to improve it to the point of generating enough electricity to power the world in the next 100-300 years, combined with technologies for combating greenhouse gasses, we might just be able to not irreversibly (Or at least for tens of thousands of years) screw the planet over and likely doom ourselves and a large portion of the species on Earth to extinction.[/QUOTE]
.. Milliwatts..?
[QUOTE=booster;41771656]I'm always impressed over the heat generated in those things.
Ain't it like over 100 million Celsius?[/QUOTE]
Total heat in the fuel will be tiny though because it's going to only be a few grams.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Str4fe;41773525].. Milliwatts..?[/QUOTE]
Megawatts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
