Fusion Power on the way - at last ?

People tend not to care about their differences when everyone is rich and happy. And that is what fusion can provide. I think your daydreams of the world working together are bigger than my daydreams of fusion power. Fission is, in my opinion, a horrible idea. The waste is a huge problem and we can't just stop using fission and then see the waste slowly disappear (like we can with fossil fuels, for example). Also, energy independence really is a silly goal. The industrial revolution and modernity were made possible by the huge increase in energy provided from steam power and the use of fossil fuels. If we want to keep moving forward we need to work for another a new way of doing things (such as fusion) not just 'better' ways of doing the same old thing.In its earliest stages fusion really will just be another way of generating steam power. But there are theoretical methods (with realistic potential) that abandon the use of steam for good. Upon reaching that point, the problems of humanity will essentially not exist. Energy will be virtually free and since all current problems are energy problem (hunger, thirst, disease) these will be conquered; likely within the first century of successful non-steam power generation using nuclear fusion processes.I know this sounds dreamy, but it's supported by the evidence. The only thing lacking now is the physical means of getting there. But it seems as though we are slowly progressing in that direction.Fission, solar, wind, etc. are, in my opinion, distractions from where our energies should really be directed. Except that the wastes from nuclear power are way worse than the wastes from fossil fuels. We can more or less get by in a world polluted with fossil fuel waste (we pretty much already do), but we really can't get by very well in a world polluted with wastes from nuclear power. I think current nuclear plants should be shut down and replaced with coal plants. (Or even solar or wind or hydro plants; as bad as those are, they are better than nuclear fission.)

That is way off the mark. Nuclear is by far the safest an cleanest. France has been 80% nuclear for decades now, and their nuclear waste fits into a modest sized building. The newer technologies are actually pretty good.Compare this to the ecological damage that fossil fuels do, both immediately and long term, and there is no comparison. Fission is a smart fuel to transition us from fossil fuels to fusion.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But what options are there for fission wastes once we develop a virtually costless energy supply?Fossil fuel wastes can be removed from the environment given enough energy.Can the same be said about fission waste?ABE: I realize that one possibility for fission waste disposal is to jettison it into space; so even there an almost unlimited energy supply would allow us to fix the problem.Still, I think fossil fuels present fewer long-term risks. You only mention small-scale fission use. What would be the nuclear waste output of a world run on nuclear fission?Edited by Jon, : -y + essEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Exactly what they are now. Encase them in a bunch of concrete and other materials. Go out to sea. Find a subduction zone. Dump away.In the newest reactors, much of the waste is recycled and put back in the reactor.Also, given enough energy, liquid hydrogen is the way to go for liquid fuel. You can use it in combustion engines, or even produce electricity in power cells. The only waste is heat and water.

Out of curiousity, how did they calculate that?Is that the total number of deaths ever caused divided by the total number of TW/h that has ever produced?Or are the deaths divided by some kind of average production rate of energy, or something?I wonder how the fact that so much coal has been used throughout history and that nuclear is a relative newcomer to the party effects the disparity in those levels if you calculate it over all the energy that has ever been produced rather than some kind of rate of production, or whatever.

Even if the calculations are just modern, think of the less developed countries that have lower safety standards for things like steam generators (which blow up if not properly built, used, and maintained).The numbers can be skewed even if they focus on just a recent time period because less developed areas have no access to nuclear power. So nuclear power is only used in areas where safety standards can be followed to a T. And coal power is used everywhere, even in places where safety is not a priority.

This assumes that PV solar is used in large installations like coal and other generator plants, with a grid to distribute the energy to the users on large trunk lines over dedicated land -- old school thinking.Instead, consider the unused real estate in town and along highways and train ways and all those existing transmission lines. PV solar can be integrated into other construction and provide energy in a distributed web that reduces the need and waste of high power lines. Coal cannot do this -- your comparison is fatally flawed. Example: an electric train in Germany that runs on power generated by solar panels along the train route -- no extra land needed no extra power needed.Wind too can be put up on existing infrastructure and integrated in a web of power generations: instead of linear distribution systems with alternate lines for a modicum of failsafe (but not enough to prevent blackouts and brownouts) the web energy flows from many sources to where it is used. Neighborhoods can stand alone, streetlights can collect power during the day and use it at night -- no more blackouts. The quality of service would be better. And those plants would have less appeal for those living nearby than the existing coal plants, which - frankly - are hideous. Safety requirements on top of public aversion would mean they would have to be built a great distance away from living centers, require large transmission lines and distribution centers. Blackouts would still occur as those lines fail. You talk about fusion as a nascent industry and complain that it needs to be given a break, and then compare the current state of development of wind and solar generation to a mature industry that is fully developed. This is hypocritical. Considering the advances in the last 5 years and the knowledge that we have not yet begun to reach optimum development means that such comparisons are apples and oranges, based more on biases than reality.Curiously I'd rather look at this:spinning slowly next door, than a coal plant or a fusion generating plant a mile away fenced off for safety etc.Progress isn't just about making power, but integrating our systems to be places to live.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : .

And you even mentioned anecdotal cases of it being cost-effective. Yet hardly anyone has solar panels on their houses or windmills in their backyards.People seem to prefer the grid system (out of sight out of mind mentality?). Look at gas lighting; in rural areas people have on-site LP tanks. Why didn't people in cities use onsite tanks for their lighting gas?I guess people just prefer the grid. Either that, or there is some unconsidered obstacle to large-scale in-home solar/wind systems in urban areas that has not been fully explored.Either way; it seems people like the grid. And fusion is all about the grid. Fusion power works with human nature. Another benefit it has over hippy-power. How would they fail? They can produce exponential surpluses of energy that can be stored locally. You are still held back by the preconception that fusion is just another way of doing the same thing.But it isn't. The power-generating capabilities of successful fusion are astronomical. Truly successful fusion means a world never again in want of cheap, portable, easy energy. So you want to trade short-term gains for long-term progress? Which we can more easily do with virtually limitless power that is boarder-line free.I think people will willingly adopt fusion. The fact that hardly anyone has adopted your system tells me it's dead out of the water.Why do you think the fairytale land of everyone getting along is more reasonable than an evidenced potential future of almost free power that never runs out?

That just makes it a difference between what has been the safest and what can be the safest.Regardless, I still think nuclear has been and can be the safest of them all.I was just curious if the disparity would change much.

http://thinkprogress.org/...umper-month-for-wind-in-scotland

quote:

---

According to new numbers published by WWF Scotland this week, wind turbines generated enough electricity in October to power 3,045,000 homes in the U.K. more than enough for all the homes in Scotland.

​

Wind energy has been thriving in the U.K. in recent months. In August the U.K set a new record for wind power generation, with wind accounting for seventeen percent of national demand. This came around the time that EDF Energy announced it was temporarily shutting down four of its U.K. reactors, or around a quarter of its total nuclear generating capacity, due to longevity issues. The four EDF reactors under investigation were commissioned in 1983 and are officially scheduled to be taken out of service in 2019.

---

Seems they don't have your problem ...There is more than enough wind and sun to power the world, it is available with existing technology and the innovations are still occurring at an incredible rate. Costs keep dropping, efficiency keeps improving.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

What is the purpose or reason for eliminating steam? If it is eliminated, that's great, but why is that a priority for a fusion reactor?The state of fusion technology is such that it is completely impossible to predict whether the technology will ever be cost effective. The promise of fusion all assume that breakthroughs for creating the high 'Q' values need to allow it to compete with other types of energy in cost come through. But right now, we don't even know if such a thing is possible.So we continue to invest in fusion, but we simply cannot abandon other technologies for the sole reason that they are currently too expensive and then continue to work on fusion which is facing exactly the same issue. There is also the problem that power generation by fusion is not currently attainable at any cost. Amusing. Radioactive waste disposal is a problem, but is the problem with disposal actually worse than the problems presented by burning fossil fuels or coal? I don't believe you can come close to making that case. The waste products from coal are not radioactive, but non-radioactive is not the same as non-toxic. And no amount of time will result in their hazard lessening. Right now, the only actual evidence we have is that fusion is not currently possible and we don't know if it will ever be cheaper than solar power. Currently solar power is drawing huge amounts of attention in NC. Everybody and their dog is trying to put together solar farms that service hundreds of families. So it is not just about a few hippies putting panels on their roofs anymore.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's not a requirement for fusion. But it is a requirement for advancement. We can't live in the steam age forever. It isn't just about their cost-effectiveness. It is about their general impracticability and the fact that no one wants them.Do you honestly see coal-generated electricity falling out of use any time soon? The U.N. thinks we need to be completely off fossil fuels by 2100. Do you see that happening willingly with the current alternatives?I don't. In fact, I think expecting people to be switched completely off fossil fuels in 85 years with only the alternatives we have now is laughable. Care to elaborate? Are you joking? Of course the problem with disposal of nuclear waste is worse than the problems of burning fossil fuels (which includes coal). We've actually developed dozens of ways of lessening the impact of fossil-fuel waste; and because of the relatively low use of nuclear power generation we can't even begin to understand what problems will be presented in an entirely fission society. Of course. But the question is rather that is a fad or the future.

Good for them. But they are only at 17%. And it seems they are an unusually good location for wind generation. The same cannot be said for every region on the planet. As I have pointed out, the fact that the world has enough wind and sun to power the planet doesn't mean that the whole world does. As they say, location, location, location. There are plenty of places where these alternatives simply don't work.

What's the technological/economic objection to steam power? Jon thinks it is not cool is not a reason to abandon steam power. Your argument that nobody wants them is nonsense. It may well be that people are not putting solar panels or windmills in their back yards, but nobody objects to having those technologies put on the grid if it can be done economically. That's one way that we use solar farm and wind farms. We will get huge reductions in the use of coal primarily because of the increase in availability of natural gas. Coal might well die off despite anything anti-environmentalists can do.Unfortunately, that same affect is going to cause problems for most 'green' technologies. Fusion, despite its attractiveness is not here and it may not get here any time soon. Yes. I find it amusing that you label things as silly without argument and then ignore the issues associated with your own pipe dreams. You calling other people naive is pretty laughable. What do we do with coal ash, Jon? That's the example I used. I'm asking you to stop mouthing platitudes "Of course it is worse..." and actually make an argument. Switching to asking me if I'm kidding just exposes that you don't actually have an argument. It's the present. Fusion power is not the present. And more to the point, it's a counter argument to your insistence that nobody wants solar power.

It's cumbersome and really only practical on the ground. Sure. Where they work they work. But they don't work everywhere. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel. The Chicken seems to think we're aiming for energy independence, and I don't see how that has anything to do with this topic. If energy independence is what we want, then we should really be looking at upping our extraction of U.S. coal reserves (we have the largest in the world) and finding new ways of powering things with coal or its refined products.But no one wants a future powered by even more coal; yet that's what we get if we want energy independence to dictate our behaviors. And that's why energy independence is a stupid goal and has nothing to do with budding fusion technologies. The goal of energy independence stops fusion in its tracks. We are increasingly finding ways to recycle more of it into useful products.What are we recycling nuclear waste into? And my point is that it's a distraction. Wide-scale adoption of these alternatives appears improbable, and anecdotes of folks here and there using solar, wind, etc. look more like a fad than anything else.And no one has yet addressed the hurdles to wide-scale use of the alternatives that I have brought up at least twice now.