Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fusion Power on the way - at last ?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 130 (738851)
10-16-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
10-16-2014 2:09 AM


This was probably already old when I first heard it back in the 1970's: "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be."
I do think the technology problems are solvable, just economically infeasible. We need to economically duplicate the enormous pressure at the center of sun without the sun's gravity. Enormous pressures can be brought to bear on tiny volumes, but expand the volume to produce meaningful amounts of power and the containment power requirements and problems swell enormously.
I believe that if we ever see sustainable fusion power it will be from cold fusion techniques, but nothing's ever come of them. Cold fusion research has taught us the difficulty of performing accurate calorimeter experiments, but it hasn't brought the fusion age any nearer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2014 2:09 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 10-16-2014 5:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 130 (739960)
10-30-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ramoss
10-30-2014 2:58 AM


My skepticism isn't based on the specifics of any particular approach. Fusion in the sun has a containment vessel 850,000 miles in diameter. Scientists believe a star must be at least 80,000 miles in diameter to produce fusion temperatures and pressures (Size of Smallest Possible Star Pinned Down). We need a containment vessel capable of continuously maintaining fusion temperatures and pressures like those in a star but of a tiny, tiny, tiny size. This seems like a very, very, very difficult problem.
All but one successful fusion power experiments have consumed more power than they produced and were of an instantaneous, not continuous, nature. The one exception that produced more power than it consumed took place last year. The very slow rate of progress is very convincing evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem.
Generating more power than consumed is just the simplest problem, but it's a prerequisite for the more important and even more difficult problem of creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction. If it's taken 50 years of research to obtain more power than consumed just once, how long might it take to produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction? I believe it will be a very long time and be too complex to be economically feasible.
I don't think this should surprise people. Many things that are technologically possible are not economically feasible. Right now another form of energy production is on the verge of becoming economically infeasible, hydrofracking. Oil has only to drop another $10-20 per barrel and that will be the end of hydrofracking for the time being.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ramoss, posted 10-30-2014 2:58 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 14 of 130 (740277)
11-03-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
11-03-2014 1:29 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck At First
Jon writes:
Fusion is the future.
And always will be.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 11-03-2014 1:29 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 89 of 130 (741220)
11-10-2014 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
11-10-2014 12:08 PM


Re: All Good Things Suck ” At First
You're right that the rules say Jon needs to argue his position himself rather than letting links do it for him, but he's already conceded he can't do that. This begs the question how he knows the link provides a viable answer if he doesn't understand it, but you're not going to get blood from a stone.
In my rudimentary understanding of fusion, it is the deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen that is the fuel. The big problem isn't fuel, I wouldn't think, but ignition. Temperatures in the millions of degrees Kelvin would be required.
Another concern with vehicular fusion power: What happens in the event of an accident and containment integrity is lost for the millions of degrees fusion reaction?
Electricity is the future of vehicular locomotion, regardless of the ultimate power generation source of that electricity. The only practical on-board electricity generation sources are internal combustion engines driving generators (not a long term solution due to pollution and global warming concerns) or fuel cells. All other sources of electric power would distribute their electricity on the power grid, and cars would plug into the power grid.
My own opinion is that fusion will only become a practical power source if cold fusion somehow becomes a reality.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 11-10-2014 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 11-10-2014 3:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 11-12-2014 10:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024