The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 9

[JTreglio]

OK, first of all, ITER will not employ many nuclear scientists. The fusion program is a large plasma physics experiment, and will employ mostly plasma physicists. Second, don't bet on the fifty-year number. I worked on fusion projects over thirty years ago, and it was fifty years to reactors then. Third, high temperature superconductor technology did not involve any significant research money to develop, and the technology has been successful and is being used, and ultimately will play a significant role in reducing transmission line losses and, assuming ITER works, nuclear fusion reactors. Fourth, there is a new generation of nuclear reactors (pebble bed) that have been developed around the HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTOR concept that are inherently safe and small, with easy refueling.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

 

[pennpoint]

jmw (13 Jul 05)
Then there’s the report from Green Peace of the number of birds (read that Bald Eagles) killed by wind farms.
I read an article today regarding the use of ocean currents to drive very large undersea, propeller driven generators. So how many fish will be disected in the interest of our energy needs. Can We Win? There's always a down side and it's WE who must choose. Can we?
I’ am hoping we can...

pennpoint

 

[BillPSU]

Fusion research is funded in the United States at the rate of about $300-400 million annually. Oil and gas research at about $3-4 billion annually. Like the oild companies need more government suppport. I know there may be no benefits for a long period of time but unless research is started in earnest it will be 100 years before fusion power is available.

I would also like to note that all our energy currently being used today in gas, oil, wind, hydroelectric or coal was produced from fusion energy, the sun. Fusion research continues both in hot fusion and cold fusion. Will either approaches work I don't know. I'm willing to put my tax dollars to work trying to find out if it will. Its a better place to put dollars instead of some of our current boondoggles. But there's a lot of pork being doled out in Washington these days.

 

[cadcamguy]

Magnetic pinch... thank you James Tuck.... he didn't live to see it as a working source of energy..

ITER... better than NIF .. but on either experiments do you see a means to EXTRACT the energy produced .. cars without wheels!!

Just like Jtreglio... I too worked on FR 30 years ago and I knew Tuck ..fifty years before it works then and now still fifty years till it works.

JMW has it right .. smaller would be better

 

[beerbaron]

I believe that 10 billion dollars in R&D for nuclear fusion is not serious at all. To make fusion work we need to put real effort into it. What's 10 billions for the richest billion people (rich countries) on the planet.

May I remind you that before Manhattan project nobody was sure that nuclear fission was feasible, heck fisson of an atom was only a theory. But the US was desperate to get an edge to win the war so they got an hold of the best scientists around (as I recall there was something like 50 nobel prize winners involved in the Manhattan Project). Gave them real means to achieve their goals and political support. 2 years later they made an atomic bomb...

Nuclear Fusion is feasible, it's not something that only exists in sci fi movies. It's been done! Not for a long time but been done.

As for those who oppose about spending their tax dollars, let me remind you that the nuclear shield that the US research for is probably gonna cost 10 times those 10 billions. It has not been done, and is theorically imposible (I mean finding a fake among many missiles in outer space). Even worst,it cannot protect against terrorism and close range missiles.

There is no magic solution to any problems. But fusion is a viable solution in a 20-30 years future. Hopefully when we will manage our energies better.

BeerBaron

 

[ajack1]

Only when it REALLY matters to the general public will things change.

What difference would it make if the USA hiked fuel prices to European levels? How much money would it generated to research into alternative fuels? Will any politician actually do this until it will secure the vote of the general public and the support of the oil industries? Back to square one.

As Greg said he has to pay so little for fuel why should he care, why should anyone care? But if no one cares, things will get worse.

I would guess most people know we have a problem, but no one wants it to cost them money. At least this does seem a step forward, but is only the tip of the iceberg; remind me again what is an iceberg?

 

[jmw]

Take away their cars and it will matter.
But the cure for any ill is not instant. When oil runs out you don't just go to the cupboard for the next fix. Someone has to invest the time and money ahead of time so that the solution is available when needed.

It is all in the PR. Say you are going to spend $13billion on a fusion reactor without having repaired the damage to the image of nuclear power done by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc. and you can guarantee public upset and that the money won't be spent. There is even doubt that money will be invested in new much much safer and affordable fission power even though we are a generation or two further forward in the technology; they'd rather stick in a few million wind farms.

With China piling into the car ownership stakes to the extent that their biggest bicycle manufacturer has gone bankrupt and there is now one car for every 125 people (I'd check that stat, it might have been per family or even well wrong, it was 125 somethings) they are competing heaviliy for fuel.

This brings foreward the inevitable day when the oil runs out.

Hindsight is a hell of a bad substitute for foresight.

Now try and put this $13billion in perspective.
It is less than BIll Gates net worth and even a few others.
Just how much fuel tax did the government (any government) collect last year?
I know hypothecation is a popular word with a certain senior politician in the UK but if ever there was a time to say, "We paid this much tax on energy, last year and we want some of this money spent on securing the energy supplies for our kids".

Think of it this way. Fossil fuels are an essential ingredient in the evolution of technology. Sure they are limited. So is capital. You use capital to invest in ideas and ideas generate income. In this case we use fossil fuels profligately to build markets and dependencies which justifies further investment to satsify that craving for energy when the fossil fuels run out.

The alternative? we could all go back to living as hunter gatheres chasing down the last Mammoths.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[corus]

This may come as a shcok, jmw, but all the Mammoths have gone. I think woolly hair went out of fashion, hence their demise.

I'd agree with you that the capital should be used to invest in ideas for the future and fossil fuels do build markets and dependencies, but then why is it that governments are making the investments and not the oil companies? These companies are currently seeing vast profits with the high oil prices but appear to offer nothing in return.

corus

 

[Ashelin]

Dear Penpoint
I have read an article about using smaller scale wind generators (1kW)on top of parking structures at the Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations (San Francisco region) to charge the batteries in HEVs instead of directly producing electricity for the grid. Perhaps this would reduce the number of avian casualties while displacing gasoline?

Ashelin

jmw (13 Jul 05)
Then there’s the report from Green Peace of the number of birds (read that Bald Eagles) killed by wind farms.
I read an article today regarding the use of ocean currents to drive very large undersea, propeller driven generators. So how many fish will be disected in the interest of our energy needs. Can We Win? There's always a down side and it's WE who must choose. Can we?
I’ am hoping we can...

pennpoint

 

[cadcamguy]

The Los Alamos Laboratory, or Project Y, came into existence in early 1943 ...On the afternoon of December 2, 1942, Under the abandoned west stands of Stagg Field, the first controlled nuclear reaction occurred.

Fission was proven just before Los Alamos began, not by much. Oak Ridge was already underway tho is wasn't called Oak Ridge yet.. to produce uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-238), the only suitable substances know by 1942.
Project leaders did not know how quickly or how much of each they could produce, so they decided to produce both at the same time.

Fusion.. magnets or lasers.. try both.. very similar to the MP early days. While both are worth spending the money to develop. A magnetic system will more than likely win out as you don't not have the complexity of targeting a fuel pellet and supplying pellets you can work with just the gas
they have been close to the break even point with magnetic.

But there again no one has a system in place to extract the energy, which unlike fission you can maintain a reaction level.fusion is going to be boom boom boom etc really moob moob moob. since it's imploding ...what is the method going to be to extract the power.. steam? let it run awhile like your car until the themostat opens.. how is the vessel wall going to be able to deal with that, what alloys will need to be developed that don't decay to the stress and neutron bombardment or taking linear generators to the next level

I want to see it happen.. fusion ...but don't rule out fission as it is available now... management of waste is a issue that can be dealt with a little better.. we don't have to wait 50 years

 

[GregLocock]

The only large scale survey I've seen for Avian deaths in windmills, says that each windmill will kill slightly less than one bird per year.

That does not seem unreasonable to me. There again I'm not a bird.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[gwolf]

I don't think that there is an energy consumption problem at all. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet. Even if you fix the power problem with Fusion you will just run up against other problems like food, water, raw materials and landspace.

We already have all of the ingredients for sutainable power: Hydro, Tidal, Wind, Bio-fuels. We already have all of the technology to exploit these energy sources. The only real problem is the number of people. It is currently estimated that you would have to plant an area the size of the old West-Germany to supply Europe's fuel needs via bio-fuel. This is impractical. If the population of Europe was about 1/5th of what it is now, that would not be so big a deal

If you get everyone to be really energy efficient you might get down to 30-50% of current consumption in the first world. Move on 100 years and this saving will have been used up by population growth and we will be right back where we started.

 

[rb1957]

unfortunately we've got all those people now, and we'll be getting more in the future ... i think we'll push past the limits of the biosphere and suffer the consequences

unfortunately, i think the most positive thing we can do is hope it isn't on our watch !

and when we run out of oil, where are the petro-chemicals (plastics) going to come from ? oil-sands ??

 

[gwolf]

Ah, but if you believe in reincarnation, which I do, it WILL be on "Your Watch", through whatever set of eyes you have at the time.

PwoaaaaaH! Deep Man!

 

[jmw]

Gas liquid conversion is proposed for feedstocks for plastics. Of course, this puts more presure on gas but then, many have been flaring gas to get at the oil or re-injecting it which affects well performance over a period.
Its a good, temporary solution. The next solution is bio sources just as it is for fuels. Don't forget that cellophane, for example, is derived from plant material and there is nothing ingenuity cant solve given the incentives and the right commercial environment. The gas to liquid conversion idea is quite old, 1930's Germany I believe. (synthocrude?)

On the population front, a high population at least gives us a a big market to provide the right commercial stimulas to develop the next generation of power. Just think where we'd be if our populations had stabilised at 1600's levels. Population control is something that will happen for the same reason everything else happens: necessity. In fact there is an old expression: "The rich get richer and the poor get children." We can see this mechanism at work even now. We can also se the value of the primogeniture system and we can see countries taking a semi responsible attitude to population control. I'm not sure that in some cases it doesn't produce some undesirable effects, but more sensitive and accepted systems will evolve.

One of the biggest roblems might be education. We seem to be dumbing down the populations almost with deliberate intent when we need better educated people now more than ever before.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[gwolf]

JMW

> On the population front, a high population at least gives us a a big market to provide the right commercial stimulas to develop the next generation of power.

This common attitude is why I predict we will continue digging an every deeper hole for ourselves. Are you suggesting that we just keep on expanding for ever?

> Just think where we'd be if our populations had stabilised at 1600's levels.

Sounds great, plenty of land for everyone, no resource problem whatsoever, especially if combined with modern technology.

> One of the biggest problems might be education. We seem to be dumbing down the populations almost with deliberate intent when we need better educated people now more than ever before.

Everyone can't be a rocket scientist, human labour is an honourable occupation, also humans are very environmentally friendly machines, they can ONLY consume renewables for food.

I don't think any of your arguments hold up to even gentle scrutiny.

 

[ewh]

As jmw pointed out, plastics don't have to come from petroleum. Henry Ford made a plastic Model T from the hemp plant, which is an excellent source of oil.

 

[UNLengineer]

gwolf
Although JMW might have had some flawed arguments, yours are not much better.
If we had 1600's population levels, yes there would be an abundance of land, but we would not have the technology we have today. There would be no money or reason to pursue new technology if we were not short on resources. This is evident with the backlash over the money spent on ITER for future technological advance. The public does not want to spend money unless they have to.

 

[CajunCenturion]

UNLengineer - Would you please explain how you are arriving at your conclusions about technology and money from the premise, "If we had 1600's population levels"?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[UNLengineer]

To say that we would not have the technology we have today if we had lower population levels is not correct, I apologize. The point I was trying to get across is that we as a human race do not dedicate as much time or money unless there is a clear reason to do so. If we had an abundance of natural resources, then there would not be a clear reason to study sciences and therefore technology would suffer. Although science would still advance, I don't believe that it would have advanced at the pace that it did. As populations grow, so does the need for technology and the abundance of minds to create it.