ITER Nuclear Fusion Plant

This is a discussion on ITER Nuclear Fusion Plant within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm They say nuclear fusion is this amazing energy source, that works exactly as the Sun does. But how can ...

  1. #1
    Registered /usr
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Newport, South Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,255

    ITER Nuclear Fusion Plant

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

    They say nuclear fusion is this amazing energy source, that works exactly as the Sun does. But how can they manage this without creating a massive hot ball of gas in the first place? Plus, previous experiments like this have required more energy than they output, so is this ever gonna work?

  2. #2
    and the Hat of Clumsiness GanglyLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    between photons and phonons
    Posts
    1,109
    a 10bn-euro (Ģ6.6bn) nuclear fusion reactor
    I think that somehow they found a way to get alot more energy out of it then they have to put in, to make it work.

    I dont think they would fund a thing like this if it had no chance at succeeding at all.

    Cadarache lies on a known earthquake faultline. The management at Cadarache insists there is no risk to existing or future installations.
    This is what worries me the most, if things go wrong with a facility like this itīll be much more worse then with Tsjernobyl.

  3. #3
    #include<xErath.h> xErath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    722
    However, some environmental groups are doubtful about the viability of nuclear fusion,
    dumbasses it the end of fossil fuel, and nuclear fission
    To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.
    clearly a journalist
    Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.
    shoudn't the fussion produce lithium or berilium ?!? as far as I know the lightest radiactive material is Carbon14
    Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies.
    more dumbasses, the solution the all major energy problems, the future here and now

  4. #4
    Yes, my avatar is stolen anonytmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,544
    >> They say nuclear fusion is this amazing energy source, that works exactly as the Sun does. But how can they manage this without creating a massive hot ball of gas in the first place? <<

    They create a small ball of super heated plasma. The plasma is kept in place with very large super conducting magnets so it does not touch any material that would cool it instantly. Because the density of the sun (due to it's gravity) can not be attained artificially they must compensate by making the plasma far hotter than exists in the sun.

    >> Plus, previous experiments like this have required more energy than they output, so is this ever gonna work? <<

    Hopefully. They have been getting closer and ITER is designed to be able to produce more energy than it consumes (in very short bursts). The hope is that after ITER, in a couple of decades, a small prototype electricity producing reactor can be built.

    >> This is what worries me the most, if things go wrong with a facility like this itīll be much more worse then with Tsjernobyl. <<

    No, if the plasma escapes or too much gas is fed in the plasma will cool and the reaction will stop. A nuclear fusion reactor can not melt down. There are other serious safety concerns relating to tritium and fire.

    >> more dumbasses, the solution the all major energy problems, the future here and now <<

    Maybe. Nuclear fusion will take at least thirty to fifty years (nuclear fusion has been fifty years away for the last fifty years) and tens of billions of dollars to develop. There is a good chance it may never be economic. In addition there are some concerns that a nuclear fusion reactor could be used to create fuel for nuclear weapons. It may be better off spending this money on developing and implementing solutions that really are here and now.

  5. #5
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > ITER is designed to be able to produce more energy than it consumes (in very short bursts).

    Doesn't that violate a pretty fundamental law of physics?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    They say it's the first, but there already exists self contained fusion reactors (heat is controlled via magnets). They just aren't, you know, useful for anything.

    I bet you're glad I pointed that out.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  7. #7
    ... arjunajay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    203
    This is what worries me the most, if things go wrong with a facility like this itīll be much more worse then with Tsjernobyl.
    Not necessarily...
    'cause fusion does not cause radioactivity...
    one won't die (slowly) of radiation...
    one just burn up in a matter of milliseconds...

  8. #8
    #include<xErath.h> xErath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by anonytmouse
    Maybe. Nuclear fusion will take at least thirty to fifty years (nuclear fusion has been fifty years away for the last fifty years) and tens of billions of dollars to develop. There is a good chance it may never be economic. In addition there are some concerns that a nuclear fusion reactor could be used to create fuel for nuclear weapons. It may be better off spending this money on developing and implementing solutions that really are here and now.
    Someone has to take the first step. And I personally think it'll be worthwhile

    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    > ITER is designed to be able to produce more energy than it consumes (in very short bursts).

    Doesn't that violate a pretty fundamental law of physics?
    consider the sun itself. It's constantly emiting energy, which result from the convertion of 4 million tons of matter to energy in one second. E = m*c^2
    Last edited by xErath; 06-29-2005 at 05:34 PM.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. correct behavour of at()
    By sh3rpa in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 02:17 AM
  2. The destructive power of a nuclear bomb
    By InvariantLoop in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-24-2005, 01:46 AM
  3. Alternate energy sources
    By Govtcheez in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-02-2005, 06:07 PM
  4. Paks (Hungary) Nuclear Power Plant - fuel damage occurred on 10 – 11 April 2003
    By Carlos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-17-2003, 05:49 AM
  5. Dynamic list of Objects in External File
    By TechWins in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-18-2002, 01:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21