PDA

View Full Version : ITER Nuclear Fusion Plant



SMurf
06-28-2005, 11:04 AM
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? :confused:

GanglyLamb
06-28-2005, 11:20 AM
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.

xErath
06-28-2005, 12:58 PM
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 :D

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

anonytmouse
06-28-2005, 01:54 PM
>> 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 (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf66.htm) 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.

Govtcheez
06-28-2005, 02:04 PM
> 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?

BobMcGee123
06-28-2005, 03:01 PM
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.

arjunajay
06-29-2005, 05:42 AM
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...

xErath
06-29-2005, 05:30 PM
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


> 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