Nuclear fussion and anti-nuclear technology

[thewowsignal]

Is there any alternative to nuclear energy? Long term, nuclear energy creates more problems than solutions. For many decades mankind has been trying to develop more efficient way of producing energy and tackle nuclear waste. Many scientific teams around the world hope to make some progress in this area. Billions of taxpayers money are being pumped into the research every year.
Is there any chance for nuclear fussion technology to power our homes and businesses in the near future? Is there any chance for nuclear power plants to become obsolete?

I want to start a serious discussion here about our future on this small planet. This thread is especially dedicated to those of you, who are enthusiastic about atomic energy and energy crisis.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, thewowsignal said:

Is there any alternative to nuclear energy? Long term, nuclear energy creates more problems than solutions. For many decades mankind has been trying to develop more efficient way of producing energy and tackle nuclear waste. Many scientific teams around the world hope to make some progress in this area. Billions of taxpayers money are being pumped into the research every year.
Is there any chance for nuclear fussion technology to power our homes and businesses in the near future? Is there any chance for nuclear power plants to become obsolete?

I want to start a serious discussion here about our future on this small planet. This thread is especially dedicated to those of you, who are enthusiastic about atomic energy and energy crisis.

"Fussion" isn't a word. Do you mean fission or fusion? If you mean fusion, then I doubt it will make a contribution for another 30 years at least. But its long term potential is such that it justifies the current level of expenditure. 

[thewowsignal]

I must apologize here for my terrible English language skills. I never had a chance to learn this language properly.
I am neither an expert in this area nor a scientist of some sort. Do you really think for another 30 years there will be no progress in 'fusion' technology?
By the way, is there already an official name assigned to such 'non-existing' technology?
In my opinion a few reactors are already under construction and will be operational soon, to tackle constantly growing global energy crisis.
 

[Eise]

I find it a terrible error that we have invested, and are still investing, so much money in nuclear technology, just to keep up the energy that our society is wasting everywhere. If we had used all that money in technologies that save energy on one side, and develop durable energy sources, we would have no problems now.

We are stuck with a technology that works, but I still don't know of any country that has a definite solution for nuclear waste of nuclear fission plants, and how to go on when we are running out of U-235; and a technology that will be successful 50 years in the future, and will always be that way.Yes, I am very pessimistic that we will ever have useful nuclear fusion power plants.

[Sensei]

A man-built fusion reactor uses tritium and deuterium (this is one of the most efficient reactions). But tritium cannot be produced in advance and stored. It cannot be collected somewhere. It has half-life 12.32 years. To split lithium into tritium, you need a free neutron. Where can the free neutron be obtained? In traditional nuclear reactors, of course..

A country that wants to be self-sufficient, and create fuel for nuclear fusion, must also have traditional nuclear reactors.

[thewowsignal]

Many decades of scientific research in the area of particle and quantum physics did not manage to bring this civilization to a higher level in terms of energy efficiency. There are many smaller and bigger labs around the world trying to make a scientific breakthrough. A small team of scientists following their own path, in my opinion, has better chances of making a significant scientific discovery. At least if they fail the financial 'damage' is not that big.
I know that many people will never agree to the above. To support my point of view please take a look at the LHC and how much it already costed. Do you think it is really worth the money already spent on it? Besides, a small team of scientific and enthusiastic nerds is worth more than thousands of people following the same way of thinking and waiting for a coffee break.
I think last couple of decades is the best argument to support my point of view. And scientific forums full of unanswered questions and weird theories make many young people doubt in trying to follow what is going on.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, thewowsignal said:

Many decades of scientific research in the area of particle and quantum physics did not manage to bring this civilization to a higher level in terms of energy efficiency. There are many smaller and bigger labs around the world trying to make a scientific breakthrough. A small team of scientists following their own path, in my opinion, has better chances of making a significant scientific discovery. At least if they fail the financial 'damage' is not that big.
I know that many people will never agree to the above. To support my point of view please take a look at the LHC and how much it already costed. Do you think it is really worth the money already spent on it? Besides, a small team of scientific and enthusiastic nerds is worth more than thousands of people following the same way of thinking and waiting for a coffee break.
I think last couple of decades is the best argument to support my point of view. And scientific forums full of unanswered questions and weird theories make many young people doubt in trying to follow what is going on.

Energy efficiency is not generally the goal of particle and quantum physicists, surely? Or do you mean those occupied with fusion research? 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, thewowsignal said:

Many decades of scientific research in the area of particle and quantum physics did not manage to bring this civilization to a higher level in terms of energy efficiency.

Was efficiency the goal? Availability was probably the goal.

But since efficiency affects profit, I'm sure some effort was made on nuclear plant efficiency. Solar cells are much more efficient than the ones we had in the past. Wind turbine systems are probably more efficient as well. 

 

2 hours ago, thewowsignal said:

There are many smaller and bigger labs around the world trying to make a scientific breakthrough. A small team of scientists following their own path, in my opinion, has better chances of making a significant scientific discovery. At least if they fail the financial 'damage' is not that big.

Some research projects are small, others are big. It depends on the research. I've been on papers with 30 names on the paper, and others with 4 or 5.

2 hours ago, thewowsignal said:

I know that many people will never agree to the above. To support my point of view please take a look at the LHC and how much it already costed. Do you think it is really worth the money already spent on it? Besides, a small team of scientific and enthusiastic nerds is worth more than thousands of people following the same way of thinking and waiting for a coffee break.

LHC and other accelerator collaborations are large out of necessity, since there are a lot of "moving parts" to those efforts.