Brainteaserfan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Nuclear power, is a furthy, its nuclear heating for steam, just like Coal but more dangerous. The day of steam has been replaced by Carbon. Its emense energy for so little heat, plus it provides its own cooling by creation of Dry-Ice. http://nextbigfuture...rgy-source.html Nuclear is far safer than coal, solar, wind, or anything else. The deaths per TWh are much smaller. Edited June 20, 2011 by Brainteaserfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I just read this comprehensive article on the future of fusion energy which leads me to believe that it is probably not so far off after all. The rest of the world seems to have made great strides in the industry and based on what I read in this article, it sounds like it is approaching the status of being a workable, efficient (enough), practical endeavor. I just wish that I had not used such a closed-minded title for this thread. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-perspective-future-fusion.html Edited July 4, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainteaserfan Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) None of the statements you have made are correct in the way in which you mean them. Whatever you have read or were told that led you to believe these statements are true was either badly presented, also wrong, or badly misinterpreted. It would be helpful to other members and casual readers if you verified your statements before posting. 1. You are correct that one form of hydrogen fusion is a chain reaction, but you imply by this - borrowing from popular lexicology - that it is a run-away chain reaction. Such is decidedly not the case. Even with the conditions deep within the sun, creation of two protons to deuterium, the first step in the reaction, is so rare half the hydrogen in the sun will still be unconverted 5 billion years from now. 2. Conditions to produce fusion into the higher atomic weight elements are not present within the design of any proposed fusion reactor. Further, as a minor detail, the progress towards iron is associated with supernovae, not novae - an entirely different beast. 3. Which is why the tokamak reactors contain the reaction in a magnetic field. 4. Wow! The atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field are two completely different things. The magnetic field does protect the atmosphere from some very slow erosional effects of the solar wind, but is not what keeps it from collapsing. The core of the planets is already polarised, hence the magnetic field. Edit: the following was added as a separate post after noting stringjunky's observations. I believe the primary intention of a nuclear bomb is that people should be scared of its effects. Otherwise it's not of much use. Tell me, are you not somewhat scared of its effects? And if not, why not? You don't think safety considerations, real or imagined, have had a part to play? I was talking about the bomb's first test. Yes, if a bomb was dropped anywhere near me, or anywhere where it might cause a nuclear war, I'd be worried. I think that the safety considerations are imagined. A death by nuclear radiation sounds terrible, and it is, but it is also exceedingly rare. Nuclear is one of the safest ways that we know of to produce power. Some countries are not suited for it though, (if they are situated where earthquakes or other natural disasters occur relatively frequently.) Much of the US is perfect for it. I just read this comprehensive article on the future of fusion energy which leads me to believe that it is probably not so far off after all. The rest of the world seems to have made great strides in the industry and based on what I read in this article, it sounds like it is approaching the status of being a workable, efficient (enough), practical endeavor. I just wish that I had not used such a closed-minded title for this thread. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-perspective-future-fusion.html Even if fusion becomes practical, I don't think that that will be enough to "save" nuclear power. Nuclear power plant construction has almost stopped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_Power_History.png Edited July 4, 2011 by Brainteaserfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now