nuclear fusion

[dragonstar57]

something I've been confused about for a while.

I understand the idea of how it works but the current level of the development of the technology is not clear.

i have heard several things recently on the topic.

1.) it is now known fact that cold fusion is impossible

2.) fusion has been established but the energy required to initiate it was greater than the output.

3.) fusion has been established but the hydrogen production requires more energy than the fusion produces or is to dangerous.

4.) fusion has not been established because we have not been able to achieve the energies required.

5.) robotics are not developed enough to maintain the reactor.

6.) none of these things are problems it is just a mater of the economics of it.

ps. I do not feel this should be in speculation but because I did not know where to put it and because it has potential to stray from strictly accepted science I placed it here if you (mods) believe that this thread is worthy of a more respectable section please move it.

[pantheory]

something I've been confused about for a while.

I understand the idea of how it works but the current level of the development of the technology is not clear.

i have heard several things recently on the topic.

1.) it is now known fact that cold fusion is impossible

2.) fusion has been established but the energy required to initiate it was greater than the output.

3.) fusion has been established but the hydrogen production requires more energy than the fusion produces or is to dangerous.

4.) fusion has not been established because we have not been able to achieve the energies required.

5.) robotics are not developed enough to maintain the reactor.

6.) none of these things are problems it is just a mater of the economics of it.

ps. I do not feel this should be in speculation but because I did not know where to put it and because it has potential to stray from strictly accepted science I placed it here if you (mods) believe that this thread is worthy of a more respectable section please move it.

1.) it is now known fact that cold fusion is impossible.

Most presently believe that cold fusion of some kind, at or close to room temperatures, by any means is impossible. There are still PhD authored theoretical proposals of cold fusion possibilities, but few such papers ever find a mainstream publisher any longer.

 

2.) fusion has been established but the energy required to initiate it was greater than the output.

This is generally true but it is more than energy input vs. output that is needed. The output needs to exceed the input of energy by a margin that will also pay for the capital equipment, Real Estate, investiment return, operating manpower costs, fuel, etc. On this matter I think they are still far away from original goals.

 

3.) fusion has been established but the hydrogen production requires more energy than the fusion produces or is to dangerous.

Present methods of fussing hydrogen use tritium, a very expensive isotope with one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus. Fusion is more controllable than fission so operation dangers using magnetic fusion mechanisms seem relatively safe.

 

4.) fusion has not been established because we have not been able to achieve the energies required.

Small scale fusion by different means have been acheived. Large scale projects such as China's "EAST" research test reactor are complete, concerning the first tokamak experiment to use superconducting magnets to generate both the toroidal and poloidal fields necessary for fusion. They have claimed spot fusion but in non-continuous sporadic production, at non-commercially or viable levels. They are looking to create higher energy production levels/ upgrades striving for continuous non-commercial production.

 

5.) robotics are not developed enough to maintain the reactor.

This I expect is false. Although robotics may not be advanced enough to operate an entire reactor without human help, this is certainly not the most important obstacle.

 

6.) None of these things are problems it is just a matter of the economics of it.

This is also false. There are a number of other problems, but ultimately the economics will determine when a commercial model of a fusion reactor will first be produced. The lowest cost electric production today is presently hydro-electric dams. Next comes nuclear fission, then coal burning power plants, oil burning, then natural gas burning. The most expensive commercial methods are wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc.

//

Edited October 12, 2011 by pantheory

[mechaniker]

It is hard ! here is my thinks ! http://mecanicosaereos.blogspot.com/2011/11/nuclear-fusion-is-it.html

[dragonstar57]

Too dangerous as in hydrogen production is too dangerous. and there will be parts of the reactor which will not be able to be accessed by humans because of the radiation levels therefore robotics would have to carry out maintenance within the areas with high levels of radiation