Is fusion power the way forward?

[mag1308]

I have recently been studying the possibility of nuclear fusion technology as a power source. In my opinion, it is a brilliant source of energy with almost no draw backs (except maybe losing the oil companies a large amount of money). I accept though that my opinion is just that, so I would like to hear from you on whether you'd be happy having a nuclear fusion plant built a couple of miles down the road. Whether you know how fusion power works, or not, all opinions are welcome, especially if you know nothing about fusion.

 

For this question, I would like you to assume that technology has, overnight, advanced to the point that a fusion power station is viable

Edited September 26, 2012 by mag1308

[swansont]

I have recently been studying the possibility of nuclear fusion technology as a power source. In my opinion, it is a brilliant source of energy with almost no draw backs (except maybe losing the oil companies a large amount of money).

The current non-viability of fusion as a power source is a huge drawback, IMO.

[mathematic]

For the last 50 years or so fusion power has been 20 years away.

[mag1308]

The current non-viability of fusion as a power source is a huge drawback, IMO.

Sorry, I forgot to include 'If the technology had been developed' in the question.

[Enthalpy]

If D-T power worked some day, it would have to regenerate its tritium that lacks from Nature, needing to multiply neutrons, and this step is as polluting as uranium fission is:

http://saposjoint.ne...php?f=66&t=2450

http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=422576

 

A report describing the attempted tritium-breeding blankets at ITER and their neutron multiplier:

http://www.iter-indu...on_Poitevin.pdf

but it keeps silent about beryllium scarcity and pollution by lead spallation.

 

My argument that beryllium is too scarce, leaving only the polluting lead spallation as a neutron multiplier:

http://www.physicsfo...71&postcount=66

 

I had hoped that ⁹Be could be replaced by ⁴⁰K, ¹³C or ¹⁷O but these seem to require too much energy from the neutron. As soon as the neutron brakes a bit from the initial 14MeV it's over. Worse, ⁴⁰K absorbs thermalized neutrons to make (n,p)⁴⁰Ar.

http://www.nndc.bnl....ndfb7.1⊄=10

(the absent ¹³C must resemble ¹⁷O)

[IM Egdall]

Back in the 1970's or 80's, I worked on optics analysis for a govt. laser fusion energy project. And we are still so far away from a viable solution. How many millions (billions?) has the govt. spent on this over the years. How many solar panels or wind farms or or geothermal factories or even fission nuclear plants could we have built with this money? Wouldn't we have been better off using the funding in a more realistic, near-term alternate energy source to oil?

[JohnStu]

Fission works not because it is fission, but because it uses enriched radioactive elements for fission.

 

Fusion on the other hand uses stable atoms.

[John Cuthber]

Fusion power works just fine, the reactor is about 93 million miles away.

[Wilmot McCutchen]

Creating the fusion event is one thing; getting useful work out of that fusion event is another. This might provide a path to both: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8268136.pdf

[Moontanman]

Fission works not because it is fission, but because it uses enriched radioactive elements for fission.

 

Fusion on the other hand uses stable atoms.

 

 

Current fusion methods use radioactive elements, tritium is not stable, and fusion does indeed result in radioactive waste... Hydrogen fusion gives off neutrons which, if nothing else, make the stuff the reactor is made of radioactive. If we ever manage to make helium three fusion you might have a point but at this point all current fusion methods do involve unstable elements and leave behind radioactive waste of some sort.

[Enthalpy]

Any reactor burning tritium needs to multiply neutrons, a process that creates radioactivity.

 

This would hold for laser fusion, Z-striction or semi-fast compression (development at General Fusion) as well, but maybe the Z-striction will accept other fuels within a reasonable time - something a tokamak like ITER isn't capable of.

[pranav8875]

technology has been developed and being researched at ITER in france.........only it is not viable for large scale production

maybe in 20-25yrs they can advance the technology of magnetic confinement of high energy plasma to start large scale controlled fusion

[Enthalpy]

And fusion like ITER would produce as much radioactive waste as fission does, as said above.

 

The time of these brilliant people, and the public money, is better invested elsewhere: renewable energy, electricity storage, maybe hydrogen storage...