Fission and fusion

[BrownTown]

first off @ jagec: The ability of particulates, NOx, and SOx to kill people is very easily proven, the effects of CO2 are global enviromental ones and not nearly so easily measured. It really isn't physically possible to get rid of the CO2 production since it is its production that creates the heat. At best you can sequester it, be apparently everyone thinks sequestering a few thousand tons of readioaxctive waste is an impossible task, so I doubt they will be in favor of doign the same to hundreds of millions of tons of CO2.

As for bobsmith1492's comment, mining the moon for HE-3 is an idea that has been around for a long time, and deffintely IS in many sci-fi books. However the difficulty of actually building a minning colony on the moon is obviously extrmely high, so i doubt there are going to be any serious attempts in our lifetime unless there is some serious energy crisis here on earth. People tend to understimate the time it takes to go from idea to reality. Just read any book predicting the future and it never even comes close. I was reading an official report by the nuclear industry from 30 years ago, and by now we should all kinds of breeder reactors, reprocessing, etc. And in reality all we have are the exact same plants that were designed 30 years ago when in it was written.

 

[Eeezee]

I don't think you understand the purpose of this new reactor. We already have weapons that rely on fusion reactions, those are significantly easier to make than a fusion reactor that generates electricity.

The purpose of ITER is to explore the possibility of using fusion energy as an electrical source. It's safer than fission and produces fewer harmful by-products (you have to replace the radiation shielding surrounding the reactor every now and then, and those plates are radioactive for a short time).

There's a lot of potential here. Fusion power plants could produce significantly more power than fission power plants, and there are fewer waste products. The development of this technology is very important if we want to solve our energy crisis.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Wow, does any of this strike anyone as sci-fi material? I mean, for crying out loud - mining the moon for fuel for a fusion reactor? I love it!

If you like that, the Mars Science Lab is going to be a nuclear powered robot with six wheels that can vaporize the surface of rocks with a laser.


I really do hope that more research is done on fusion technology. I see it as being key to providing for our energy needs in the future. The main barriers right now are cost and the laws of physics. Once we find a way of making fusion efficient and viable, I think the cost will come down, both from economies of scale, and from either design refinement, or completely new designs.
There may also need to be a significant upgrade to the power or fuel distribution systems. If hydrogen takes off, we'd need a way of distributing it. Fusion could provide power for electrolysis, providing us with an abundant supply of hydrogen.
Alternately, if some advance is made that allows for widespread use of electric vehicles, a means of distributing incredible amounts of fusion-generated electricity across the grid would be necessary.

 

[OSX]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Mark R pretty much got it. Fusion is like taking all the good things about fission and getting rid of all the bad things. You don't have the long lived nuclear waste, there is not weapons proliferation problems, and you never have to worry about running out of fuel. However, all the good qualities have led some people to put it up on a pedastel, but it is not a solution to everything. It still requires building a very expensive fusion reactor and all the other problems assocated with large scale power production namely considerable water use. Even if fusion becomes a reality any time soon it will still be VERY expensive, and it not a source of CHEAP power, but it is a source of a LOT of power.

I digress. Using fast breeder reactors with U238 would generate a lot of fissle plutonium, enough to provide a lot of fuel. Maybe not hundreds of years worth, but enough to hold us over until fusion. Frankly, until fusion can break even and generate what fission can generate, fusion is king.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: OSX

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Mark R pretty much got it. Fusion is like taking all the good things about fission and getting rid of all the bad things. You don't have the long lived nuclear waste, there is not weapons proliferation problems, and you never have to worry about running out of fuel. However, all the good qualities have led some people to put it up on a pedastel, but it is not a solution to everything. It still requires building a very expensive fusion reactor and all the other problems assocated with large scale power production namely considerable water use. Even if fusion becomes a reality any time soon it will still be VERY expensive, and it not a source of CHEAP power, but it is a source of a LOT of power.

I digress. Using fast breeder reactors with U238 would generate a lot of fissle plutonium, enough to provide a lot of fuel. Maybe not hundreds of years worth, but enough to hold us over until fusion. Frankly, until fusion can break even and generate what fission can generate, fusion is king.

Er, I'm sure he means fission is king?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Wow, does any of this strike anyone as sci-fi material? I mean, for crying out loud - mining the moon for fuel for a fusion reactor? I love it!

If you like that, the Mars Science Lab is going to be a nuclear powered robot with six wheels that can vaporize the surface of rocks with a laser.


I really do hope that more research is done on fusion technology. I see it as being key to providing for our energy needs in the future. The main barriers right now are cost and the laws of physics. Once we find a way of making fusion efficient and viable, I think the cost will come down, both from economies of scale, and from either design refinement, or completely new designs.
There may also need to be a significant upgrade to the power or fuel distribution systems. If hydrogen takes off, we'd need a way of distributing it. Fusion could provide power for electrolysis, providing us with an abundant supply of hydrogen.
Alternately, if some advance is made that allows for widespread use of electric vehicles, a means of distributing incredible amounts of fusion-generated electricity across the grid would be necessary.

Heh heh. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Yeah, what do the geniusses (genuii?) around here think of nuclear power's costs, for fission and fusion. You'd think they'd go down over time like any technology, but how fast and when do you all think it will level out?

I can't speak about fusion, however I do know that one FY2003 $7 USD PWR fuel rod can generate as much energy as one ton of coal, while not spewing however many tons of those nasty oxides into the atmosphere, and costing a hell of a lot less than one ton of coal.


The average coal plant right now needs 90,000 tons of coal a DAY to operate. Though the US is sitting on top of what I have heard described as 8000 years of coal, under its ass, thats a heavy toll the environment will have to pay.

Despite the high initial capital needed for a nuclear facility, its fuel is cheaper than hell; the only REAL waste is heat and steam, and its one of the safest technoogies we have.

You see, Chernobyl was caused by the fact that they had a fathom of graphite on the tips of their control rods, in order to enhance the effect. This was despite the fact that graphite is used as a neutron moderator, a property shared by the coolant water. However, graphite is much better at NOT absorbing neutrons. At any time they should've had the equivalent about 30 rods in at all times. During the accident there were 6-8. All of the safety systems were turned off, and even if they weren't - they were designed to work during normal plant conditions -- not during an absolutely irrational set of conditions. When the operators SCRAM'ed the reactor (quickly inserted all off the control rods in order to quickly halt the reaction) the reaction rate went to 100x nominal. The graphite tips moderated the neutrons (made them more ready to react) while not absorbing as many as the coolant water they displaced -- the absolute opposite of what they wanted. Heck, they didn't even have a proper containment structure.

And then there's the waste. Which would be a non-issue if we Canadians and Americans could bring ourselves to throw out that ****** bit of legislation and actually harness the gift that are breeder reactors. Turning 150 years of useable fuel and that useless liabilty of the waste into 150 million years of cheap, clean fuel and barely any waste is another gift of nuclear power rejected by our dumb-ass, respective governments.

I hate FUD; it's a bad thing.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: beansbaxter
There was a recent article about France winning the bid to build the first fusion reactor with help and finacial back from the other nuclear powers of the world. What are your thoughts on this since this won't be a viable energy source till at least 2020 if not later. Also why persure this (other than a new form of weapon) since most Americans have a fear and distrust of nuclear fission reactor.

According to the analysis I read a year ago it is very uncertain how economically viable or necessary fusion will be. It depends on the price of electricity of course (which depends on oil use and availability, solar power success, etc.) and geographical factors. It is expected to have some use, but whether a lot or not it isn't known.
It's an interesting question whether western governments should plough money into fusion, solar or a combination and to what extent. It might make sense to put all the eggs in one basket because the technologies are substitutes but then not all places get much sun.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Theoretically, in forty years we could install plants like this in nations like Iran, they'd have their electricity without any bomb-making potential, and everyone would be happy.

Well everyone except Iran.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well first off just to keep everything accurate France is 80% nuclear not 98% nuclear. Also, in all honesty that is too high a percent of nuclear since it takes days to turn nuke plants on and off and the power demands fluctuate considerably between night and day (something like 40%).

But you have to take into consideration that france trades electricity with its neighbours. In Britain for example building nuclear plants is politically problematic (not very but somewhat) and even more in germany (I think the greens' compromise with the socialists would have the current ones shut down - I am not sure if that policy has been reversed by now). Having nuclear plants in france which would otherwise have been in England isn't such a bad idea.

 

[MotF Bane]

Unfortunately, current society doesn't want to hear about nuclear power. All they want to see is wind, solar, and similar systems. Getting rid of the legislations against breeder reactors would make sense, but governments won't ever do it.

Even if cheaper non-weapons grade reactors were built, some countries (such as Iran) shouldn't have them. There is always the danger they would figure out some bright way to create a new weapon from it. What's the selling price for some fissionable materials on the black market now anyways...

To make up for the night/day swings and other such events, keep some of the LNG facilities around, and why not just create the world's largest batteries? Perhaps not the most efficient ever, but then you can run the nuclear plants at marginally below what is necessary for day values while the batteries cover the margin, then allow the batteries to recharge during the night. We just need to figure out batteries to make that work.

Another though: My AP Chemistry teacher said something about fusion reactors with those tokakaks, that are currently holding plasma that could burn through the planet? Anybody know something more there?

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
To make up for the night/day swings and other such events, keep some of the LNG facilities around, and why not just create the world's largest batteries? Perhaps not the most efficient ever, but then you can run the nuclear plants at marginally below what is necessary for day values while the batteries cover the margin, then allow the batteries to recharge during the night. We just need to figure out batteries to make that work.

Another though: My AP Chemistry teacher said something about fusion reactors with those tokakaks, that are currently holding plasma that could burn through the planet? Anybody know something more there?

When you say LNG I assume you just mean natural gas since LNG is only used for international tranposrtation, the gas used in power plants is obviously not liquified. But anyways, yeah combined cycle natural gas plants are "good enough" economically to meet peek power demans, the other peaking power source that many people don't think too much about is hydro, many people assume the water is flowing threw the dams at a constant amount, but this is VERY far from the truth, water is stored up behind the dams during the nights and released during the peak hours. I'm talking 30 times as much power during peak hours as the middle of the night. Also, the weekend before a very hot week they run the dams very little to build up as much water as possible behind them to release during the peaks.

As for running nuclear plants below their peak at any point in time this is never a good idea. First off there is the fact the the strong majority of the cost of a nuclear plant is in the construction of the plant, you NEVER run a nuclear plant at anything but 100% power if at all possible. Also the simple fact that you just CANT be switching the power levels on a daily basis will not allow load following with nuclear plants. Current generation nuclear plants cannot load follow by themselves. The idea of using "batteries" is used to some degree on the grid, but obviously we aren't talking about Li ion or NiCd batteries, but isntead pumped hydro. Pumped hydro is the only economically feasible grid level storage mechanism available today. Basically during the night you pump water up hill to a big resovoir on top of a mountain, then during the day you let it flow back down hill through generators. This can be used to smooth out the inconsistancies in any power source. When applied to nuclear plants (but only if nuclear is 40+ percent of capacity) you can store energy at night to try to better fit the load profile. The opposite of course would be true with solar where you need it to store energy for the night, or for wind to even out the production. Unfortunately a large pumped water storage facility costs as much as a power plant, so adding grid level storage causes costs to be much higher than just generation costs (something wind and soalr people convienietly forget).

As for the danger of the plasma stored in a fusion reactor, a sudden loss of containment accident (LOCA) would of course result in a large explosion as the hot plasma reacted with whatever was around it. HOWEVER, to even insinuate that it would "melt a hole in the earth" is silly. The energy stored in the plasma is clearly not enough to do anything that casue an explosion equivilent to a standard chemical bomb. On the other hand, a LNG tanker stores enough LNG that its detonation would be equivilent to a small nuclear device.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Unfortunately, current society doesn't want to hear about nuclear power. All they want to see is wind, solar, and similar systems. Getting rid of the legislations against breeder reactors would make sense, but governments won't ever do it.

Even if cheaper non-weapons grade reactors were built, some countries (such as Iran) shouldn't have them. There is always the danger they would figure out some bright way to create a new weapon from it. What's the selling price for some fissionable materials on the black market now anyways...

To make up for the night/day swings and other such events, keep some of the LNG facilities around, and why not just create the world's largest batteries? Perhaps not the most efficient ever, but then you can run the nuclear plants at marginally below what is necessary for day values while the batteries cover the margin, then allow the batteries to recharge during the night. We just need to figure out batteries to make that work.

Another though: My AP Chemistry teacher said something about fusion reactors with those tokakaks, that are currently holding plasma that could burn through the planet? Anybody know something more there?

Regarding storing energy, if you're in a damp part of the world, pumped storage is very viable; there is a plant nearby here in Ludington, MI. It's basically a big bowl that they fill with water; they pump it in while the demand is low so the energy is cheap. They, they just reverse the pumps and generate back while demand is high. This is much cheaper and efficient than batteries will ever be. Plus, any rainwater will supply free energy (of course evaporation would remove it, but that's why it's better for somewhere cloudy and damp like MI.)

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: bwanaaa
And btw, the 2 millenia of middle east conflict will become moot.

No it won't, it'll get worse.

Right now they're mostly content because they have a ton of money coming in. Can you imagine what will happen when we no longer need oil? Millions of arabs would suddenly find themselves living in a desert with no desirable resources. They'll be forced to fight for survival. That will involve moving elsewhere.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Unfortunately, current society doesn't want to hear about nuclear power. All they want to see is wind, solar, and similar systems. Getting rid of the legislations against breeder reactors would make sense, but governments won't ever do it.

Even if cheaper non-weapons grade reactors were built, some countries (such as Iran) shouldn't have them. There is always the danger they would figure out some bright way to create a new weapon from it. What's the selling price for some fissionable materials on the black market now anyways...

To make up for the night/day swings and other such events, keep some of the LNG facilities around, and why not just create the world's largest batteries? Perhaps not the most efficient ever, but then you can run the nuclear plants at marginally below what is necessary for day values while the batteries cover the margin, then allow the batteries to recharge during the night. We just need to figure out batteries to make that work.

Another though: My AP Chemistry teacher said something about fusion reactors with those tokakaks, that are currently holding plasma that could burn through the planet? Anybody know something more there?

As long as it's not a breeder reactor I don't see a problem with it.

If it's not a breeder reactor then you can't make the materials to make a nuke out of it. (AFAIK and IIRC)
Although I agree with you that Iran (and other countries like it) really shouldn't have (or even need) it. With that oil rich middle east, WTF do you need a nuclear reactor for.

Wow, I actually learned something in AP Chem. Totally bombed the AP test thought

 

[BrownTown]

I don't see what breeder reactor has to do with it, ALL nuclear reactors produce plutonium that can be used in nuclear bombs. Most of the reactors used to make bombs aren't breeder reactors to my knowledge. Breeder reactors simply produce more plutonium than normal, but running a breeder reactor in an industrial fuel cycle will not produce weapons grade plutonium since the PU-239 will be contaiminated with PU-240 which is too reactive to be used in a bomb (you can't get enough of it close together to make a bomb without it fissiling). By the end of an 18 month fuel cycle the majority of the power being produced by a normal reactor is from the fissioning of plutonium, not the uranium-235. The only difference is that in a breeder reactor enough plutonium is produced to ofset the loss of U-235, but in a normal reator the amount is less and the reactor continually needs new U-235 to keep it running.