Nuclear Fusion The Eternal Energy

[lasto i glemyr 0]

I don't really think there is much of a risk to Earth by running a fusion reactor on it. There's probably more of a risk by running fission reactors.

Firstly, fusion doesn't generate any harmful products, so there's practically no environmental risk there.

And secondly,

however we get energy, regardless of nature, we're still creating tremendous amounts of power thus pottential boom on the earth. it's much more preferable to have any safety hazards off planet.

Any amount of power we create on Earth would not screw up the planet. We're getting the fuel from seawater on Earth. Therefore, we would not be screwing up the energy balance of Earth at all due to the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Matter.

[firedoor 0]

matter can neither be created nor destoryed we are not creating energy! we're harnessing it.secondly- people are just worried about fission and nuclear reactants as the power can in fact destory us if something goes wrong, we'll as mentioned sol is a fission reaction and that too can go wrong and that would be ALOT bigger. Not that we would notcie for long.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

Nuclear fusion reactors won't explode and cause mass destruction. In fact, it is practically impossible to create a fusion bomb. However, I'm sure most of you know that stars will go Supernova after x amount of time. Fusion reactors, being a controlled reaction, can stop the fusion reactions before they can go Supernova. Though I'm not against using what energy resources the Earth is already providing, I see no reason to continue to waste our resources after we create a successful fusion reactor.

[qwijibow 0]

Yeah,, you can stop a fusion ractor by turning off the magnets or lasers (yep, som fusion reacotrs use lasers to compress the plasma.with the confinment mechanish tunred off, there would be a sudden loss of pressure and heat... and the plasma would partially vaporise the inside of the reacrot, contaminating the plasma and making it even worse.remember... we have managed to get fusion working thats easy !the hard part is getting the reactor to output more energy than it needs to keep the plasma compressed under high pressure.if i remember correctly, they managed to make it output more power than it was consuming twice.... once for 1 second, outputting enough energy to run a few hundred houses.. then a decade later for 4 seconds, enough to run a citywith fission, once it gets to critical mass,your dead...with fusion, even when its going, its very difficult to keep it going.did anyone watch that program about cold fusion on "horizon" (a Birittish program)one scientist who claims he can do it... and the est of the world repeating his experiments, and detecting only background neutrons.has anyone studdied physics at college level or higher education ???for fusuion to work, you need to overcome electro static repulsion.. which is insaely powerfull force.particle accelerators can do it... so can the sun at several million degree's kelvin.i cant see it working a room tempreture.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

I can, since it is a separate environment. The only reason the sun has temperatures of that degree is because of its sheer mass. Think about it: one match burning isn't as hot as a pile of logs. Because the sun has a greater concentration of the elements it is using for fusion, it is much, much hotter.

 

The reactors, however, will be many times smaller than Sol, making the temperatures much less. The point is, we can create a successful fusion reaction, but, as you can see here, many different conflicting ideas are keeping us from our goal. With all the theories and uncertainties that are running around in the scientific community, it's no wonder that we haven't acheived a reasonable fusion reactor yet.

 

In regards to those of you who are still in support of attempting to recreate a fusion reactor in space, consider this:

 

1.) What will cost more: A trip to space, where you will need to create/modify an existing space station, followed by the research for some sort of containment field or creating a stationary reactor on Earth, where we already have progress with a containment mechanism and research projects that are much less expensive?

 

2.) There are very few contaminates in space. What if we were to super-accelerate the fusion process by some freak accident and make a Supernova right next to Earth? How would you stop it in addition to shutting down the mechanisms aiding the reaction, since they apparently, would not have as much of an effect?

 

3.) I'm sure most of you are referring to a miniature version of Sol. Well, what are we going to do about gravity? Wouldn't you be just a bit concerned about orbital displacement of the Earth and Moon, drastically changing Earth's weather patterns and tides?

 

Physical restrictions and limitations are existant, yes, but can be overcome. Integrating the necessary technology with/without modifications is possible, and manipulating the technology shouldn't be too difficult.

[talse 0]

my idea ofr an alternative for fusion doesn't involve anything new, jtus a synthesis of what is here. carbon nanotubes make the space elevator, solar cells are put into orbit around the sun, we don't actually do anything to it(the sun) and then we use lasers to beam the energy back to earth from venus. it's pretty safe and no potential kaboom on top of that, we can ahve it up and running post haste.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

Interesting though. Let us know when you find a way to make that have something higher than a negative efficiency rate and have schematics for how you would possibly generate energy from laser transmissions.

[talse 0]

i think your mis interpreting my idea. see, we use solar electricity, only we put them way closer to the sun so it's more effective. and to get the energy back, we use a laser. this method has been proven to wrok, laser transmitted energy that is.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

An interesting thought, but even so, how many solar panels will it take to produce the equivalent of a fusion reactor? Also, how will that affect our climate in regards to the panels blocking the sun?

[talse 0]

well, as to your environment question, how much does venus exclipsing the sun effect our environment? not a whole lot, eh? as to your second(chronologically first) point, i imagine 1000 square km of solar panels would provide an ample amount of power at that proximity to the sun. you've got to remember, 2things are blocking the suns own fusion reaction from powering us. 1, we're pretty far away from that dayball, and 2, we've got all this pesky atmosphere in the way. so putting the cells within the orbit of venus would make it very efficient compared to our terrestrial based ones. and there has to be some way for a fusion reactor on earth to go haywire, i don't care what the odds, what was that one guys law that went like " if something can go wrong, it will"? i just don't like having miniature suns on my planet. make it lunar based or used cells near venus.

[whafizi 0]

interesting topic. but we are just discussing about energy source. how about energy saving?do you know what is super conductor? that is the best conductor with zero resistance. if you have a current flowing in a superconductor loop, then the current will not dissipiate for ever. this scientific discovery is very useful in many ways. for example, you can deliver electricity current accross the world with just a pair of wire. Ohm law will no longer be valid and computers wont heat up. this technology is still under heave development. the only problem existed is that we must retain the conductor compound in a very cold temperature. as i've heard, newest super conductors can work at -40 C.

[backflipkid 0]

i totaly agree...i couldnt have said it better...uve said what i havnt been able to

[excellen 0]

I think the idea using the Tokamac is very intersting. We obviously need to further develop our methods of creating energy. New good ideas and research should be embraced.I think there should be other means of producing clean energy though; what about things like waves or ocean currents? surely turbines could be placed underwater that would constantly harness energy. It would work night and day and all year round being pretty much constant. I think magentism deserves some thaught too; magnets put out constant force but dont seem to use up any fuel. There must be some kind of way to harness this energy!!! Infact, I came up with an idea myself that might harness magnetism as an energy source. I wrote an article about it on my site but my former host crashed, so when i have somewhere to put the diagram i'll post it all here. It probably wouldnt work (it goes against the laws of physics) but I cant see any reason why.

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

Yes, superconductors are an efficient and clean way to produce energy, but as you've stated, they require very cold temperatures to operate, and from the superconductors that I've seen, they are quite large. Any ideas on how to improve on the size and environmental conflicts?

[whafizi 0]

Yes, superconductors are an efficient and clean way to produce energy, but as you've stated, they require very cold temperatures to operate, and from the superconductors that I've seen, they are quite large.  Any ideas on how to improve on the size and environmental conflicts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is still under development. but someone said, those problems about super conductor will be adhered somewhere about 10years more.