Do you think nuclear fusion power will ever become a reality?

[jared2]

See info about ITER:

http://www.iter.org/

[priusenvy]

Hydrogen fusion is already a reality.

Oh, you meant in a controlled reaction. We already know how to do an uncontrolled reaction (aka a bomb).

[jared2]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ May 18 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]257508[/snapback]</div>

Hydrogen fusion is already a reality.

Oh, you meant in a controlled reaction. We already know how to do an uncontrolled reaction (aka a bomb).
[/b]

I prefer a controlled reaction. The other kind are popular (see Iran) but not too good for humans.

[MarinJohn]

I didn't find the recommended website very helpful. Because of this, and today's political climate whereby we are lied to every step of every day, and after reading what the website had to offer, I am forced to my own non-professional conclusions, specifically: They did not address waste products. I am therefore to conclude this is just more of the same pipedream of 'electricity too cheap to measure' and ignoring the waste stream problem. Same old same old. Like many, i could be persuaded to support such programs AFTER waste is a non-problem, but until such time (and unlike current politicians) I do not believe in saddling future generations with 'our' problems.

Furthermore, I would specifically support new NONCENTRALIZED methods of energy production which leave no 'little problems' for future generations. I would have a hard time supporting CENTRALIZED energy production techniques. Have we not learned our lessons as to corporate behaviour/monopolies/public give-aways, whereby funds just go into the pockets of upper corporate management as bonuses?

[skruse]

Fusion is practical, sustainable and occurs every day - the sun. We just need to look up and take advantage of what already exists (solar water heating, photovoltaics for electricity). No rational person is going to set their hopes on centralized fusion power plants.

I concur with MarinJohn - decentralized power production, efficiency and conservation are the way to go.

[jared2]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ May 18 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]257515[/snapback]</div>

I didn't find the recommended website very helpful. Because of this, and today's political climate whereby we are lied to every step of every day, and after reading what the website had to offer, I am forced to my own non-professional conclusions, specifically: They did not address waste products. I am therefore to conclude this is just more of the same pipedream of 'electricity too cheap to measure' and ignoring the waste stream problem. Same old same old. Like many, i could be persuaded to support such programs AFTER waste is a non-problem, but until such time (and unlike current politicians) I do not believe in saddling future generations with 'our' problems.

Furthermore, I would specifically support new NONCENTRALIZED methods of energy production which leave no 'little problems' for future generations. I would have a hard time supporting CENTRALIZED energy production techniques. Have we not learned our lessons as to corporate behaviour/monopolies/public give-aways, whereby funds just go into the pockets of upper corporate management as bonuses?
[/b]

My understanding is that fusion produces little or no atomic waste, unlike fission. ITER is a major international project involving Japan, France, the US, China and other countries. All these countries are investing billions (though still only a fraction of the money spent in Iraq). I am exited about wind power, solar, etc, but feel these will not be enough. I am hopeful that fusion will become a real power source in the not too distant future.

[jmpenn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ May 18 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]257515[/snapback]</div>

I didn't find the recommended website very helpful. Because of this, and today's political climate whereby we are lied to every step of every day, and after reading what the website had to offer, I am forced to my own non-professional conclusions, specifically: They did not address waste products. I am therefore to conclude this is just more of the same pipedream of 'electricity too cheap to measure' and ignoring the waste stream problem. Same old same old. Like many, i could be persuaded to support such programs AFTER waste is a non-problem, but until such time (and unlike current politicians) I do not believe in saddling future generations with 'our' problems.

Furthermore, I would specifically support new NONCENTRALIZED methods of energy production which leave no 'little problems' for future generations. I would have a hard time supporting CENTRALIZED energy production techniques. Have we not learned our lessons as to corporate behaviour/monopolies/public give-aways, whereby funds just go into the pockets of upper corporate management as bonuses?
[/b]

Actually they did address waste. http://www.iter.org/safety-waste.htm "ITER waste is increasingly less dangerous after 100 years than the total ash from a large coal-fired power plant..."

[SomervillePrius]

This is very interesting technology but even woth optimitic schedules they are looking at 2040 for first comercial availability.

Also no experiemental plant has generated net energy yet and even the ITER one will be a "zero sum" game (it won't use constant fusion).

Still, this coul dbe the future if we can solve the technichal problems with it. Waste seems a lot less dangerous then nuclear and it seems like it can compare to coal if run for a long time.

let's hope they don't run into a road block.

[jared2]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ May 18 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]257587[/snapback]</div>

This is very interesting technology but even woth optimitic schedules they are looking at 2040 for first comercial availability.

Also no experiemental plant has generated net energy yet and even the ITER one will be a "zero sum" game (it won't use constant fusion).

Still, this coul dbe the future if we can solve the technichal problems with it. Waste seems a lot less dangerous then nuclear and it seems like it can compare to coal if run for a long time.

let's hope they don't run into a road block.

[/b]

Best of all, fusion reators would run on deuterium and tritium. Deuterium can be derived from water and is therefore unlimited. Tritium can be bred in the reactor itself.

[SomervillePrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 18 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]257598[/snapback]</div>

Best of all, fusion reators would run on deuterium and tritium. Deuterium can be derived from water and is therefore unlimited. Tritium can be bred in the reactor itself.
[/b]

Yes. This is the main advantage and waste that we can more realistically manage compared to nuclear. We're talking a hunder years instead of many times more. Accidents are also less dangerous with the core only burning for seconds with out maintainece.

Our only realistic way out from destroying the environment as fast as we do is technology. I think nuclear is unfortunatley the short term solution (better overall for environment impact i.m.o), with fusion the longer term hope.

Problem with both technologies is that they might hint at unlimited energy and we as a global society will not cut our wastefulness, which in the end is not a good thing.

Still I am hopeful that we can in my lifetime move away from 100 year old technology like oil, gasoline and coal to something newer