My father worked on the ITER project for many years. This article goes some way to express the shear scale of this project, it's absolutely vast. When I was a lot younger I was taken on a tour of JET ( http://www.efda.org/jet/ ) and was overawed with the size of it. ITER is an order of magnitude bigger. The machine that follows ITER is where things get really interesting. Called DEMO, it's still in the planning phase…
and then there is PROTO (seriously, these guys love acronyms)
A Star in a Bottle
111–120 of 162 posts
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that there is a large difference between transporting and transforming. It is easy to transport/store hydrogen in a pressurized cistern. It is also fairly easy to transform hydrogen just by burning it. Of course burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of CO2 is how we got into whole global warming business anyways, so we want a more efficient transformation technology. But wait, it get's more complicate…
Burning hydrogen itself is clean, producing only water vapor (which can be fairly trivially condensed, if necessary.) The problem is acquiring the hydrogen.
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#113ITER is a money hole. It was setup to suck R&D money away from real fusion research.
I believe he's referring to assertions made by Robert Bussard in this talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 . Bussards comments on the DOE and funding tokomaks is toward the end iirc. Bussard is by no means a crank, he IS from a different era for sure. Edit; for those just discovering polywell fusion; Bremelstrung radiation is the primary reason why it may or may not be practicable.
Some of these are well-funded, others are struggling. Even some of the other tokamaks are struggling. MIT's Alcator C-Mod has the highest magnetic field of any tokamak in the world, and the potential to lead to a smaller, cheaper power plant. The whole project was nearly cancelled a year ago.
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#114My father worked on the ITER project for many years. This article goes some way to express the shear scale of this project, it's absolutely vast. When I was a lot younger I was taken on a tour of JET ( http://www.efda.org/jet/ ) and was overawed with the size of it. ITER is an order of magnitude bigger. The machine that follows ITER is where things get really interesting. Called DEMO, it's still in the planning phase…
Shear is a verb (or noun); I shear the sheep
Sheer is an adjective; I was awestruck by the sheer cliffs
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but on the other I hand it's simpler to say that I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC. One of those things is not like the other. I totally understand that I am cherry-picking here. There are many things in the world that are over- or under-valued when you compare their economic contribution to their societal contribution. I just thought this would be an interesting point to ma…
> I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC No, you could say that it would cost you $20B to build a copy of ITER -- very different. You can't buy ITER for what was paid to build it. Or maybe you can. We have no idea because the valuation is unknown. The project is so risky, we're spreading the cost around 35 countries. If we thought it was more of a sure thing, every country would be try…
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#116Re: A Star in a Bottle
#117My father worked on the ITER project for many years. This article goes some way to express the shear scale of this project, it's absolutely vast. When I was a lot younger I was taken on a tour of JET ( http://www.efda.org/jet/ ) and was overawed with the size of it. ITER is an order of magnitude bigger. The machine that follows ITER is where things get really interesting. Called DEMO, it's still in the planning phase…
and then there is PROTO (seriously, these guys love acronyms)
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#118I read this article, and I couldn't help thinking — Couldn't they spend these billions on something like deep geothermal energy and get a much better (and more likely) return?
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I do think that alternative fusion paths should be better funded, cranks aside, I don't think that it's the fault of ITER that it's the most promising and best developed and so the best funded one. The entire field is ridiculously underfunded for what it can offer and we shouldn't be having to risk it all on one or two projects.
Exactly. This article just makes me mad - they are penny-pinching on quite simply the most important piece of technology that humanity has ever tried to develop. If commercial reactors are switched on by 2040, the planet's CO2 output will have dropped drastically by 2060 - way more than all but the most optimistic estimations linked to climate change. $10b is nothing compared to what was destroyed in the GFC. It's no…
I certainly don't have a great idea. I'm assuming you won't be able to put a fusion reactor in a car or airplane. Will a fusion power plant be roughly the scale of a current fission plant? What will be the output? What are the risks? And how much do we trust these projections?
Re: A Star in a Bottle
#120As a child, I read Friday by Robert A Heinlein, which portrayed a future in which energy needs are addressed by energy storage devices called "Shipstones", which are described as a way to pack more kilowatt-hours into a smaller space and a smaller mass than any other engineer had ever dreamed of. To call it an "improved storage battery" (as some early accounts did) is like calling an H-bomb an "improved firecracker."…
Reality isn't like movies or tv, fusion reactors can't turn into bombs. For one, there simply isn't enough fuel in the device at any given time. For another, maintaining the conditions that allow fusion reactions to happen doesn't happen easily. If the equipment goes offline or haywire the worst case scenario is that the reactor stops. Fusion reactors are like balancing a pencil on its tip. If anything goes wrong it…
It's probably worth pointing out that those two things are the inverse of each other. The elements that take the longest to decay are inherently the least radioactive, because that's what radioactivity is: The consequence of radioactive decay. Something with a half life of 24,000 years is barely radioactive at all. Something with a half life of 24 seconds will give you radiation poisoning very quickly if you encounter a lot of it but won't be anywhere to be found if you come back in an hour.
The waste problem is also largely a political rather than scientific problem. The commonly-cited 24,000 year half life is for Plutonium-239 ("weapons grade plutonium"), which can be mixed at the outset with Plutonium-240 to make it unsuitable for bombs and impossible to separate, and then used as reactor fuel to destroy it entirely.
The most radiologically dangerous fission byproducts (largely Sr-90 and Cs-137) are the ones with ~30 year half lives, making them radioactive enough to cause significant damage and also long-lived enough to persist for several decades, but they also have significant market value in nuclear medicine or radioisotope thermoelectric generators or scientific research.
The massive political stupidity is in not removing the spent fuel from the reactor site and separating it into its constituent elements so that it can be put to productive use rather than sitting around waiting for disaster to strike. And the entire concept of burying it under a mountain for a million years is just ridiculous.