Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Fusion vs Fission

Author Topic: Fusion vs Fission  (Read 166287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joe_Fission

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #200 on: Aug 20, 2012, 10:46 »
Somewhat of an old topic, but I see nothing wrong with fission being the main power source for the human race for centuries... once we finally perfect it. A molten salt reactor running on uranium/thorium is a pretty neat idea. Sounds quite safe in theory; no pressurized water, potential for complete actinide consumption, no combustible gas production possible, truly inherent safety.

I have heard the analogy that fusion is so difficult you could have a group of PhD's standing around scratching their heads at it. Fission is so easy you can hire a kid straight out of highschool and he/she can run a fission reactor.

Offline Rennhack

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #201 on: Aug 21, 2012, 12:44 »
 :notrolls:

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #202 on: Aug 21, 2012, 04:57 »
Somewhat of an old topic, but I see nothing wrong with fission being the main power source for the human race for centuries... once we finally perfect it. A molten salt reactor running on uranium/thorium is a pretty neat idea. Sounds quite safe in theory; no pressurized water, potential for complete actinide consumption, no combustible gas production possible, truly inherent safety.

I have heard the analogy that fusion is so difficult you could have a group of PhD's standing around scratching their heads at it. Fission is so easy you can hire a kid straight out of highschool and he/she can run a fission reactor.

I formerly worked at the LLNL fusion project and found there is no desire to have a "Eureka" moment, as if they are suceesful the money flow will stop.  Harvard claimed it will never work.  The crystals they use to amplify the beam damages to crystals at higher power, while may make an operable continuous firing laser for inertial fusion impossible.  You will notice even on the fictionable tv series "Big Bang Theory" never even discusses inertial fusion as a subject.  Even they limit at what level of fantasy the audience will believe.  The only thing the lab is converting is tax dollars into researcher's salaries.

Offline Joe_Fission

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #203 on: Aug 21, 2012, 07:16 »
I formerly worked at the LLNL fusion project and found there is no desire to have a "Eureka" moment, as if they are suceesful the money flow will stop.  Harvard claimed it will never work.  The crystals they use to amplify the beam damages to crystals at higher power, while may make an operable continuous firing laser for inertial fusion impossible.  You will notice even on the fictionable tv series "Big Bang Theory" never even discusses inertial fusion as a subject.  Even they limit at what level of fantasy the audience will believe.  The only thing the lab is converting is tax dollars into researcher's salaries.

I read through most of this thread yesterday, you have had an amazing change of heart on the fusion matter since 2009.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #204 on: Aug 21, 2012, 08:35 »
I formerly worked at the LLNL fusion project and found there is no desire to have a "Eureka" moment, as if they are suceesful the money flow will stop.  Harvard claimed it will never work.  The crystals they use to amplify the beam damages to crystals at higher power, while may make an operable continuous firing laser for inertial fusion impossible.  You will notice even on the fictionable tv series "Big Bang Theory" never even discusses inertial fusion as a subject.  Even they limit at what level of fantasy the audience will believe.  The only thing the lab is converting is tax dollars into researcher's salaries.

Are you ready to come over to our side of the Nuclear Binding Energy Curve?  In the end, you are still raising the binding energy of the nucleons in the fuel.
« Last Edit: Aug 21, 2012, 08:37 by Nutty Neutron »

Offline GLW

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #205 on: Aug 21, 2012, 08:57 »
I read through most of this thread yesterday, you have had an amazing change of heart on the fusion matter since 2009.

yeah, and it only cost 300 million dollars to open one dreamers eyes,....

only 150 million to go at 300 million per,... ::)

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #206 on: Aug 22, 2012, 06:35 »
Are you ready to come over to our side of the Nuclear Binding Energy Curve?  In the end, you are still raising the binding energy of the nucleons in the fuel.

I was blinded by hope.  Hope is hard to kill.  It is dead in me.  I saw the waste, fraud and abuse on a daily basis.  When I complained once too often I was laid off.  I plan to write a book about the experience.  But none of us will see successful inertial fusion in our lifetimes.  However, if the goal was to make a planet killing death star, we are on our way.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #207 on: Aug 22, 2012, 08:31 »
I was blinded by hope.  Hope is hard to kill.  It is dead in me.

Don't give up hope.  Hope is the flame of youth that motivates us.  Turn this crushing disappointment into another opportunity and work on the Nuclear Renascence.  There is much work to be done to bring the Generation 4 designs to fruition.

I consider the Thorium based fuel cycle to be a true renewable energy source.  This is where I think the future is with nuclear technology.  Could you consider pursuing this technology?

Willy

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #208 on: Aug 22, 2012, 09:31 »

I saw the Bill Gates interview on this subject and it seem very interesting and hopeful.  Especially seeing as how he is willing to invest a ton of money towards these reactors.  
 

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13529
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #209 on: Aug 22, 2012, 12:27 »
I saw the Bill Gates interview on this subject and it seem very interesting and hopeful.  Especially seeing as how he is willing to invest a ton of money towards these reactors.  
 

   Bill Gates is pro nuclear but he seems to be luke warm to Fusion. He does see promise in nuclear in gereral because as he puts it there has been little inovation in nuclear technology and there is a lot of room for new and promising designs. He has invested in the Traveling Wave Reactor and it's prototype.

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #210 on: Aug 22, 2012, 12:36 »
   Bill Gates is pro nuclear but he seems to be luke warm to Fusion. He does see promise in nuclear in gereral because as he puts it there has been little inovation in nuclear technology and there is a lot of room for new and promising designs. He has invested in the Traveling Wave Reactor and it's prototype.

Walt Disney LOVED nuclear, and try to buy half ownership of one. Sadly, Walt never built any. Reckon Gates will do the same...

Offline Joe_Fission

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #211 on: Aug 22, 2012, 03:50 »
As far as I'm concerned Gates is barking up the wrong tree with the travelling wave reactor. The molten salt reactor is far more promising in my opinion. There is no better reactor to breed U-233 from thorium in the thermal spectrum. It is not just a paper reactor either, it was built by Oak Ridge in the 60's and run for over 10,000 hours. The molten salt program was the main directive at Oak Ridge through those years until it was shut down due to political reasons to focus the nation on pursuing the liquid metal breeder.

China is picking up the slack now. They are claiming that they will have a 2 MWth molten salt cooled reactor using TRISO fuel by 2015 and a similar power molten salt fueled reactor by 2017. I guess we'll see if China can finally do it.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #212 on: Dec 20, 2014, 09:47 »
I was blinded by hope.  Hope is hard to kill.  It is dead in me.  I saw the waste, fraud and abuse on a daily basis.  When I complained once too often I was laid off.  I plan to write a book about the experience.  But none of us will see successful inertial fusion in our lifetimes.  However, if the goal was to make a planet killing death star, we are on our way.

     As we enter 2015, the fusion situation at the Lawrence Livermore national Lab has grown darker. Back into 2013, they claimed a breakthrough and return to the real task the laser was designed for, research into nuclear weapons to ensure they will explode when called upon. They do not even pretend to have on the horizon the fusion process to produce power like nuclear plants. This is so ironic, as all the liberal politicians who are usually anti-military would never have approved the project if all it can do was research and bombs. They did find one use for this $4 billion boondoggle, the film the movie, "Star Trek 'into darkness'" at the lab, kind of symbolizing how Moses, the man in charge,  led our tax dollars into the wilderness to which he will never return. There is one positive

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #213 on: Dec 20, 2014, 09:52 »
If we could take the laser if she could take the laser into space, and make 1 million copies, like the "death Star," we could destroy the planet.

Offline GLW

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #214 on: Dec 20, 2014, 10:12 »
........Hope is the flame of youth that motivates us.....

Well, at least you will not feel burdened by the 20 trillion plus dollars of debt the "Hope" generation saddles you with,...

After all, "Hope" has a price tag too,...

and your generation gets to pay the bill,...

or maybe Bill will pick up the tab,...

   Bill Gates is pro nuclear but he seems to be luke warm to Fusion. He does see promise in nuclear in gereral because as he puts it there has been little inovation in nuclear technology and there is a lot of room for new and promising designs. He has invested in the Traveling Wave Reactor and it's prototype.

then again,...maybe not,...

Bill Gates stops chasing nuclear 'wave', pursues variety of reactors

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/bill-gates-stops-chasing-nuclear-wave-pursues-variety-of-reactors/

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

mjd

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #215 on: Dec 21, 2014, 04:17 »
Practical fusion is a nuncupatory power source totally outside of the current cycopede, due to its tardigradous development; pushed by constant babblement and hopeful illaqueation by fopdoodles..... and you can quote me on that.

Offline peteshonkwiler

  • Radiological Ergonomist
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
  • Total likes: 82
  • Karma: 179
  • Gender: Male
  • One small sheet in the nuclear ream.
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #216 on: Dec 23, 2014, 12:52 »
     As we enter 2015, the fusion situation at the Lawrence Livermore national Lab has grown darker. Back into 2013, they claimed a breakthrough and return to the real task the laser was designed for, research into nuclear weapons to ensure they will explode when called upon. They do not even pretend to have on the horizon the fusion process to produce power like nuclear plants. This is so ironic, as all the liberal politicians who are usually anti-military would never have approved the project if all it can do was research and bombs. They did find one use for this $4 billion boondoggle, the film the movie, "Star Trek 'into darkness'" at the lab, kind of symbolizing how Moses, the man in charge,  led our tax dollars into the wilderness to which he will never return. There is one positive
Are they conducting research on decontamination by laser at LLNL?
A REM is a REM is a REM
Yea, though I walk through the boundaries of containment, I shall fear no dose, for my meters are with me.  My counters, air sample filters, and smears, they comfort me.

Offline Rennhack

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #217 on: Nov 08, 2015, 02:23 »
World's Largest Fusion Reactor is About to Switch On

http://gizmodo.com/worlds-most-insane-fusion-reactor-is-about-to-switch-on-1741199892

It took 19 full years to build W7-X. By the end of the month, approval to turn the reactor on is expected to come from Germany’s nuclear regulators.

Offline GLW

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #218 on: Mar 14, 2017, 01:11 »
call me necromancer,...




it would appear even the colossus dinosaur aka "the government" is seeing the "daylight",....



http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

At the Department of Energy, it would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13529
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #219 on: Mar 14, 2017, 02:26 »

it would appear even the colossus dinosaur aka "the government" is seeing the "daylight",....

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

At the Department of Energy, it would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't see an impact to fusion research. The increased budget to physics computing was for nuclear weapons testing and climate modeling. Returning it to 2008 levels leaves lots of money and does not seem to make any difference to fusion.


 [2cents]



 [coffee]

Offline GLW

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #220 on: Mar 14, 2017, 03:41 »
I don't see an impact to fusion research. The increased budget to physics computing was for nuclear weapons testing and climate modeling. Returning it to 2008 levels leaves lots of money and does not seem to make any difference to fusion.


 [2cents]



 [coffee]

I read a little different:


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/10-questions-rick-perry-trumps-pick-energy-secretary

ITER is a multinational project to prove that generating energy by fusing hydrogen isotopes together at temperatures exceeding those in the center of the sun is scientifically feasible. But the project, currently under construction in southern France, is at least a decade behind schedule and could cost three times original estimates.

If a U.S. domestic project were similarly so far out of control, Congress or the White House likely would have killed it long ago. But the United States has only a 9% stake in ITER—matched by China, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea—whereas the European Union, as host, is footing 45% of the bill and is determined to see it through.

Attitudes in Congress range from enthusiastic flag waving to vocal opposition. The Senate has repeatedly put forward budgets that zero out ITER, while the House continues the back it. The annual compromise has been to provide only just enough money to remain a partner; but that has squeezed domestic fusion programs to the point of near-extinction.......



reckon we will have to wait and see 2018's budget,... [coffee]

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13529
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #221 on: Mar 14, 2017, 04:30 »
I read a little different:


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/10-questions-rick-perry-trumps-pick-energy-secretary

ITER is a multinational project to prove that generating energy by fusing hydrogen isotopes together at temperatures exceeding those in the center of the sun is scientifically feasible. But the project, currently under construction in southern France, is at least a decade behind schedule and could cost three times original estimates.

If a U.S. domestic project were similarly so far out of control, Congress or the White House likely would have killed it long ago. But the United States has only a 9% stake in ITER—matched by China, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea—whereas the European Union, as host, is footing 45% of the bill and is determined to see it through.

Attitudes in Congress range from enthusiastic flag waving to vocal opposition. The Senate has repeatedly put forward budgets that zero out ITER, while the House continues the back it. The annual compromise has been to provide only just enough money to remain a partner; but that has squeezed domestic fusion programs to the point of near-extinction.......



reckon we will have to wait and see 2018's budget,... [coffee]

This is a different article and it focuses on France's ITER. It seems the job program for US fusion may still be intact.  ;)


 [coffee]

Offline GLW

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #222 on: Dec 30, 2020, 12:17 »
World's Largest Fusion Reactor is About to Switch On

http://gizmodo.com/worlds-most-insane-fusion-reactor-is-about-to-switch-on-1741199892

It took 19 full years to build W7-X. By the end of the month, approval to turn the reactor on is expected to come from Germany’s nuclear regulators.


...Operational phase 2 (OP2) is planned for the end of 2021 to test the cooled divertor...


https://www.ipp.mpg.de/4828222/01_20

19 years to build and here we are 5 years later still testing,...

next year,...

once you get past 20 years you are on the downhill side of "we'll have fusion in only 40 years",...

fast approaching the 3rd time since 1946,...

http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/fusion/histoire/site_historique.htm

 :-\ ::)

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?