OT: fusion is getting SOOOO close -> then comes fusion engines!!! ::P muhuhahah(no j - Page 2

Cyrien · #11 November 27th, 2003, 05:58 AM

I did a nice paper for my Environmental Studies class on Fusion Power and other alternative healthy energies.

The biggest draw back with fusion is thus. Is is not free. It is very cheap to maintain and run and decomission. It has a super massive initial investment cost. The bigger a fusion generator and thus the more expensive the more efficient it will be. Fusion is a bigger is better kind of thing. A larger stable reaction produces more energy for same maintenance cost, is easier to contain and safer than a smaller one.

I wouldn't expect any fusion engines anytime soon. A few fusion reactors, but it will be a hard sale. For most people as soon as you say "fusion" and they hear "fission" or "nuclear" and they will run away and not listen any further. Don't even bother mentioning the initial price tag.

Fusion is the best long term solution... but most people don't think about the long term and don't educate themselves enough on the issues to understand the difference between fusion and fission.

PS: Fusion bombs are those massive ones several hundred to thousand times more powerful than the first ones on hiroshima and nagasaki and all their standard atomic bomb ancestors.

As for future weapons... Imagine all the great energy weapons you can use with massive energy sources. Enough to create massive EMP waves without a big nuclear explosion? Lasers? Particle cannons? Mass Drivers? Rail Guns?

[ November 27, 2003, 04:00: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Nocturnal · #12 November 27th, 2003, 07:09 AM

How far can you take that? Wouldn't it be most efficient to create one very giant fusion reactor to power an entire country the size of, say, the United States? But doesn't that take up a massive amount of rare fuel in one place?

Eventually we will run into the same fuel problems with nuclear power plants that we have with fossil fuels.

I'm into microwave solar energy.

Phoenix-D · #13 November 27th, 2003, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nocturnal:
How far can you take that? Wouldn't it be most efficient to create one very giant fusion reactor to power an entire country the size of, say, the United States? But doesn't that take up a massive amount of rare fuel in one place?

Eventually we will run into the same fuel problems with nuclear power plants that we have with fossil fuels.

I'm into microwave solar energy.

No. You loose power going along transmission lines. As for fuel being rare..hah. Fusion runs off of, at worst, isotopes of hydrogen. Hydrogen is ridculously common, and the isotopes just aren't that rare.

As far as microwave solar energy goes: have fun dealing with atmospheric interference, the side effects of dumping that much energy through the atmosphere, and the fun effects you get if the beam is partially off-target.

Cyrien · #14 November 27th, 2003, 07:18 AM

The Hydrogen needed for Fusion is found in common water. Something like one out of every 3 water molecules on earth possess it.

Heh. Maybe eventually we burn up all the water on Earth for Fusion power.

[ November 27, 2003, 05:19: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Cyrien · #15 November 27th, 2003, 07:27 AM

Heh. Intersting secondary thought on using solar energy of any type.

If you go that way you are still using a Fusion Reactor. One much larger than we can currently ever hope to create.

I guess for fusion the proof is in the pudding as far as bigger is better is concerned.

For some of the best info on Fusion Reactors and current research progress etc you can check out
ITER "The Way"

[ November 27, 2003, 05:41: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Fyron · #16 November 27th, 2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

As far as microwave solar energy goes: have fun dealing with atmospheric interference, the side effects of dumping that much energy through the atmosphere, and the fun effects you get if the beam is partially off-target.

Which if implemented how it is proposed by the major proponents of such technology would be nil.

Atrocities · #17 November 27th, 2003, 08:08 AM

This is all fun and stuff, but I will wager a buck that fussion engines that can be used for space flight will not become a reality in our life times, or that of our grand childrens. The oil companies simply will not allow it to happen.

oleg · #18 November 27th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
This is all fun and stuff, but I will wager a buck that fussion engines that can be used for space flight will not become a reality in our life times, or that of our grand childrens. The oil companies simply will not allow it to happen.

We will run out of oil in less then 100 years - and it it is the most optimistic prognosis. Sooner or later we MUST develop a profitabble Fussion reaction or our whole civilization will cramble

[ November 27, 2003, 14:21: Message edited by: oleg ]

Fyron · #19 November 27th, 2003, 04:56 PM

We were supposed to run out of oil a few years ago Oleg... there is far more oil around than you think there is.

Cyrien · #20 November 27th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:
Originally posted by Atrocities:
This is all fun and stuff, but I will wager a buck that fussion engines that can be used for space flight will not become a reality in our life times, or that of our grand childrens. The oil companies simply will not allow it to happen.

We will run out of oil in less then 100 years - and it it is the most optimistic prognosis. Sooner or later we MUST develop a profitabble Fussion reaction or our whole civilization will cramble

I have a proposal! We go to Titan using a Fusion Engine and harvest the natural gasses abundant on it and bring them back to earth so the Oil companies stay happy. I think some of the estimates around suggest Titan has enough natural gas to power all of the earth for something like 50 Million years.

Titan Natural Gas?

Nobody light a match.

(Not that that would do anything without some oxygen.)