It's been said that there exists enough energy in a glass of water to power Chicago for a century and enough power in the top inch or so of late Michigan to power the United States for about the same length of time. A car running on a fusion power plant could pull down about 50,000 miles per gallon and would produce only helium as a byproduct.
Cool stuff, or hot stuff I suppose. This could mean big things for all of us.
hrrrmmmmm fusion.... we can only do fusion with fission before it... (hydrogen bomb) god forgot my chem and physics, but isnt like fusion the same thig that happens on the sun??
It could mean a possible everlasting energy source. Right?
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
-Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism <---Did I make this my sig? This shits gay as fuck.
Fusion doesn't require fission first, it requires a huge energy density. Huge energy densities can be creations with a fission bomb, yes, but that leaves big holes in things... so it's not much good for peacetime use.
You can also create fusion by dumping a bunch of energy into a contained system, which is what a fusion reactor seeks to do. Up until quite recently, we've put more energy in than we've gotten out. That sucks if you're trying to make a power plant. The hope is that this new reactor will be more efficient and will show an energy profit (more than we put in)...
Now -- what it means. Since Fusion require hydrogen as fuel and we've got lots and lots of hydrogen sitting around, a working fusion power plant does mean, essentially, limitless energy.... .. ... And limitless helium balloons.
Yep, it is what happens on the sun. As far as i know it happens when, well see it yourself:
The conditions to produce a fusion (at least with suns) is when a gas "cloud" rotates at high speeds. In the center the H atoms collide at high pressures and speeds initiating this way a chain reaction creating a new sun.
I really do not know how they´re going to initiate a reaction, and moreover how to control it. In my notion H bombs ARE fusions, but they´re not controlled that´s the reason for that massive destruction. Well. for better understanding of the bombs i recommend reading: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /bomb.html
Wasn't there those 2 French guys like 8 years back that said they could do fusion?? and Honda gave them like 3 billion dollars to work on it.. and nothing has shown up?
Fusion eh? Always wanted to try it. But the dance is kinda wierd
FUSION HA!!
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
-Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism <---Did I make this my sig? This shits gay as fuck.
Because it is cool, because it is out of the hands of USA's corporate interests, because of your children, and the future of humanity as a whole.
You should care, because you are human. You should care about how life develops. If you don't, then why even live at all? Go shoot yourself if you don't care.
^_^;; <--- my don't beat me face. Seriously, that is how I feel about such endeavors like this. I'm in awe that such a project is taking place right now in the world.
psi29a wrote:Because it is cool, because it is out of the hands of USA's corporate interests, because of your children, and the future of humanity as a whole.
You should care, because you are human. You should care about how life develops. If you don't, then why even live at all? Go shoot yourself if you don't care.
^_^;; <--- my don't beat me face. Seriously, that is how I feel about such endeavors like this. I'm in awe that such a project is taking place right now in the world.
Its too early to happy about it since nobody knows if it will even finished one day or that when its finished there wont be another way better to get energy.
The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of the martyr- The Quran
now, does anyone know a way to convert the helium back into hydrogen? if so, then it truly would be a limitless fuel.
it's also extremely expensive to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gases and extracting the hydrogen from fossil fuels isn't very "clean" either. I'm all for the process but you have to look at every step before and after the process before you say it's environmentally friendly or profitable... like if we can't find a use for all the helium produced, what are the environmental effects years down the line?
[quote]it's also extremely expensive to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gases and extracting the hydrogen from fossil fuels isn't very "clean" either. I'm all for the process but you have to look at every step before and after the process before you say it's environmentally friendly or profitable... [/quote]
I think you misunderstand the implications of hydrogen fusion. The fusion of even a very small quantity of hydrogen, say, 1000 Gallons of water worth, exceeds the energy expended by all the weapons and armies in all of human history.
We're talking about a staggering quantity of energy. We're talking about getting it from the single most abundant element in the universe. It's not expensive to extract hydrogen from water, you can do it with a nine volt batter, two wires, and a glass of tap water. What does that take, energy... what does fusion give us lots of?
As for the helium, this is helium we're talking about. It's not the hideously toxic chemicals that belch from coal fired plants, it's not glowing radioactive waste, it's helium. It's already an appreciable portion of our atmosphere and has so many industrial uses that people pay a fair amount of money for it.
How much do you think we're going to produce? This is matter to energy conversion. We get to multiply by the SPEED OF LIGHT...... .... ... SQUARED.
the helium was just an example. we don't know all the details of this process. the article does say that radioactivity/waste is produced and even though it might be minimal, it should still be heavily considered as problematic.
and you can't quantify the hydrogen in gallons because we're talking about a gas. 1000 gallons of a gas can be a minuscule amount or a lot depending on the pressure involved.
and I'm not arguing against the project, I'm just saying we shouldn't take it's hazards for granted just because it's potential is huge. if they can find a way to achieve fusion in a way which reduces the environmental effects already inherit in a fusion reaction, then I've no argument at all
the helium was just an example. we don't know all the details of this process. the article does say that radioactivity/waste is produced and even though it might be minimal, it should still be heavily considered as problematic.
Ok, first off - yes, we do understand all the details of the process. That's part of the point. Atomic Reactions are fundamentally a lot less complex than chemical ones. Second - cat litter is radioactive. Radioactivity isn't such a big deal if there's a low concentration of it. The ratio of radioactive waste to energy produced by fusion reactions is orders of magnitude lower than those produced by fission reactions. It's comparable to the amount of radioactive waste vented to the atmosphere by burning coal.
you can't quantify the hydrogen in gallons because we're talking about a gas. 1000 gallons of a gas can be a minuscule amount or a lot depending on the pressure involved.
No one did. If you'd read my post you'd have realized that I said 1000 gallons of water worth. Water is essentially an uncompressable fluid, so we're talking about a very specific amount of Hydrogen there.
That point aside, everything is a gas at some pressure and temperature. When we measure things by volume it's pretty much a given that it's at some temp/pressure at which that substance is a liquid. If it's not, we specifically say "gallons of gas at X pressure"
I think Princeton Physics pic only focuses on the reaction itself. Following is the explanation for the radioactive waste:
Will Iter produce radioactive waste?
Yes. The neutrons produced in fusion reactions will "activate" the materials used in the walls of Iter's plasma chamber. But one of the project's tasks will be to find the materials that best withstand this bombardment.
This could result in waste materials that are safe to handle in a relatively modest timescale (50-100 years), compared with the much longer lived radioactive waste (many thousands of years) produced as a direct result of splitting atoms in fission reactions.
It has been calculated that after 100 years of post-operation radioactive decay, Iter will be left with about 6,000 tonnes of waste. When packaged, this would be equivalent to a cube with about 10m edges
Omg, I know nothing of chemistry or fusion.
I just wanted to add that in 2030 our cars will be driving on alcohol. It's allready started in some countries.
