Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Laser fusion in California (Read 6474 times)
renegadeviking
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88
Laser fusion in California
Oct 26th, 2010 at 9:57am
 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2010 at 10:24am by muso »  
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #1 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 10:25am
 
I fixed your links.  Very interesting.  The second article suggests that they are going to try hydrogen fusion. Maybe it's just journalistic simplification, but I wonder why they would go for that, as opposed to deuterium and tritium fusion.

The effort needed to fuse hydrogen is much much greater.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
renegadeviking
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #2 - Oct 27th, 2010 at 5:43am
 
It doubles as advancing technology for  Boeing 747-400 YAL-1, maybe there is going to be a YAL-2 in future or High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defence System in future.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Axle
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 107
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #3 - Oct 30th, 2010 at 12:21am
 
Some experts don't think that fusion reactors will live up to their promise:

"“Long touted as an inexhaustible energy
source for the next century, fusion
as it is now being developed will
almost certainly be too expensive and
unreliable for commercial use.”
The dominating goal of the fusion program is
to produce a reactor fueled by deuterium and
tritium, isotopes of hydrogen containing one
and two extra neutrons. This choice of fuel
greatly eases the problem of achieving an
energy-producing fusion reaction, but the
choice also has features that make it far more
diScult to turn that energy source into a useful
power plant. The most serious diSculty concerns
the very high energy neutrons released in
the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction. These
uncharged nuclear particles damage the reactor
structure and make it radioactive. A chain of
undesirable eFects ensures that any reactor
employing D-T fusion will be a large, complex,
expensive, and unreliable source of power.
That is hardly preferable to present-day fission
reactors, much less the improved fission reactors
that are almost sure to come."


www.askmar.com/.../The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #4 - Nov 15th, 2010 at 3:56pm
 
Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
renegadeviking
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #5 - Dec 12th, 2010 at 10:50am
 
Axle wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 12:21am:
Some experts don't think that fusion reactors will live up to their promise:

"“Long touted as an inexhaustible energy
source for the next century, fusion
as it is now being developed will
almost certainly be too expensive and
unreliable for commercial use.”
The dominating goal of the fusion program is
to produce a reactor fueled by deuterium and
tritium, isotopes of hydrogen containing one
and two extra neutrons. This choice of fuel
greatly eases the problem of achieving an
energy-producing fusion reaction, but the
choice also has features that make it far more
diScult to turn that energy source into a useful
power plant. The most serious diSculty concerns
the very high energy neutrons released in
the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction. These
uncharged nuclear particles damage the reactor
structure and make it radioactive. A chain of
undesirable eFects ensures that any reactor
employing D-T fusion will be a large, complex,
expensive, and unreliable source of power.
That is hardly preferable to present-day fission
reactors, much less the improved fission reactors
that are almost sure to come."


www.askmar.com/.../The%20Trouble%20With%20Fusion.pdf



Don't count on it.  You got the the European Union through the legally distinct organisation EURATOM, India, Japan, People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States of America (USA) working on ITER reactor, EU has another product and US has their own.  US has DIII-D · TFTR · NSTX · NCSX · UCLA ET · Alcator C-Mod · LDX · MSTNIF · OMEGA · Nova · Nike · Shiva · Argus · Cyclops · Janus · Long path · Z machine · PACER


Iter
Timeline Date      Event
2006-11-21      Seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[8]
2008      Site preparation start, ITER Itinerary start[11]
2009      Site preparation completion[11]
2010      Tokamak complex excavation start[11]
2011      Predicted: Tokamak complex construction start[11]
2015      Predicted: Tokamak assembly start[11]
2018      Predicted: Tokamak assembly completion, start torus Pump down[11]
2019-11      Predicted: Achievement of first plasma[11]
2027-03      Predicted: Start of deuterium-tritium operation[11]
2038      Predicted: End of project
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2010 at 10:58am by renegadeviking »  
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #6 - Dec 12th, 2010 at 11:11am
 
Axle wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 12:21am:
The dominating goal of the fusion program is
to produce a reactor fueled by deuterium and
tritium, isotopes of hydrogen containing one
and two extra neutrons. This choice of fuel
greatly eases the problem of achieving an
energy-producing fusion reaction, but the
choice also has features that make it far more
difficult to turn that energy source into a useful
power plant. The most serious difficulty concerns
the very high energy neutrons released in
the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction
. These
uncharged nuclear particles damage the reactor
structure and make it radioactive.


It's a recognised issue with the proposed D-T reaction. The alternative is Aneutronic fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

There are a few candidates on that page. Helium 3 is the prime candidate, but of course it's very difficult to come by. There is plenty of it on the moon, and that may provide a possibility for the future.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Moderator
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 122414
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #7 - Mar 2nd, 2011 at 8:15pm
 
I think fusion should be abandoned in favor of Thorium reactors.
We know they work, they can't melt down, they can make other dangerous
isotopes such as Plutonium 239 safe & we have plenty of Thorium.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Laser fusion in California
Reply #8 - Mar 2nd, 2011 at 9:35pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 8:15pm:
I think fusion should be abandoned in favor of Thorium reactors.
We know they work, they can't melt down, they can make other dangerous
isotopes such as Plutonium 239 safe & we have plenty of Thorium.


Any reactive material that works in a power reactor would be usable....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print