The Return Of Nuclear Power !?!

[Munkul]

I've always enjoyed Sabine Hossenfelder's assessment of these kind of scientific topics.

How close is nuclear fusion power?

Science News, Physics, Science, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

backreaction.blogspot.com

Oh wow. Well that's turned my opinion of fusion upside down on its head

I did not know the difference between Q-plasma and Q-total. I assumed naively that any time anyone referred to Q, it was Q-total... cos that's the value that makes practical sense, right? And any time I read about fusion, it was with this in mind.
Double checked with ITER... yup, Q-plasma figures. She's not making it up.

With figures like that, we aren't 10-20 years away from fusion power generation... we're 100-200 years away.

Damn.

 

[pedrobedro]

that site is just a single lab for a piece of equipment called CHIMERA
https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/first-look-at-yorkshire-fusion-technology-facility/


and as for the location for STEP my money is on Ratcliffe-on-Soar...... and i have to say i have no inside info at all about the locations etc,

A friend of mine was made redundant from his job there a few years ago, he was driving a shovel loader. It's a bit near to a lot of people who are going to object to it.

 

[mike os]

Great that they have the time and resources for something that doesn't exist yet ...... I wonder if I can get a billion pound grant for my transporter project... they at least exist, star trek has used them for at least 50 years

 

[pedrobedro]

Great that they have the time and resources for something that doesn't exist yet ...... I wonder if I can get a billion pound grant for my transporter project... they at least exist, star trek has used them for at least 50 years

Mine's only in the development phase at the moment but I have managed to move a few things a short distance. I would be open to sharing research for a part of the funding. Here's what I've got so far.

It's comforting to see that they've sent a crew to Chernobyl so they will know what to do when it all goes bottoms up

 

[Screwdriver]

Oh wow. Well that's turned my opinion of fusion upside down on its head

I did not know the difference between Q-plasma and Q-total. I assumed naively that any time anyone referred to Q, it was Q-total... cos that's the value that makes practical sense, right? And any time I read about fusion, it was with this in mind.
Double checked with ITER... yup, Q-plasma figures. She's not making it up.

With figures like that, we aren't 10-20 years away from fusion power generation... we're 100-200 years away.

Damn.

Yeah I saw that and I stand by my comments I made at the time:

If we want to call fission "renewable" and that keeps the insulation rebellion idiots happy, I'm happy to wait for the next supernova to "renew" our fuel supply.

 

[Screwdriver]

Great that they have the time and resources for something that doesn't exist yet ...... I wonder if I can get a billion pound grant for my transporter project... they at least exist, star trek has used them for at least 50 years

What else is the human race supposed to strive for? I mean what is the point of being unless we use our extraordinary consciousness and self awareness to explore the intricacies of our environment. I'm all for experimenting with the development of sustainable net positive nuclear fusion, I just don't see it happening - like ever!

This next big science project comes off the back of the LHC which let's be honest, has been a massive disappointment. What did we discover with all those billions? Oh yeah, Higgs was right in his paper from the early '60's. It really changed nothing because we had assumed that was correct and the enormous efforts at CERN really only confirmed those theories.

The key to a complete understanding or "theory of everything" is to unlock the secret of gravity. To do that we have to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. My non-scientific gut feeling is that those secret are locked away beneath the Planck limit. An arbitrary limit we have imposed which states nothing below that size can ever be calculated, bit like having a minimum size of pixel which determines the resolution of your picture.

That may be true from our theoretical perspective but the universe appears smooth and continuous and to try and quantise gravity to fit with our current level of understanding may be fruitless. The problem is, at the moment, it would appear that quantum objects are so small that gravity doesn't play a part until things get really close and that distance may be smaller than the Planck length.

Gravity is the key to unlocking fusion and I have a sneaky suspicion we cannot ever open that door from inside the very space within which that property emerges.

 

[Seadog]

It really changed nothing because we had assumed that was correct and the enormous efforts at CERN really only confirmed those theories.

But the important point is that it did confirm the theory. As you've argued before, science is about developing a hypothesis and then testing it until it is proven either correct, or not.

 

[Munkul]

I always thought we needed a quantum leap forward in super-conductors to make fusion energy a viable energy source. Maybe even that won't be good enough.

We still need a quantum leap forward in battery technology as well.

I think everyone is expecting science to solve the problem of fossil fuels and environmental impact, but the truth is, we just aren't advancing that fast any more.

 

[Screwdriver]

But the important point is that it did confirm the theory. As you've argued before, science is about developing a hypothesis and then testing it until it is proven either correct, or not.

Yes, I agree and I think it was and is an amazing achievement. I am really responding to the lay persons view. Wonder what they are going to say when ITER turns out to be a white elephant? As science projects get ever larger, we need to see some "payback" beyond confirming theories we already hold to be true. We need discoveries and as the years roll on, they become fewer and further in between.

The roll out of quantum computing to the mass market will be err, interesting. I guess that is a "byproduct" of our deeper understanding of physics but again, really only a difficult engineering challenge to exploit a quantum theory that was proposed over 100 years ago!

 

[mike os]

@Screwdriver Pretty much my thoughts... at the moment we have seen fire and have had some success getting some kindling glowing, and based on that development are planning to build a sun...... as it has been for the last 70 years its still 10 to 20 years off...and will still be so in 20 years

At this time any expenditure needs to be on further experimentation to see if a reactor can actually be made to work (ie produce sustained reliable long term excess power), not on where we will put one if it ever works. ....

R &D, experimentation and the implementation of developed products has a fairly logical step progression.... and it doesn't start with spending on a facility for a product that does not exist yet

 

[Screwdriver]

I always thought we needed a quantum leap forward in super-conductors to make fusion energy a viable energy source. Maybe even that won't be good enough.

I think that is required to hold the superhot plasma in place and stop it from burning a hole in everything. But that is the key to my skepticism. In a Tokamak or ITER the plasma density is almost vanishingly small. A mere puff of wind" compared to the extraordinary density at the heart of a massive star. Yes you can extract energy from fusion which can occur within a plasma but the relative density of the materials are lit. astronomically far apart.

I once read an article which explained how energy is radiated by a star and the process by which fusion releases that energy. You will not be surprised to learn it is fantastically complicated! We can "bang rocks together" and make a fusion bomb but to build a sustainable reaction that doesn't go off like a bomb is the tricky bit. It is almost if not exactly like taking a bomb which is right on the knife edge of nuclear fusion and keeping it there while feeding it more material.

Normally we have to wait for our engineering abilities to catch up with the science. On this occasion, with our lack of understanding regards gravity, it's the other way around. We are attempting to build something we really don't have the science for.

 

[Munkul]

I think that is required to hold the superhot plasma in place and stop it from burning a hole in everything. But that is the key to my skepticism.

Normally we have to wait for our engineering abilities to catch up with the science. On this occasion, with our lack of understanding regards gravity, it's the other way around. We are attempting to build something we really don't have the science for.

Well aren't you quite the physicist. Should have had you on the team to start with
"Only stars produce viable fusion, we can't make a star here so we can't make viable fusion" - game over, eh?

 

[R Kraft]

Fission or fusion ?
Ask yourself, is it easier to break something , or put something together.
Like burn wood or create wood.

 

[PhillipM]

Rather depends on whether you have a lighter or a seed.

 

[Screwdriver]

Well aren't you quite the physicist. Should have had you on the team to start with
"Only stars produce viable fusion, we can't make a star here so we can't make viable fusion" - game over, eh?

Except. I didn't say that: "only stars produce viable fusion" (you would have to define "viable" and I would not confine fusion to only a star)

and I didn't say: "we can't make a star here" (we can replicate many of the conditions found in stars**)

Nor do I agree it is "game over". As I have only just said, playing "the game" is in and of itself the primary role for a sentient being.

Otherwise you're bang on. What's your point?

**it may come as a surprise to some that "we" can easily replicate the temperatures found deep inside a star, right here on earth. But here's the crux, there is a huge difference between temperature and heat energy. The tip of a cigarette reaches 1000ºC but you're not going to forge steel with it. Same goes with the tokamak, it uses such a thin wispy puff of gas it's effectively a hard vacuum!

Such is the gigantic amount of power locked up inside matter, if you can crack it open, it releases energy proportional to the speed of light squared. For the uninitiated, that's a BIG number. Sadly, the amount of energy required to do that is equally gigantic and in the case of a tokamak I suggest, actually slightly more when you take into account the conditions you have to maintain for the reaction to persist.

 

[Screwdriver]

Fission or fusion ?
Ask yourself, is it easier to break something , or put something together.
Like burn wood or create wood.

Equally "easy". The H-bomb or hydrogen bomb is a fusion device. Interestingly for those who might suggest because we can do that "we can do fusion" the Hydrogen bomb is a regular plutonium fission (A-bomb) wrapped around a Hydrogen fusion "bomb". A regular nuke (!) is used to generate the power required for fusion to occur.

Clever monkeys managed to make that work, now all we have to do is work out how to manage the amount of power you get from a nuclear weapon while feeding it yet more fuel and just sort of keep it going...

 

[daleyd]

Equally "easy". The H-bomb or hydrogen bomb is a fusion device. Interestingly for those who might suggest because we can do that "we can do fusion" the Hydrogen bomb is a regular plutonium fission (A-bomb) wrapped around a Hydrogen fusion "bomb". A regular nuke (!) is used to generate the power required for fusion to occur.

Clever monkeys managed to make that work, now all we have to do is work out how to manage the amount of power you get from a nuclear weapon while feeding it yet more fuel and just sort of keep it going...

To be pedantic in a modern weapon the fission weapon is actually inside a uranium/plutonium case with the fusion fuel, the first fission produces xrays which impinge on the fusion material and initiate fusion, which then in turn produces more fission from the outer layer/casing.

 

[Munkul]

Nor do I agree it is "game over". As I have only just said, playing "the game" is in and of itself the primary role for a sentient being.

Otherwise you're bang on. What's your point?

Sorry mate I read your previous posts wrongly, I interpreted them as being very negative about the future of fusion energy in general. Just the way you were waffling on, I skim read it all

I get what you mean though and i do agree.

 

[Ross365]

Apparently, they've spent £220M to date just thinking about which site it might be. I looked at the website of the "South West Nuclear Hub" who are propose using either the old Berkley or Oldbury Magnox sites on the River Severn; the website makes a good case for that. I don't see it going north of Nottingham.

Given that it will take a fair time to build the site (best part of 10 years?), the work on the fine detail of the reactor can continue to be investigated at Culham and at the international site in France. In 10 years, there won't be much nuclear (fission) left in the UK - 2 stations perhaps, down from 33?

 

[Screwdriver]

To be pedantic in a modern weapon the fission weapon is actually inside a uranium/plutonium case with the fusion fuel, the first fission produces xrays which impinge on the fusion material and initiate fusion, which then in turn produces more fission from the outer layer/casing.

Well we've all got Wiki and if you really want to be pedantic; your précis is not accurate either. The "fission weapon" is the uranium/plutonium case as you describe it. The weapon is not inside itself. I refer to the fission bomb being "wrapped around" the fusion fuel but it is quite interesting to note (if you want to be pedantic) it is laid out much like you would configure a shaped charge.

Damned clever those humans. If only such cleverness for weaponry could be put to more productive uses.