Lets talk a bit about nuclear fusion and the future of atom reactors. Do you believe that Iter will be the next generation nuclear reactor? Why US tries to stop French?

Iter will cost more then 5 billion Euros! Compare to it all DoE nuclear and cold fusion projects are small projects. Would it be the biggest and most prominent energy producing technology or just the biggest spill-out of money for bullshits ? And why French needs the international support anyway?

ITER (http://www.iter.org/) will probably be a bust IMHO, but a necessary one. Whatever the struggle, we must finally get to the point where most of the energy we use is nuclear in orign. I see no other way to produce enough energy to meet the increasing world demand that the DOE is predicting :)

I think the struggle will be mostly to overcome fear. And that will be the cause of most of the cost.

I think the struggle will be mostly to overcome fear. And that will be the cause of most of the cost.
This struck me as odd. Were you exagerating for effect? I presume you mean fear because of the nuclear word. That can be overcome by some top rate PR at a fraction of the costs for equipment, construction manpower, etc.

Yes, I mean fear of anything nuclear. It will generate huge opposition just like now. It's not possible to build a nuclear power plant in the US because of the anti-nuke movement. I don't think top rate PR will do it. I'm not sure of the size of the anti-nuke following, but it is very noisy :)

why would ITER fail ?

I say bust, because the magnetic confinment process is too difficult. Some other method will probably surface (such as Inertial Confinment Fusion) before useful power can be achieved. Just MHO. I hope ITER works :)

Yes, I mean fear of anything nuclear. It will generate huge opposition just like now. It's not possible to build a nuclear power plant in the US because of the anti-nuke movement. I don't think top rate PR will do it. I'm not sure of the size of the anti-nuke following, but it is very noisy :)
I understand your argument, but I think it is flawed. Let me explain:

1. Several countries are using nuclear power extensively without the fear factor coming into play in any significant or influential way. Consider this extract from the World Nuclear League (admittedly a biased source, but the factual content is important.)
"Some countries - including Finland and several in central and eastern Europe - are building new reactors to obtain energy power for economic growth on environmentally acceptable terms. Other countries such as Sweden and Germany, having flirted with a "phase out" of nuclear power, now seem likely to keep the reactors they have and eventually even add to their existing capacity. In Belgium, where 60% of electricity comes from nuclear power, a government change has recently refortified that country's long-term commitment to nuclear energy. Swiss voters just endorsed keeping their country's reactors. "
Or consider Scotland with 32% of its electricity generated by nuclear power stations; Spain 14%; Finland 30%; while France sits at between 75% and 80%.
And Japan, where if a fear factor for nuclear energy should be expected if it is to be present anywhere, we find 27% generated this way.

2. Nuclear fusion has nothing like the radiation aspects of fission power.
a) Radioactive materials are not used in the process.
b) The reaction is not self suststaining - no chance of a runaway reaction with in the manner of Chernobyl.
c) Low levels of residual radioactivity in the process vessels.

For these reasons, coupled with a desire to reduce reliance on fossil fuel plants, fusion, in tandem with renewable sources, will be the future. Countries that choose not to follow this path will be left behind economically.
If you are arguing that this will be the case for the US, I agree you may be correct. If you are arguing this will be the case for the planet, I believe you are definitely wrong.

(In either case I do agree that an education/PR program would be necessary to impart the facts of point 2, above.)

Good points ! I hope you're right.

I was refering to the US. We have opposition groups here who are against everything industrial; they join forces with those afraid of anything nuclear; then they use our tort system to delay everything in court until it is impossible for individual companies to develop power producing facilities.

Here in boondocks of Arkansas, it took over five years to get approval to build a coal fired power plant; the delay ran up the cost so much that they would have cancelled the thing if any other source of power was available.

I understand your argument, but I think it is flawed. Let me explain:

1. Several countries are using nuclear power extensively without the fear factor coming into play in any significant or influential way. Consider this extract from the World Nuclear League (admittedly a biased source, but the factual content is important.)
"Some countries - including Finland and several in central and eastern Europe - are building new reactors to obtain energy power for economic growth on environmentally acceptable terms. Other countries such as Sweden and Germany, having flirted with a "phase out" of nuclear power, now seem likely to keep the reactors they have and eventually even add to their existing capacity. In Belgium, where 60% of electricity comes from nuclear power, a government change has recently refortified that country's long-term commitment to nuclear energy. Swiss voters just endorsed keeping their country's reactors. "


Yeh, you are damn right. Finland desperately needs more power because they are currently buying big amounts of electricity from Russia and France. France is the biggest electricity exporter in Europre. Not curiously that French supported Sadam and was againt the war in Iraq. Unstable middle east means higher petrol prices, which means higest power prices, which means bigger revenues for the french. They are selling electricity to the half of Europe.



Or consider Scotland with 32% of its electricity generated by nuclear power stations; Spain 14%; Finland 30%; while France sits at between 75% and 80%.
And Japan, where if a fear factor for nuclear energy should be expected if it is to be present anywhere, we find 27% generated this way.


Japans are really well ahead in the nuclear tecnology. Hitachi is producing reactors, atom power plants and etc, I think that japans are starting a new power plant with more then 2000 MWs just recently. They will become even more dependent from NPP in the future.

China and India are starting several russian WWER-1000 reactors. They had spend billions of dollars.


2. Nuclear fusion has nothing like the radiation aspects of fission power.
a) Radioactive materials are not used in the process.
b) The reaction is not self suststaining - no chance of a runaway reaction with in the manner of Chernobyl.
c) Low levels of residual radioactivity in the process vessels.

For these reasons, coupled with a desire to reduce reliance on fossil fuel plants, fusion, in tandem with renewable sources, will be the future. Countries that choose not to follow this path will be left behind economically.
If you are arguing that this will be the case for the US, I agree you may be correct. If you are arguing this will be the case for the planet, I believe you are definitely wrong.

(In either case I do agree that an education/PR program would be necessary to impart the facts of point 2, above.)



Yes, you are right. Did you copied this from somewhere, it is very well said.
But allow me to go deeper in the matter. I had extensive experience with calculations about NPP reactors and I know very well how they function.

The modern reactors, widely in use can be divided in the categories - PWRs, BWRs and CANDU (RBMK) . The last group are the reactors from Chernobyl type. They are more dangerous. Once russions had made this reactors because of the PU-239 that they produce. This plutonium is very good for A-bombs, in standard civilian reactors it is not produced because neutron flux is too low. So russions used RBMK for two goals - energy producing and A-bombs material. Ironicly the blowed up one such reactor in Chernobyl. More then 4 000 000 Ci radioactivity polution was generated! Even if someone had dropped A-bomb at Chernobyl the effect would not be so disastreous.

But BWR and PWR reactors are totally saved. PWR reactor is the reactor at three miles island, melted in 80s. A striking operators incompetence had lead to the melting of the core and losses for more then 4 billion dollars! The guys had watched for more then 1 hour a defectly lighting indicator. All that they had to do was to figure out that one vent had not closed, even as the indicator was showing that it is off. Someone had to press a button and the vent would be closed, the core would not be melted and the Three Miles Island Accident would not occure. But they had react wrongly, their supervisor had reacted wrongly and the really competent people had arrived at the plant too late.

Even so the total polution at Three Mlles Island was 4 Ci! That is so low that cant be even distongueshed from the gamma background. But people populating the river downstream the power plant had paniced and more then 20 000 people had selled their homes and runned away to other states.

CONCLUSION:

PWR and BWR reactors are not dangerous. They had confinement and the worst accident is nmelting of the core. It is expensive but not lethal.

RBMK reactors are dangerous but they had been shuting down, there is only several still running and they all are in Ruissia.

Now, lets talk about nuclear fusion. There is something fundamentally wrong behind the idea for thermonuclear reactor. I had not maked calculations but I see several very serious problems.

Lets examine how energy is produced in a NPP. After all the reactor is not very different then a boiler. It converts one type of energy to another. It first converts the energy stored in U-235 in heat. The this heat is carried by over-heated steam to the turbine and electricity is produced. Electricity is the form of energy usable from people. The point of a energy producing plant is to produce not just any kind but energy but exactly electricity. Because electricity cant be stored it should be producing constantly. NPP should operate stable even during natural disasters, like tornadoes or earthquakes. For example in Japan NPP reactors are not shuting down during earthquakes, they continue to work.

What is the problem with fussion? All reactors in NPP uses not fussion but the fission of the U-235 atom. Why not really use fussion?

Lets first examine the problem with the high temperature. In order to have fussion you need temperatures high enough, more then 3000 K, there is no material that can stand at such temperatures. For example in PWRs the highest allowable temperature is 400 degrees! There is very big constructive difficulties this temperature limit to be rised even with several hundred degrees. So for the sake of stability an safety opperation this temperature had been set quite low. But thermonuclear specialist are jumping to temperatures from 3000 K! And this would be more stable? Are you kidding? What will happens if accident with loss of electricity happens? The plasma will burst because magnetic confinement will shut off.

But beside these quite techlogical problems there is something that I just cant get. Maybe I am stupid or something, but can you explain me how exactly we will gain power from the fusion? Because a plant is efficent if more power is produced then spended. But fussion is releasing of energy when 4 H-atoms are gluing together and are producing one He atom. Since the mass of helium nucleus is less the the combined masses of the 4 hydrogen atoms the difference is radiated as gamma quants and it can be transformed to heat. OK, but who will make the 4 H-atoms to combine to He, against their will? It will be needed the same amount of energy this to happen. Natural fusion happens only at temperatures above 3500 degrees. And there is acuualy a very big thermonuclear reactor nearby - the Sun. Why making another? Why not instead try to use Sun energy?

Cold fusion is a bullshit, from the kind of perpeto mobile. I can prove you, needing only elementary physics that cold fusion will never be efficent, you will invest more energy then the damn thing will produce. And that is because of the most fundamental law in physics - Entropy of the process should either rise (non-cyclic processses) or stays constant - cyclic processe. But if we produce more energy (heat) in fussion then we invest we lower the Entropy without compensation.

So cold fussion cant be effective, the Hot Fussion is dangerous and also is not effective. I dont understand how all these fundamental and technical diffuculties will be overcomed in the termonuclear reactor? Why instead these money are not invest in approving the much more reliable technology of PWRs and BWRs? If they find a way the working temperatures in a PWR to rise from the current 320 degrees to say 500 degrees, with introducing of new kind of fuel rods and inner reactor materials then the efficency for reactors will jump from the current 40 % to 800 - 300 / 800 = 5/8 = 62.5 % (I had used Carnot law), this means that reactor that before had produced 1 000 MWs electricity out of 3000 MW heat energy, now can produce at least 1 600 MWs! This is 600 MW of free energy! Enough for 20 000 000 lighting bulbs!

I dont to be pesimistic but fusion will never runout the standard and well woking nuclear fission technology. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, you are right. Did you copied this from somewhere, it is very well said.

No..Just my own thoughts.
I dont to be pesimistic but fusion will never runout the standard and well working nuclear fission technology. Correct me if I am wrong.
You post indicates that you have an in depth knowledge of fission technology. It would, therefore, be presumptuous of me to correct you.. but I am a presumptuous bastard. :)

Your examples illustrate that in the event of human error any reactor can suffer a catastrophic failure. Should we, therefore, forego the use of nuclear power because a failure may occur? Of course not. No human endeavour is without risk. We have to balance risk of failure, consequence of failure, against benefits.
On that basis, and from my limiting reading on the subject, nuclear power plants are an acceptable risk, but one towards the margin of acceptability. So, if we could find a less risky alternative that would be preferable. Fusion appears to offer such an alternative.
I'm not clear why you think we can not obtain efficient energy from this process. The theorists certainly believe it can be achieved, with the obstacle being the technology, not the science. As a species we have a good track record of developing the technology once we see the need.
You note the consequences of a failed containment, but these are going to be very limited in time and space, compared with the consequences of a fission plant failure.
Yes, we should invest in improving fission technology, and in finding ways to clean up fossil fuel power generation, and in implementing renewable energy systems, and in exploring biomass use, and in the program for developing fusion. Our global civilisation is based on power. No avenue should be ignored.

Ophiolite,
you have my support in everything you just said.

To Yurir: I am sincerely glad your devil induced verbal diarrhea has finished and also glad to see you supporting Ophiolite because below I will amplify on some of his points in effort to give them more strength. We all make mistakes - it is how we react to being corrected that is important. Enough said - I will not mention it again. We seem to be on the same side this time.

On risk of nuclear power:
Yes there are dangers, but as Ophiolite points out some risks in inherent in most activities. We need energy for modern society and the ever-increasing population. This is clear to all, so I will just mention one aspect not so widely discussed as example. Potatoes are about 80% oil! (Not literally of course) What I mean is in comparison to the old family farm most people lived on 100 years ago, where they were 80% sweat of the horse and the man behind the plow with a yield per acre one fifth of what it is today, the tractor, fertilizer, transport to city, air-conditioning of the store, gas for your car to go shopping etc. have transformed the potato you eat into as product requiring mainly oil for its production.
Coal is still king in much of the world. Approximately 7000 people die annually under the ground trying to bring it to the surface (China is responsible for half of these deaths) If the number of deaths directly associated with its shipment, storage and combustion is added the total is at least 10,000 per year, every year. When the indirect deaths, mainly old people with respiratory problems and cancer deaths that probably are at least aggravated (if not solely cause by) the complex organics that come out of the stacks or are later formed in photochemical reactions are added the total is surely greater than US automobile fatalities. However, modern society cannot do without either of these killers. They are worth their cost in dollars and lives. So it is nuclear fission. If coal power plants were replaced by nuclear ones tens of thousands of lives would be saved annually and BTW radioactivity in the air we breath would be REDUCED because even though a very small fraction of coal is radioactive, the huge tonnage burnt makes this true. I hold the “greens” who have made NP economically unattractive (mainly by delay of license process) and few of their archenemies (the capitalistic decision makers) directly responsible for much of this needless loss of life.
Why the latter? Well Three Mile Island is a good example. That plant came on line on 31 December and thus could be added to the rate base for the year used by public service commission to compute the “fair rate of return” etc. Even though some of the pumps in some of the safety back up systems were not yet installed. As I understand what happen, the absence of these pumps had nothing to do with the accident, but that is not the point. The USA AEC was both the promoter and safety watchdog for US development of NP. Businessmen were making critical design decisions. Most control rooms are unique. Etc. Contrast this with the French the safety regulatory authorities are in an independent government agency. There are nation wide standards on control room design (in case of serious problem the experts know which button does what BEFORE they arrive on the scene etc. Only a few well-tested designs are used, not every one a special deal / option that is unique. Etc.
Summary: I strongly support safe NP, but lets do it right. Not quadruple its cost with delay (greens at fault) or make it business first and unique plants (excessive “free enterprise” and greed at fault) instead of safety first. Ophiolite had most my point when he said: “We have to balance risk of failure, consequence of failure, against benefits.” but I am adding we need to reduce the risks, and when possible increase the benefit’s then make informed choices, not ones based on ignorant fear, between the different alternatives. In addition, we have to row the boat for where we are to where we want to be without knocking a hole in the bottom. It is not an easy task. A lot of education is required. (This is why this part is so long, I’m trying to do what I can.)

On net energy for fusion question:
Consider it by this three step analogy:
(1)Wring out a wet towel to get water into bucket. = Hydrogen fuel production requires energy (really Deuterium and Tritium production) but they come from water, not breaking up helium as is erroneous implied by Xgen.
(2)Lift water filled bucket high up over a very deep hole. = It takes energy to confine a hot DT mixture. (You need, in step 3, to collide two positively charged ions, D+ and T+ with such force that their mutual electrostatic resistance can be over come. They need to come about 1000 times closer together than the neutral hydrogen atom radius before the short range nuclear forces can “grab hold” of them and fuse DT into an unstable helium ion.
(3)Heat the water and bucket by dropping it down a very deep dry well. (It heats when it smashes into the rock bottom.) = Heating the DT mixture to about 100,000,000 degrees (not 3000 as Xgen states) starts the fusion, which then releases more heat. The He++ ion keeps two of the five entering neutrons. The three expelled and the “recoil” of the He++ ion is the kinetic energy or heat release you get from fusion. It has to do with how deep the He well is not how hard it is to electrolyze water etc.

On alternate power:
By all means. Wind is already contributing significantly. Photovoltaic (solar cells) in special locations with small total demand (Where bring grid power to site is more expensive that they are.) Green fuels (bioDiesel and alcohol) could economically replace $50/ barrel oil today, but not if produced from corn in Iowa. You need 12 month growing season, cheap land and labor and good rains and must grow sugar cane to do it. For about twenty years a significant fraction of the cars in Brazil (where I now live) have been running on alcohol. It is about 60% the cost per mile of gasoline without any funny economics. Brazil would love to grow more and sell it delivered to US ports for about 30% less than gasoline costs.

The US is not alone in this stupid “help a few rich, hurt the many poor” import quotas and tariff barriers policy. French farmer are even more politically powerful. They grow sugar beets for alcohol sat twice the cost of Brazilian product delivered. Also note that driving cars on alcohol does not contribute to global warming. The growing sugar cane takes much more CO2 from the air than the cars release. Most of the cane mass stays in Brazil, going into the ground for worms to eat. (Unfortunately, some goes to cows to eat and they convert it to methane which is, molecule for molecule, at least 10 times worse for global warming than CO2, but only part of what they eat ends up as methane in their farts and only a small fraction of the cane is feed to them. So the alcohol car would help a lot. If really concerned, eat less beef - I say this to show I am not just trying to help Brazil export. (Brazil is world’s largest beef exporter now.)

I don’t expect US to change its policy of keeping the cheaper alcohol fuel out while it is lead by former executives of the oil industry or even later if the multitude of voters can be kept ignorant of how the few are getting rich from the government’s policy on alternate green fuels.

Good points ! I hope you're right.

I was refering to the US. We have opposition groups here who are against everything industrial; they join forces with those afraid of anything nuclear; then they use our tort system to delay everything in court until it is impossible for individual companies to develop power producing facilities.

Here in boondocks of Arkansas, it took over five years to get approval to build a coal fired power plant; the delay ran up the cost so much that they would have cancelled the thing if any other source of power was available.

I was the Startup Coordinator of Shorham Nuclear Power Plant, LI, NY. We spent $4B and got the plant up and running but never got on line due to court battles. LILCO the owner ultimately scrapped the plant and sold it for $1.00 to the State of NY. Absolute nonsense caused by anti-nuke groups..

I was the Startup Coordinator of Shorham Nuclear Power Plant, LI, NY. We spent $4B and got the plant up and running but never got on line due to court battles. LILCO the owner ultimately scrapped the plant and sold it for $1.00 to the State of NY. Absolute nonsense caused by anti-nuke groups..

And...secretly, someone by the name MacM had invented and patented fusion reactor. How's your fusion reactor come about, Mr MacM? How much did your sell it?

To Billi T, who said:
To Yurir: I am sincerely glad your devil induced verbal diarrhea has finished and also glad to see you supporting Ophiolite because below I will amplify on some of his points in effort to give them more strength. We all make mistakes - it is how we react to being corrected that is important. Enough said - I will not mention it again. We seem to be on the same side this time.

I am glad too that my stomachache is over. (BTW, it was not diarrhea, what would be much more natural way to get free of all those BS that you fed to me as a good professional breakfast in that thread. Unfortunately, I had to through it up…what was much more unpleasant, you know). But now I know who sales what and under what advertisement. Russian people use to say: “Live a century, learn a century”…

On that basis, and from my limiting reading on the subject, nuclear power plants are an acceptable risk, but one towards the margin of acceptability. So, if we could find a less risky alternative that would be preferable. Fusion appears to offer such an alternative.
I'm not clear why you think we can not obtain efficient energy from this process. The theorists certainly believe it can be achieved, with the obstacle being the technology, not the science.

less risky alternative ? Fusion is many times more risky then a sandard fission technology. For fusion you need plasma at extremely high temperatures. This plasma should be confined from a magnetic shield. I am not specialist in this area but this confinement need electricity. What will happen with the reactor if an accident with loss of electricity for the magnetic shield occures? What will happens if the magetic field accidentally colapse? You will had a plasma at millions of kelvins and immense density hold by nothing. Yes it is very safe. I hope I am not living nearby a tokamak.
I see several other risk factors. For example during the fusion reaction Li+De->He4 + n + energy , the energy of the released neutron is 14 Mev if I remember correctly, it is quite large energy - the fast neutron in a PWR has 3Mev energy but they are slowed down in the water and they hardly pass more then 1 mm, but for the termonuclear reactor neutrons are not in a water and the energies are even higher. As a result the tokamak will radiate an immense quantity of high enegetic neutrons in all directions. These neutron will corrupt the materials outside the shield - pipes, reactor vessel and etc. much more then in a standard PWR reactor. Not to talk about the high-energy gammas produced in the reactor. Such gamma will pass trough 10 meter thich concrete wall without any problem. Yes, for the staff in the tokamak it will be very pleasant experience. They will had the so called 'nuclear burn' in no time, no need from a Sun bath. Had you heared about the nuclear burn?

I am not I specialist in nuclear fusion, if someone understands it I will be gratefull to explain me the rised above questions. I am not sure also that the electricity spended for maintainance of the magnetic shield will be less of then produced electricity. And how the thermonuclear reactor finally, if it survive the first 5 seconds, will produce electricity? How the heat contained in the plasma will be transformed to steam needed to rotate the turbine?

Hydrogen fuel production requires energy (really Deuterium and Tritium production) but they come from water, not breaking up helium as is erroneous implied by Xgen.

There are many fussion channels , Li+De -> He + n is one of them, I as talking about the H+H -> H2 , H2+H2 -> He3 + n, after all at fiirst this reaction had been dominant in the stars. Of cource for a thermonuclear reactor Li+De -> He + n is better because more energy is released. But the principle is the same - you had to force particles to come close enough, I did not sayed that at high temperatures this will not be energy efficent, only that at low temperatures such kind of pproduction of energy will be against the second principle of thermodynamics. You invest work W1 to force the particles and then produce much more energy in a form of heat Q. Then this heat Q can again be converted to work W2 but with some heat losses - SdT, but if W2>W1 we can make the process cyclic - a perfect example for perpeto mobile. For a fission that is not a problem because more particles are produced but in fusion the whole number of particle decreases and since entropy is proportional to the number of particles this process should be compensated from increase of the temperature. In order W2 > W1 the fusion should occure at very high temperatures. I can explain it better but I should think for awhile.

Heat the water and bucket by dropping it down a very deep dry well. (It heats when it smashes into the rock bottom.) = Heating the DT mixture to about 100,000,000 degrees (not 3000 as Xgen states) starts the fusion, which then releases more heat. The He++ ion keeps two of the five entering neutrons. The three expelled and the “recoil” of the He++ ion is the kinetic energy or heat release you get from fusion. It has to do with how deep the He well is not how hard it is to electrolyze water etc.

Yes the temperature for fusion should be millions K, at the core of the Sun it is 10-15 million. But for D-T fusion reaction T should be over 100 Million deg.

When I stated 3000 K I was imaging tha plasma similar to the Sun, it temperature is not homogeneous at the core is say 15 millions K, but at the surface Sun temperature is only 5000 degrees (thats way Sun irradiates in the visible specter) . Sorry if I had misunderstood, but I cant even imagine a reactor with core 100 Million degrees hot. I am very sceptical about the whole thing but why not instead make it similar to the Sun - very hot at the core and only 3000-4000 K at the periphery? Energy generated in the Sun's core takes a million years to reach its surface. Why not they examine simillar process for the thermonuclear reactor? If thee is a way to cool down the plasma from the core to the periphery, to say 1000 K, then they may not even need the magnetic shield. Something like pocket-size portative Sun :)

Too bad that the whole thing will never work. Not at least in a milenium.

I suspect that when it's time to publish "The Rise and Fall of the US" it will be the anti-nuke movement that causes the fall.

Our experience now is that the most safe method of generating power is fission reactors, but I feel that fusion will eventually be the solution. Here's some links showing some of the last year's progress:

Sites to investigate

jet.efda.org (http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/focus/008enhance/)
FAQ at jet.efda.org (http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq2.html)
rpi.edu press releases (http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm)
bell-labs.com (http://netlib.bell-labs.com/who/cafuchs/)
bays.wustl.edu (http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/etj.html)
And Cold Fusion Times (http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html)

less risky alternative ? Fusion is many times more risky then a sandard fission technology. For fusion you need plasma at extremely high temperatures. This plasma should be confined from a magnetic shield. I am not specialist in this area but this confinement need electricity. What will happen with the reactor if an accident with loss of electricity for the magnetic shield occures?
I stand ready to be corrected by someone who is an expert in this field, but your statements appear to me to be faulty.
If the containment field fails the plasma will rapidly dissipate, its temperature will rapidly fall, the fusion reaction will cease almost immediately.
Now I do not know whether this cessation will be so rapid that the residual plasma (whose temperature is rapidly falling) can be contained within the reaction vessel; or a secondary containment vessel; or is likely to 'take out' the reactor building. What I am confident of is that it will not 'take out' nearby communities, nor will it render the surrounding countryside, for hundreds of square miles, radioactive for generations, as is the potential with fission power plants (and the reality at Chernobyl).
As to your point on shielding, if ten feet of concrete is insufficient, then lets use twenty feet, or fifty feet of water, or lead, or whatever. We scale it up to the necessary level, which I suspect you are exaggerating anyway.
Your objections appear (I emphasise appear) to be more emotional, based on a perception of possible problems with the technology, rather than hard objections based upon specific facts. I would be happy to address specific, quantified objections, since that would provide an opportunity for me to learn more about the 'fuel of the future'.
Edit:Apologies, I had not noticed the second post in your sequence where you do raise some specific, objective concerns. I am am considering your points now.

And...secretly, someone by the name MacM had invented and patented fusion reactor. How's your fusion reactor come about, Mr MacM? How much did your sell it?

1 - What would this comment have to do with anything in this thread?

2 - It was not a "reactor" it was called a "reaction chamber".

3 - It has not yet been patented, hence no effort to sell and no more information for persons without a need to know. :p

I stand ready to be corrected by someone who is an expert in this field, but your statements appear to me to be faulty.
If the containment field fails the plasma will rapidly dissipate, its temperature will rapidly fall, the fusion reaction will cease almost immediately.
Now I do not know whether this cessation will be so rapid that the residual plasma (whose temperature is rapidly falling) can be contained within the reaction vessel; or a secondary containment vessel; or is likely to 'take out' the reactor building. What I am confident of is that it will not 'take out' nearby communities, nor will it render the surrounding countryside, for hundreds of square miles, radioactive for generations, as is the potential with fission power plants (and the reality at Chernobyl).
As to your point on shielding, if ten feet of concrete is insufficient, then lets use twenty feet, or fifty feet of water, or lead, or whatever. We scale it up to the necessary level, which I suspect you are exaggerating anyway.
Your objections appear (I emphasise appear) to be more emotional, based on a perception of possible problems with the technology, rather than hard objections based upon specific facts. I would be happy to address specific, quantified objections, since that would provide an opportunity for me to learn more about the 'fuel of the future'.
Edit:Apologies, I had not noticed the second post in your sequence where you do raise some specific, objective concerns. I am am considering your points now. .

Dear Ophiolite, my post was a bit emotional because I am deep invoilved in the current fission technology but it was also based on a deep knoledge about the energy producing process.

FIRST: The accident of loss of electricity is the basic and first scenario that is evaluated for any kind of reactor. I can assure you that the process for temperature fall is much more slow then the process of the magnetic shield shutting off. Thus the plasma will burst! There would be huge explosion that can weep out entire facility!

Even for a conventional PWR reactor, even when the reactor chain-reaction is stopped by the grafite control rods the so called residual heat production at only 3% from the reactor nominal power is serious problem. It was the reason for the melting of Three Mile Island reactor. The remained at the reactor power is dangerous even at 320 degrees, what to say about 3000 or 100 000 000 ! If one thermonuclear reactor remains without its magnetic shield, even if a small gap in the magnetic shild accidently occurs, this reactor will blow up with a power much more exceeding Chernobyl accident!

Of cource this will never happen because such a reactor will never will be opperating. All the money will be spilled and eated by burocrats. They will never tell you : Thermonuclear reactor cant be built! Why should they tell you this when they are getting money for its research. They will instead tell you that Thermonuclear reactor had encountered serious technological problems and more money are needed. Then more and more and more.....

I will give you example. In Europe every year for research in nuclear power plants and theirs safety opperations had been giving grants for 50 million Euros. That is nothing. Only for CERN had been donated more then 1 billion Euros and that is besides the budget of CERN which is also a few billions euros. And what is producing CERN? Do they produced new techologies? Do they produce electricity?

I dont think so.

Good points ! I hope you're right.

I was refering to the US. We have opposition groups here who are against everything industrial; they join forces with those afraid of anything nuclear; then they use our tort system to delay everything in court until it is impossible for individual companies to develop power producing facilities.

Here in boondocks of Arkansas, it took over five years to get approval to build a coal fired power plant; the delay ran up the cost so much that they would have cancelled the thing if any other source of power was available.
Fear and other!. The Nuke plant in SE Texas, Bay City, supplies electricity for San Antonio, Austin and the surrounding area, The plant was built by a company with no numclear experince, but it had equivalent subtitution, the comany was in the LBJ gang. .A $300/ summer month for 1 bedroom student type dwellings is common,inAustin. When the plant was publically discussed before voters approved, the plant was hyped as producing electricity "too cheap to meter".In the eraly 90s the plant was shut down . The custonmers, per the contract, nevertheless continued paying the contract obligation for almost two years. Uneeded employees remained on the payroll, During Governor Richardson's regime some lobbyists. consumer grooups, acitivists, tree huggers and the like proposed to create a panel made from all the disciplines interested, including the nuclear industry . Ex Gov, Mike White now a lobbyist for the Nuc plant and industry, was able to get Richardson's chief of staff to convince 2 of 3 members of the oversight bureaurocracy to prevent even discussions grouips from formingon the issues. The issues are so potentially devastating that failure to include all discoverable corruption factors will bode many a grave illwill.
Geistkiesel

Xgen wrote:

FIRST: The accident of loss of electricity is the basic and first scenario that is evaluated for any kind of reactor. I can assure you that the process for temperature fall is much more slow then the process of the magnetic shield shutting off. Thus the plasma will burst! There would be huge explosion that can weep out entire facility!

According to every fusion power expert and researcher I have ever read, this is absolutely not true.

All the research I've read indicates that failure of the containment field in Tokamak style fusion reactors would only damage the container. There's no huge energy source in the plasma; the energy producing components must be fed in like a fuel. When the plasma goes away, no fusion can occur.

SuperL,
when you will learn that cranks are cranks by many reasons, but the most common for all of them is that they have no drop of knowledge on issues they are talking about?!

Vern,

Yes. The plasma should dissipate incredibly fast, becoming a diffuse, neutral gas.

Yuriy,

Yes, well... Go look at my latest question to MacM in the "Question of gravity" thread.

I was, I red. Sorry, SuperL, but the end of this your journey will be, as it is a usual in disputes with MacM, ... a waste of your time.

According to every fusion power expert and researcher I have ever read, this is absolutely not true.

You have read correctly. Lawson's Criteria set the density as very very tenious. Very little mass involved. The plasma is NOT some super hot high density under tremendous pressure. Indeed leakge of plasma through the magnetic confinement is one problem with maintaining an operating temperature.

Further there is no residual heat as in the decay heat from fission by-products to contend with. A breached magnetic confinment at best might scorch the inner wall of the toroid but would not cause it to mechanically fail.

In fact you would have an implosion not an explosion should torus mechanical failure occur.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/lawson.html#c4

Compare this with Avogadro's Number : 6.02222E26/Kmol

This is not a direct comparison because it is in different units but it at least gives a general view as to how sparse the plasma density is.

See "Safety" of the following link.

http://www.asme.org/iab/DonLanders_0404IABmtg.pdf

I was, I red. Sorry, SuperL, but the end of this your journey will be, as it is a usual in disputes with MacM, ... a waste of your time.

What dispute? What are you smoking? :m:

I was, I red. Sorry, SuperL, but the end of this your journey will be, as it is a usual in disputes with MacM, ... a waste of your time.

Perhaps the great author of the Bibilically profound "Vacuum Theory" might enlighten us all as to the source of the gravity pertabation on pendulums during an eclipse and in my test where GR's COM based concept fails to yield any such predicted affect. :D

Should we believe that "Vacuum Theory" has the answer? I have my doubts. :p

SuperL,
when you will learn that cranks are cranks by many reasons, but the most common for all of them is that they have no drop of knowledge on issues they are talking about?!


Then Yuriy why you are showing your ugly face here? You dont understand anything from the topic and your judgement is not grounded.The others at least are providing arguments, you are providing only emotional burst.

You have read correctly. Lawson's Criteria set the density as very very tenious. Very little mass involved. The plasma is NOT some super hot high density under tremendous pressure. Indeed leakge of plasma through the magnetic confinement is one problem with maintaining an operating temperature.

macm, remember that the reaction is self-substaining. it will not stops immediatelly but for few seconds in the best case. Even these few second will be a problem. There will remain residual heat. Where it would go?

maybe i am wrong, i will check the topic but i am ready to bet that the sudden shutting of magnetic shield will be a serious problem.

Same with PWRs, Chain reaction stops 2-3 seconds after the accident but there is accumulated energy that is enaough to cause melting. You must consider it in dynamic to understand. Not just - the reactor stops and everything is ok.

macm, remember that the reaction is self-substaining. it will not stops immediatelly but for few seconds in the best case. Even these few second will be a problem. There will remain residual heat. Where it would go?

maybe i am wrong, i will check the topic but i am ready to bet that the sudden shutting of magnetic shield will be a serious problem.

Same with PWRs, Chain reaction stops 2-3 seconds after the accident but there is accumulated energy that is enaough to cause melting. You must consider it in dynamic to understand. Not just - the reactor stops and everything is ok.

Certainly you need to satisfy your own comfort level as to the technology but the facts are that at any given time the mass of the fuel confined inside the plasma torus is only 0.3 grams under extreme vacuum conditions.!!!!

Further the Lawson Criteria is extremely difficult to achieve and any reduction in "n" (density) shuts down the process instantly.

Any damage would be from residual heat in the plasma being dispersed into the walls of containment and not from an ongoing process or decay heat perse.

Whereas PWR's and other fission reactors have the problem of the possible core melt down and the fuel forming a liquid critical mass resulting in the "China Syndrome" or uncontrolled continued fissioning process. Fusion is inherently safe in that regard. The fusion fuel cannot by any natural process remain critical.

Everything MacM said (in post below) :D is correct.

I will just add another saftey factor:

The first few energetic ions to hit the wall will eject a few atoms of the wall back into the plasma. It will take a brief time for them to become fully ionized. While they still have bound electrons, they will radiate like crazy. This will quench (very rapidly cool)the plasma. Plasma contact with the wall is no problem.

There may be some probllems (good desgn can solve) with neutron flux on the wall. Also once you have a DT reaction going, the fuel mix can be changed to produce only charged particles (no neutrons). Because they are more energetic, these, can in principle be allowed to escape with well designed Magnetic Geometry. If this can be done, their energy can be converted directly into electricity. (They are stopped by a retarding field and give up their kinetic energy to it. - very high efficiency) This will be very hard to do, but some people are very clever. First we need to learn how to make DT burn. The neuron flux can be usefull also.

Certainly you need to satisfy your own comfort level as to the technology but the facts are that at any given time the mass of the fuel confined inside the plasma torus is only 0.3 grams under extreme vacuum conditions.!!!!

Further the Lawson Criteria is extremely difficult to achieve and any reduction in "n" (density) shuts down the process instantly.

Any damage would be from residual heat in the plasma being dispersed into the walls of containment and not from an ongoing process or decay heat perse.

Whereas PWR's and other fission reactors have the problem of the possible core melt down and the fuel forming a liquid critical mass resulting in the "China Syndrome" or uncontrolled continued fissioning process. Fusion is inherently safe in that regard. The fusion fuel cannot by any natural process remain critical.

Any damage would be from residual heat in the plasma being dispersed into the walls of containment and not from an ongoing process or decay heat perse.

Whereas PWR's and other fission reactors have the problem of the possible core melt down and the fuel forming a liquid critical mass resulting in the "China Syndrome" or uncontrolled continued fissioning process. Fusion is inherently safe in that regard. The fusion fuel cannot by any natural process remain critical.

OK, I had a dozens of calculations with RELAP 5 and CATHARE 2 in which the reactor core melts down because of only the residual heat, long time after the chain reaction had ceased. It was scenario at Three Miles Island. It we had a turbine trip accident with loss of external electricity there is a risk for the reactor core even at 3% from its power. And that is at the low temperatures and energies of the PWRs. I dont understand how this problem do not stands at all for tokamaks at theirs much more higher temperatures.

I had noticed that at the internet sites about tokamaks these and other dangers are not discussed. Here:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip69.htm

is a good description of tokamaks, notice the text:

Tokamaks operate within limited parameters outside which sudden losses of energy confinement (disruptions) can occur, causing major thermal and mechanical stresses to the structure and walls

And this:

However, although fusion generates no radioactive fission products or transuranic elements and the unburned gases can be treated on site, there would a short-term radioactive waste problem due to activation products. Some component materials will become radioactive during the lifetime of a reactor, due to bombardment with high-energy neutrons, and will eventually become radioactive waste. The volume of such waste would be similar to that due to activation products from a fission reactor. The radiotoxicity of these wastes would be relatively short-lived compared with the actinides (long-lived alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes) from a fission reactor.

As I understand tokamak is extremely dangerous even when magnetic shields are on. It is not clear for me how the remained plasma will just 'evaporate' in the case of absence of magnetic field. Even if its pressure is low it will cause damages and erosions on the inner walls. This means that tokamak reactor is very short-living, its walls should be constantly repaired. From the site:

http://inisjp.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/ACT95E/02/0203.htm

it becomes clear that "We have been conducting a detailed simulation study of the problem of thermal transport in a high temperature plasma to identify a physics mechanism that will explain how heat in the plasma escapes from a magnetically confined hot plasma region; a most important and still unsolved problem of plasma confinement."

even if there is magnetic confinement there is significant heat losses which erode walls and drops reactors efficency. Also dont forget that in order such reactors to produce electricity comparable with PWRs its total power should rise much above current experimental levels.

Another problem:

[I}High pressure in the fusion fuel is critical because the power released from fusion reactions increases very rapidly with increasing pressure. However, previous experiments and theory have identified an upper limit to the allowable pressure, called the free-boundary pressure limit. Beyond this pressure limit the hot fusion fuel becomes unstable, bulges outward (see figure), contacts the metal chamber wall, and cools rapidly.[/I}

the free-boundary pressure limit is extimated about 2.6 MPa.

They try to solve it by "spinning the fuel ...., will have broad application to a range of approaches to fusion energy" and later "the spin rate would always slow down and the hot plasma would become unstable and be lost. "

OK, but this spinning requires electricity. If it stop plasma angular momentum will drive it to the walls because the spinning force will cease.

Also they claim that pressure of the plasma should be at least twice the free-boundary pressure limit, i.e about 5 MPa if I had understand correct. For plasma this is quite high pressure. If plasma remains unconstrained it should damage the toroid and reactor walls.

And thats are only few from the many tokamak problems....

They say once for Chernobyl that probability for accident is 1:10 000 000. But you know the story....., Unfortunately human kind had shown so far that it learns from it mistakes only after they had happens, I hope this not to be the case with tokamak.

Xgen; when it comes time to build the commercial fusion power plant, will you be an advocate or among the "the sky is falling" bunch :)

.....And that is at the low temperatures and energies of the PWRs. I dont understand how this problem do not stands at all for tokamaks at theirs much more higher temperatures.
....Here:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip69.htm
is a good description of tokamaks, notice the text:

Tokamaks operate within limited parameters outside which sudden losses of energy confinement (disruptions) can occur, causing major thermal and mechanical stresses to the structure and walls

What you seem to not understand is the difference between temperature and energy. (and later, in part of your post I did not copy, between power and energy.)

I am not going to do the calculation, but bet that it is true that even if you took a "bucket full" of the sun where the temperature is very very hot, you would not have enough energy to boil a thimble ful of ice water!

As stated in my prior post, the main effect of a few ions of plasma hitting the wall of the vacuum vessel would be to knock off a few well adsorbed (that is a technical word, look it up to understand.) gases and a few atoms of the presumablely metal wall. They would convert most of the energy (and it is very little, too small to even significantly warm my thimble of ice water) into UV radiation, quickly quenching the plasma terminating the production of fusion energy. This is not something of "human error" that can make a disaster, but simple well known physics.

Despite this, it is probably true that a sudden collapse of the confining magnetic field, would result in the wall damage your reference spoke of. That wall would be thin as it could safely be (to let DT reaction neurons thru to do useful things outside) strong enough to withstand atmospheric pressure.It probably is metal, and conducts electricity. When the magnetic field collapses, I would not be surprize to find the wall is now useless scrap metal, all twisted by the magnetic forces. Thus the reference is probably correct, you just do not understand why the wall would be damaged. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING HIT BY THE LOW-ENERGY, VERY-HOT PLASMA THAT WAS INSIDE!

Billy, then what means:
this pressure limit the hot fusion fuel becomes unstable, bulges outward, contacts
the metal chamber wall (causing rupture), and cools rapidly.

and why therte is a free-boundary pressure limit at all?

As you are explaining it plasma at high-temperatures is a totaly harmless and cant cause anything with its interaction with walls.

Please answer me then : Why is needed magnetic confinement at all?

And before to answer me that it is needed for holding heat-energy inside it I will tell you that for this can be developed several much more simple techologies. Like 20 meters thich concreet with special heat-conducting armature. Its heat-resistence can be adjusted to as high as needed.

Billy, then what means:
(A) this pressure limit the hot fusion fuel becomes unstable, bulges outward, contacts the metal chamber wall (causing rupture), and cools rapidly.

(B) and why therte is a free-boundary pressure limit at all?

As you are explaining it plasma at high-temperatures is a totaly harmless and cant cause anything with its interaction with walls.

(C) Please answer me then : Why is needed magnetic confinement at all?

(D) And before to answer me that it is needed for holding heat-energy inside it I will tell you that for this can be developed several much more simple techologies. Like 20 meters thich concreet with special heat-conducting armature. Its heat-resistence can be adjusted to as high as needed.

I inserted the (x) in yours.

(A) It is magnetic confinement that is ruptured, not the walls.
(B) A magnetic field can confine at least in some directions (but the plasma is very clever about developing ways to twist out still in all the "magnetic bottles" man has yet been able to make.) The max pressure the mag. field can exert is proprotional to the square of the field strength. That is why there is a limit.
(C)I don't want to ridcule, but I will why do you bring milk home in a bottle? If the air could enter the plasma, it would be impossible to heat it to even 1% of the temperature required to fuse D and T - they have the lowestinition themperature.
(D) I AM NOT ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING SO SILLY. There is very little heat to hold in. Again, without doing the calculations I bet if you take a bath in 100 degree water (assuming you are 98.6) you would be emersed in more heat energy that if surround by a DT reaction at its inition temperature!

XGen,

Billy T has substantially told it like it is but let me give you some figures to think about.

The fuel in the core is less than 0.3 grams. The confinement torus weighs many tons or thousands of kilo grams. To get a precise answer you must first determine the energy content of the core at any given instant. This is not simple, the specific heat of the plasma vs the specific heat of the confinement material must be known. (Specific heat the the amount of energy absorbed per degree rise per pound of material).

Now if you have 0.3 grams of ions at 100,000,000F you must convert that into energy, i.e. - BTU content. You then must apply that amount of BTU to the pounds mass of the confinement vessle at its specific heat value to see how much temperature rise that energy would give the vessle.

Comparing the fuel mass to the confinment mass means several millions of ratio differance, even if you were to assume they had the same specific heat.

In the case of water the specific heat is easy to remember. It is 1 BTU/Pound/F. 10 gallons is about 83.4 pounds or 38,000 grams. Divided by 0.3 grams (assume they have equal specific heats which they don't) means the core at 100,000,000F would heat 10 gallons of water to about 1,250F. Of course that is super heated steam conditions.

However if we assume our confinement vessle weighs the equivelent of 1,000 gallons of water then the temperature rise would only be 12.5F. So without getting to complicated and making all the precise conversions you can see that several tons of confinment adequately absorbs the energy content of the 100,000,000F plasma.

If you will indulge me briefly, I find the following message of vital importance to us all singly and collectively. If anybody familiar wiwth me and are still wondering at my "style",m well, this is just the way o do it.

I bring an observation of a personal and collectve condition to your attentions. The condition or syndrome could have sever consequences so on the mere possibility of such an event generating to some undesired brink of disaster I ftook it upon myself to gallopp once again through your village square and ring your bell.The condition I observe in yourselves is amplified in the participation in this thread. All of you may not have participated here, but this is of no consequence to the observed condition. I do not intend to make light of a serious matter, but were I in your shoes I would want someone to bring this matter to my immediate attention.

Your comments on fusion/fission are commendable, but the fear thing is not going away easily. The "tree huggers" will always be with us but it is not they who barriers to a rational energy ditribution system, not ny a long shot. And . believe it or not, the owbners of the sources and distribution of energy do not heed democratic imperatives i confilicting with unilateral and total manipulation of the "free" market places. "Free" to the most casual of these people means, "free to steal". No conspiracy theory here folks, I can see what is going on as well as the next one in line.

All of you are observed as afflicted with an addiction. The additicion is recognized in a " 'blinders on' focus to a predicted 'high-tech' future". This by itself is not necessarily bad, or harmful or even undesirable. but the thing about addictions is the elevated cost that follows a committed desire to maintain a particlular personal condition, like personal and collective survival. A current major national addiction, for instanceis for "oil" wow how did I fugure that one out?). Look around yourself and see what the cost is. The harmful aspects of addicition is shinning in the sunlight of todays headlines. This harm is manifest in the really insginificant numbers of people maintaining complete and utter control over all aspect of oil usage from well to the gas tank. The control extends far beyond the assuring Aunt Martha that her tank will always be full. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is a reality. Corrupt political systems exacerbate the addicitons and even initiate them .

When owners and distributors (many eternally perpetrated through familial, and "club -like" organizations, even governments) masterfully combine to guarantee 100% control of an essestial market commofity there is the onset of another commodity addiction syndrome.

There will always be tree huggers and people who fear Nukes. These are not your enemy or oppoents, these are echoes of your conscience. All of your combined technicals skills will not dent much of that which is generally classified as fear. The only way Nukes get built is by ramming them down people's throats, or of course, through deftly implemented and inncouous seeming propaganda. So when you discuss fusion/fission energy vis 'a vis petro;eum energy sources plug in the PR/Fear/Ownwersip-Distribution/political-corruption factors in you equations.

Your personal addictions areiunquestioned. Your scientific hungers are 'boarding house biased'. You fill your plates from the pool of options restricted to what you observe on the table in from of you and you ask mot what would you want the proprietors to place before you at the time. So focused are you that a righteous menu condition has been avoided as us you have never heard of menus, except theoretically perhaps. Where you are served what you choose from before you is recogonizable from the absence of he the truly tasty morsels taht are an intirinsic entries in The Standard Delicacies List . Myself, when dining in similar communal boarding house settings and someone asks :"who wants the last pork chop, thunk!, my fork's got that sucker speared before the question mark goes down? I know people who are really greedy in these situations.
The best biarding houses don't have "last pork chop scenarios., these facilities have extensive menus borne on the shouldes of a conpetitive market place.

Expand your focus to another energetic horizon, here (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3878&stc=1) and all you will need is a basic engineering design spec.. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3877&stc=1)

Geistkiesel

Myself, when dining in similar communal boarding house settings and someone asks :"who wants the last pork chop, thunk!, my fork's got that sucker speared before the question mark goes down?

I know people who are really greedy in these situations.
The best biarding houses don't have "last pork chop scenarios., these facilities have extensive menus borne on the shouldes of a conpetitive market place.
Geistkiesel

HeHe, I'll keep that in mind if we should ever dine together. I won't ask, I'll just fork the sucker. :D

Don't mis-judge my position since I have a nuclear background. I am all for alternative energy supplies. Greed, fear and stupidity have virtually distroyed any advantage to PWR or fission plants.

I do think fusion has a future however, assuming the greed, fear factor and stupidity doesn't also destroy it.

In fact my next patent due to issue this April is a new Wind Energy Conversion System, more on that when it comes out.

But maybe we should all look more closely at "N" machines. :D

HeHe, I'll keep that in mind if we should ever dine together. I won't ask, I'll just fork the sucker. :D

Don't mis-judge my position since I have a nuclear background. I am all for alternative energy supplies. Greed, fear and stupidity have virtually distroyed any advantage to PWR or fission plants.

I do think fusion has a future however, assuming the greed, fear factor and stupidity doesn't also destroy it.

In fact my next patent due to issue this April is a new Wind Energy Conversion System, more on that when it comes out.

But maybe we should all look more closely at "N" machines. :D
MacM,
I heard of an interesting statistic: Nebraska alone has suffcient wind conditions to effciently power all the states surrounding Nebraska.


Which would be the more efficient a pool of wind driven propellor units driving individual electric generators or ganged to drive a massive inertial wheel?
Maybe Big Secret?=
Auotmatic variable pitch need adjustable props freely rotating on axis of support pole possibly driving a multi-input over designed inertial wheel ?

Geistkiesel
BTW: I applied for employment and was hired by a common uncle of ours in El Paso, Tx. 'a while back': Tis a truly blissful garden spot, EP is.

I inserted the (x) in yours.

(A) It is magnetic confinement that is ruptured, not the walls.
(B) A magnetic field can confine at least in some directions (but the plasma is very clever about developing ways to twist out still in all the "magnetic bottles" man has yet been able to make.) The max pressure the mag. field can exert is proprotional to the square of the field strength. That is why there is a limit.
(C)I don't want to ridcule, but I will why do you bring milk home in a bottle? If the air could enter the plasma, it would be impossible to heat it to even 1% of the temperature required to fuse D and T - they have the lowestinition themperature.
(D) I AM NOT ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING SO SILLY. There is very little heat to hold in. Again, without doing the calculations I bet if you take a bath in 100 degree water (assuming you are 98.6) you would be emersed in more heat energy that if surround by a DT reaction at its inition temperature!


Billy, I tought that i understand a bit from fusion before, but now I am sure that i do not understand it at all!

i order to produce 1 MW electricity you need 3 MW heat energy in a standard PWR reactor. This means that the whole heat energy carried by the circulating water through the reactor is 3 000 000 W, this energy is transfered from steam-generators to a hot steam which is used by torbine to produce only 1 MW electricity, because efficency is quite low - about 35%

then, how plasma with very little heat energy and weighting only 0.3 grams according to macM can produce 1000 mW electricity?

if there is some fantastic way to produce electricity without first to produce a greater quantity heat i am eager to hear it, but i suspect that in order the plasma reaction to be self-consistent a great quantity of heat would be needed because heat is what propels D and T agains each other (I am not sure for this)

i cant find appropriate data about (theoretical) fusion reactor, can you give me some data:

For a 1 MW (ELECTRICITY) fusion reactor:

1. What is the mass of the plasma
2. What is T
3. How many neutrons are produced per second from DT
4. How many heat is produced from the whole plasma per second
5. What is the volume of the chamber filled with plasma
6. What is the rotation speed of the plasma
7. How big is the magnetic field of the confinement

according to you?

Sorry about my incompetence but i had read several sites about tokamaks but noone gives detailed information and calculations

Billy, I tought that i understand a bit from fusion before, but now I am sure that i do not understand it at all!

i order to produce 1 MW electricity you need 3 MW heat energy in a standard PWR reactor. This means that the whole heat energy carried by the circulating water through the reactor is 3 000 000 W, this energy is transfered from steam-generators to a hot steam which is used by torbine to produce only 1 MW electricity, because efficency is quite low - about 35%

then, how plasma with very little heat energy and weighting only 0.3 grams according to macM can produce 1000 mW electricity?

if there is some fantastic way to produce electricity without first to produce a greater quantity heat i am eager to hear it, but i suspect that in order the plasma reaction to be self-consistent a great quantity of heat would be needed because heat is what propels D and T agains each other (I am not sure for this)

i cant find appropriate data about (theoretical) fusion reactor, can you give me some data:

For a 1 MW (ELECTRICITY) fusion reactor:

1. What is the mass of the plasma
2. What is T
3. How many neutrons are produced per second from DT
4. How many heat is produced from the whole plasma per second
5. What is the volume of the chamber filled with plasma
6. What is the rotation speed of the plasma
7. How big is the magnetic field of the confinement

according to you?

Sorry about my incompetence but i had read several sites about tokamaks but noone gives detailed information and calculations I can't respond to you until you understand the difference between power (W = watts) and energy (J= joules or BTU, foot-pounds, etc if you want the silly english units) A Joule is the erergy delivered by a 1W power source in 1 second.

I did not read all of yours carefully. Ask agian when you at least know the difference between energy and power.

I too have two fears about fusion power.
(1) It may never be possible to confine the plasma long enough, which is hot enough for sustained reactions, even the coolest one (DT).
(2) If fear (1) proves to be false, then it may be hunderds of years before it can economically compete with coal. I don't know the exact number (really there is none as it varries with the long term interest rate) but most (90%?) of the production cost of your electric power is the cost of the capital tied up in plant and transmission lines, trnsformers etc. Thus even if the fuel were free (as it essentially would be if fusion can be made to work) a 15% extra cost for the fusion plant, compared to a coal plant, could make it a pipe dream. (And I fear that the cost of such compex system could easily be double, especially when one is honest about the low energy content of the plasma and the large size that a 50MW fusion plant would probably require.)

Perhaps when the "tree huggers" finally realize that coal power is currently killing at least 100,000 people every year and increasing the radiation level of the air we breath more than even fission power plants do for the same power capacity, they will change their tune. If they do, "funny economics" (taxes etc.) may be able to save fusion power even it it can't honestly compete with Coal. (The extra hidden cost of health care, lives lost prematurely etc. will be useful agruments for this to happen.) All coal has some radioactive atoms that are released into the air. The averge coal has enought that the hugh tonnage burnt make it more poluting even in radiation per KWh generated tha fission. Not to mention the chemical polution that kills so many people, fish, trees, etc.

In another post, I can't now find, I gave some bases for the 100K deaths /year. 7000 thousand are miners (half in China) 3000 are directly connected to transport and burning, but most are health related to polution deaths. The non-death damage exteneds to almost every one. "king coal" is a killer that few can match.

The greens should take a little time out from protesting fission power (well regulated of course, like the french do, not like the US does) to understand how many non hypothetical people they are killing every year by having made (thru delaying tactics that greatly increased the captial cost) fission uneconomical in the US.

I can't respond to you until you understand the difference between power (W = watts) and energy (J= joules or BTU, foot-pounds, etc if you want the silly english units) A Joule is the erergy delivered by a 1W power source in 1 second.

Now it is my turn to tell you that you are talking silly things. I know what is the difference between joul and watt, I am talking about watts because we need a constant production of energy with time, when you pay you bill to the Electric Company you pays for kWats not for jouls. It can be unbelivable but I even know that UI = Eheat, which connects electricity and heat. So accually reactor specialist, Billy, are measuring heat in MW not in jouls, that was not me that had choosed it.

From your post I can conclude that you cant give me the numbers that I had ask you which means that you had never made serious calculations about fusion reactors, you do not know the plasma parameters and you do not know how much heat is producing the reactor.

About this things you had sayed there about coal and the "50MW fusion plant". Billy, electricity produced by PWRs is 3 times more cheap then all other kinds of electricity production! The PWRs standard production is 1000 MW, which is 20 times as much as this fusion plant, which finally as you had calculate will cost much more then the coal plant. About the so-called "alternative energy sources", there had been serious surveys which had determined that "the combined technically achivable electric power from wind, solar energy, tidal waves, geothermal energy and etc" will be able to meet only 2-3% from the needs from electricity of the global economy at the end of this century.

MacM,
I heard of an interesting statistic: Nebraska alone has suffcient wind conditions to effciently power all the states surrounding Nebraska.

Which would be the more efficient a pool of wind driven propellor units driving individual electric generators or ganged to drive a massive inertial wheel?

I haven't seen a ganged system and not sure how you envision doing that. However, I suspect a ganged system is not practical and provides no real advantage.

The problem is distribution. There are general rules of spacing of wind capturing devices in the array of a farm due to turbulence and shadowing. Properly spaced units could not realistically be ganged.

Now if you are talking about electrically ganged to drive an inertial wheel that is a different matter. Although I find other temporary storage techniques more practical.

i.e - Conversion of excess energy at peak periods into hydrogen fuel then used to power gas turbines or fuel cells in off hours, days or weeks.

Maybe Big Secret?=
Auotmatic variable pitch need adjustable props freely rotating on axis of support pole possibly driving a multi-input over designed inertial wheel ?

Geistkiesel

You can't open the package until Christmas. Gotta wait. :D

BTW: I applied for employment and was hired by a common uncle of ours in El Paso, Tx. 'a while back': Tis a truly blissful garden spot, EP is.

Interesting. Can you PM me the name of the employer? If you come to El Paso you need to make contact.

Now it is my turn to tell you that you are talking silly things. .... when you pay you bill to the Electric Company you pays for kWats not for jouls. ...
I am sad to see that you still fail to realize that you are paying for KWat hours, a unit of energy, not "kWats" which are a unit of power. You pay for energy, not power, although if you are a big industrial user, and the electric company must install big transformers etc to handel your peak power demands and the bill will be more complex to make to compensate them for the extra cost of big transformers, heaver gage wire, etc.

Joules are also a unit of energy as I told you in prior post, a watt delivered for one second. Because there are 3600 seconds in an hour, one WattHour = 3600 joules. It is impossible to discuss with you in your current state of ignorance about the difference between power and energy.

About the so-called "alternative energy sources", there had been serious surveys which had determined that "the combined technically achivable electric power from wind, solar energy, tidal waves, geothermal energy and etc" will be able to meet only 2-3% from the needs from electricity of the global economy at the end of this century.
It would be interesting to find out kust who sposored the 'Surveys" of which you speak. Whio made th surveys and what is the nature of the sata from which the conclusions were maade?

Until you provide the numbers thjat you so casually and forcfully presented to the readers I must conclude that you are unaware of the true natue f the surveys, that you have never nmade any calulations or studies of implied'predicted need vs predicted availability of altenatives.

There were some "surveys" that calculated there is enough wind power in Nebraska (western) to provide for all the electrical needs of the states surrounding Nebraska. at thy present time.

Personally I think your 2-3% numbers are bullshit. First of all the sigma 1 is what,i 50%? It appears you are parroting something you incidentally read that you just conincidentally believe.

geistkiesel

It would be interesting to find out kust who sposored the 'Surveys" of which you speak. Whio made th surveys and what is the nature of the sata from which the conclusions were maade?

Until you provide the numbers thjat you so casually and forcfully presented to the readers I must conclude that you are unaware of the true natue f the surveys, that you have never nmade any calulations or studies of implied'predicted need vs predicted availability of altenatives.

There were some "surveys" that calculated there is enough wind power in Nebraska (western) to provide for all the electrical needs of the states surrounding Nebraska. at thy present time.

Personally I think your 2-3% numbers are bullshit. First of all the sigma 1 is what,i 50%? It appears you are parroting something you incidentally read that you just conincidentally believe.

geistkiesel

I think the differance here is inthe make up of the 2-3%. I have seen simular numbers quoted but they are for the amount of wind, etc that will be on line. Not the amount of alternative energy actually available.

It would be interesting to find out kust who sposored the 'Surveys" of which you speak. Whio made th surveys and what is the nature of the sata from which the conclusions were maade?
Until you provide the numbers thjat you so casually and forcfully presented to the readers I must conclude that you are unaware of the true natue f the surveys, that you have never nmade any calulations or studies of implied'predicted need vs predicted availability of altenatives.
There were some "surveys" that calculated there is enough wind power in Nebraska (western) to provide for all the electrical needs of the states surrounding Nebraska. at thy present time.
Personally I think your 2-3% numbers are bullshit. First of all the sigma 1 is what,i 50%? It appears you are parroting something you incidentally read that you just conincidentally believe.


:p , Wow, geistkiesel, take it easy. I am not patroning noone and I am not a part of conspiracy to advertise nuclear energy. Yes, you are right to demand more information and I will give it to you soon. The survays I am talking about are very serious, they had been maded in 60s,70s and 80s by russians (after all, despite an individual around here russians are not stupid people :D ), and they presume that at year 2100 the average electricity consumation would be 2 kw per person in developed countries (I assume that it will be even more). Then it had been proved that all alternative sources are not technically achivable , for example it had been proved that solar energy is very big as absolute value, but it had low density (something from order 300 W / m2) and you need too much area of solar panels to collect energy even near to match only one nuclear power plant. The all aluminium present in earth and technically achivable is about 144 000 tons and even if it all is used for solar panels it would satisfy only few percents from the world demand of electricity!

You are right to demand the exact references of the surveys, tomorow I will find the book and will give you its author, date for publication and etc. In it there had been maded many calculations, there had been maded projections that predicts the world power demand and so on. I am sure that there american and western books which contain similar surveys. After all the French, Japans, Russions, Sweden, Finland, Canada and US are not stupid to develop and build nuclear power reactors (US has too many even as it not presently building new, if you look at the map of US there are hundreds of reactors) , only some stupid countries that do not understand anything from nuclear physics, like Greece, Turkey and Spain, are against it. These countries, where 'the Green' (or vegetables as I call them) are dominant do not have even a single nuclear reactor but they are trying to close the reactors of the others. They understand only from tourism, agriculture, restaurants and similar kind of buisness, they either import electricity or because they lack industrial plants they do not need much electricity. Turkey however is planning to build 4 russian type reactors. Germany and Norways are the only exceptions in Europe but both countries are begging to sorry very much that they had neglected nuclear power.

Xgen,
only some stupid countries that do not understand anything from nuclear physics, like Greece, Turkey and Spain, are against it
Country can not be stupid, individuals can. Clear example - you.

I ment political parties, leaders ...., for example even as russions are not stupid as individuals (there is some exceptions however) but because they had for a long time stupid political regime, neglecting peoples civilian rights and freedom, they had eventually colapsed and now Russia GDP is less then Holands GDP! A country with 15 million people, with no resources produce more GDP then a country with 150 millions people, enormous resources, a former empire and brilliant scientists!

And this is a short information about current GDP of some countries (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp):

Country Description

Definition: The gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. GDP dollar estimates in the Factbook are derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. See the CIA World Factbook for more information.

Amount 1. United States $10.45 trillion (2002 est.) 2. China $5.989 trillion (2002 est.) 3. Japan $3.651 trillion (2002 est.) 4. India $2.664 trillion (2002 est.) 5. Germany $2.16 trillion (2002 est.) 6. France $1.558 trillion (2002 est.) 7. United Kingdom $1.528 trillion (2002 est.) 8. Italy $1.455 trillion (2002 est.) 9. Russia $1.409 trillion (2002 est.) 10. Brazil $1.376 trillion (2002 est.) 11. Korea, South $941.5 billion (2002 est.) 12. Canada $934.1 billion (2002 est.) 13. Mexico $924.4 billion (2002 est.) 14. Spain $850.7 billion (2002 est.) 15. Indonesia $714.2 billion (2002 est.) 16. Australia $525.5 billion (2002 est.) 17. Turkey $489.7 billion (2002 est.) 18. Iran $458.3 billion (2002 est.) 19. Thailand $445.8 billion (2002 est.) 20. Netherlands $437.8 billion (2002 est.) 21. South Africa $427.7 billion (2002 est.) 22. Taiwan $406 billion (2002 est.) 23. Argentina $403.8 billion (2002 est.)....

Xgen, shame on you for that:
and now Russia GDP is less then Holands GDP
That is why anything you say here should be checked out very carefully...

...that at year 2100 the average electricity consumation would be 2 kw per person in developed countries That is 2 kwh, a unit of energy. Kw is a unit of power. You still need to learn the difference.

...solar energy is very big as absolute value, but it had low density (something from order 300 W / m2) ... Solar energy is not measured in W/m2. I would normally let this error pass, but this is the fourth time I have had to point out that you do not understand the difference between power and energy.

Yuriy,

United States $10,437,635.00
China 1,284.304 1
Luxembourg $47,725.00
Japan $3,934,066.00
India 1,045.845
Norway $39,103.00
Germany $2,012,728.00
Netherlands $426,402.00
Brazil $471,630.00
Russia $347,796.00
Australia $378,052.00

reference:
http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/gdpnumericcer.asp?TYPE=GRANK&TBL=NUMERICCER&vCOUNTRY=142


Your data is invalid as everything you had posted. Accually sorry, Russia GDP is a well lower then that of Netherlands. It is expected this or next year it to reach this of Netherlands, as you can see from :

http://www.balticdata.info/russia/economics/macro_economics/russia_macro_economics_russia_GNP_GDP_summary.htm

The country's economy has experienced a positive trend since the beginning of 1999 which naturally has reflected to its GDP. GDP growth has varied between 5-10% since 1999 and is expected to reach 6-8 % also in 2003. If these expectations are realized, in 2003 Russia will end up with a GDP in real prices well over 10000 billion roubles, which is approximately in line with the figures of e.g. the Netherlands.

Information demanded by geistkiesel about alternative energy sources

I sorry but I had not found in the library translated in english copy, the book title and authors are as follows:

Jadrenaja energetika, chelowek i okrujaustaja sreda.
Moscow 1981
Energoatomizdat

Authors: N.S.Babaev, W.F.Demin, L.A.Ilyin

You may find english copy in some big university, here are some data from the book conserning the topic about which we argued:

1960 - 1975 4.3% growth of energy consuption in the world

Estimation for electricity consuption per person in US and developed countries : 20 kW

Population at 2100 - 12 000 000

This quantity is used for as energy unit
1Q = 3.35 10^7 MW energy

Between 2000-2020 is expected total produced electricity per year to rise to 1 - 1.5 Q.
Up to year 2100 - at least 3.5 Q / year

in the book had been studied the following alternative energy resources:

- hydoenergetic resources
- tidal waves
- solar energy
- wind energy
- ocean energy
- geothermal and volcano energy
- geothermal waters energy

It had been proved that none of them is significant and can not be satisfy big portion of world electricity demand at 2100, plus that all of them are quite expensive comparing to nuclear energy and energy from oil and coal plants.

here are the maximal technicaly achivable quantities for the world:

kind: reserves: tech. achivable:
- hydoenergetic resources - 0.1 Q ........ 0.03 Q
- tidal waves - ....... 0.014 Q
- solar energy 2000 Q ....... 0.2 - 0.3 Q (very hardly)
- wind energy 1.56 Q ....... 0.04 Q
- ocean energy - ....... 0.02 Q (very hardly)
- geothermal and volcano energy 16 Q ....... none
- geothermal waters energy - ........ 0.03 Q

None of them can be even a close match for nuclear energy. The big problem of most alternative sources is that they are big as absolute value but has very low energy density. For wind energy there is needed too much areas, too big propelers and many other technical problems (the density of air is very low and the wind has unpredictable intensity and direction).

Pay attension geistkiesel, here we are talking about techical potentials not reserves. i am not arguing that reserves are big, we just cant use them.

Sorry if this sounds quite stupid, but wouldn't the easiest way of finding out what would happen if the magnetic field was shut off during operation be to build or transfer a Tokomak to the Nevada desert (where they did all the nuke tests) and shutting it off in a carefully controlled test?

Sorry if this sounds quite stupid, but wouldn't the easiest way of finding out what would happen if the magnetic field was shut off during operation be to build or transfer a Tokomak to the Nevada desert (where they did all the nuke tests) and shutting it off in a carefully controlled test?

Doesn't sound stupid, it would be stupid. No need to test. The consequences are easily understood. No "BANG", not even "Pfffff".

Doesn't sound stupid, it would be stupid. No need to test. The consequences are easily understood. No "BANG", not even "Pfffff".

Ok then. That's good, i guess.

Not even a "pfft"? What noise does the plasma make then?

Ok then. That's good, i guess.

Not even a "pfft"? What noise does the plasma make then?

As posted earlier:

The fuel in the core is less than 0.3 grams. The confinement torus weighs many tons or thousands of kilograms. Odds are you'd hear nothing.

And anything you might hear would be drowned out by the sound of the cryostats, vacuum pumps, turbines, generators... you get the idea.

I don't remember... does sound travel in a vacuum? Like in the confinement torus?

I was thinking more about a twich in the confinement coils from some induction phenomena. Of course it's not a complete vacuum but I understand it's a "pretty good" vacuum.

Yeah. I was kinda kidding about the sound in vacuum thing.

I don't remember... does sound travel in a vacuum? Like in the confinement torus?

No but the suggestion is a breach of containment (loss of vacuum). Which that in mind what one might hear would be a giant sucking sound. Except no breach will occur.


Also the sound if any of impinging particles on the containment would transmit through the structure not the vacuumous plasma. :bugeye:

Oh. I thought we were just talking about loss of magnetic containment.

Just for fun:

Surface area of the confinement torus:

A = 4 pi^2*R1*R2 where R1 = tube radius, R2 = torus center to tube center

I estimate R1 = 3m and R2 = 10m, so

A = 1184.4 m^2

Now, if the atomic weight of hydrogen = 1.0079g/mole then 0.3g of hydrogen = .30237mole. The number of hydrogen atoms is then

.30237*6.0225e23 = 1.82e23 atoms in the plasma.

If the temperature of the plasma is 15e6 Kelvin, then the average kinetic energy of an atom in the plasma is:

Ke = (3/2)*kT where k is Boltzmann's constant = (3/2)*1.38065e-23*15e6

= 3.106e-16 J per atom.

The total average kinetic energy of the plasma is then 3.106e-16 * 1.82e23
= 5.656e7 J

If we say that all of the energy is transferred to the torus, then we have:

5.656e7 J spread out over an area of 1184.4 m^2 = 47754 J/m^2 or

4.7754 J/cm^2

For comparison, this is like dropping a 1kg mass about 1/2 meter.

If this admittedly rough calculation is even remotely close, I think we might hear a large bang, but no real damage. It's not much energy per square cm.

NOTE: Calcs were done really quick and dirty. Feel free to correct and debate. Fun, fun, fun!

Actually, from what I've read the only real problem caused by loss of magnetic containment is that the plasma does strike the inside lining. The heat of the plasma melts a thin layer of the surface briefly. The lining no longer has the properties re surface adsorbtion that are needed. The plasma is very sensitive to contaminents. An expensive mishap rather than an explosive one. ;)

Oh. I thought we were just talking about loss of magnetic containment.

Did you miss the innuendo in the comment about doing the test in the Nevada "A" bomb test site?

Just for fun:

Excellent exercise. Simular to my containment mass - specific heat ball park scenario where I showed a 12F rise.

Actually, from what I've read the only real problem caused by loss of magnetic containment is that the plasma does strike the inside lining. The heat of the plasma melts a thin layer of the surface briefly. The lining no longer has the properties re surface adsorbtion that are needed. The plasma is very sensitive to contaminents. An expensive mishap rather than an explosive one. ;)


Good assessment.

Information demanded by geistkiesel about alternative energy sources

I sorry but I had not found in the library translated in english copy, the book title and authors are as follows:

Jadrenaja energetika, chelowek i okrujaustaja sreda.
Moscow 1981
Energoatomizdat

Authors: N.S.Babaev, W.F.Demin, L.A.Ilyin

You may find english copy in some big university, here are some data from the book conserning the topic about which we argued:

1960 - 1975 4.3% growth of energy consuption in the world

Estimation for electricity consuption per person in US and developed countries : 20 kW

Population at 2100 - 12 000 000

This quantity is used for as energy unit
1Q = 3.35 10^7 MW energy

Between 2000-2020 is expected total produced electricity per year to rise to 1 - 1.5 Q.
Up to year 2100 - at least 3.5 Q / year

in the book had been studied the following alternative energy resources:

- hydoenergetic resources
- tidal waves
- solar energy
- wind energy
- ocean energy
- geothermal and volcano energy
- geothermal waters energy

It had been proved that none of them is significant and can not be satisfy big portion of world electricity demand at 2100, plus that all of them are quite expensive comparing to nuclear energy and energy from oil and coal plants.

here are the maximal technicaly achivable quantities for the world:

kind: reserves: tech. achivable:
- hydoenergetic resources - 0.1 Q ........ 0.03 Q
- tidal waves - ....... 0.014 Q
- solar energy 2000 Q ....... 0.2 - 0.3 Q (very hardly)
- wind energy 1.56 Q ....... 0.04 Q
- ocean energy - ....... 0.02 Q (very hardly)
- geothermal and volcano energy 16 Q ....... none
- geothermal waters energy - ........ 0.03 Q

None of them can be even a close match for nuclear energy. The big problem of most alternative sources is that they are big as absolute value but has very low energy density. For wind energy there is needed too much areas, too big propelers and many other technical problems (the density of air is very low and the wind has unpredictable intensity and direction).

Pay attension geistkiesel, here we are talking about techical potentials not reserves. i am not arguing that reserves are big, we just cant use them.


EDIT ADDED: I have this edit to offer after I noticed the year of publication which means the paper was produced under th auspices of the USSR, hardly an organization concerned with the massive pollution of the atmosphere or of any massive needed processes that weren't centralized. You may trust governements to "do the right thing", I don't. For instance, count the number of dead Arabs slaughtered in the name of fightinmg terrorism. And of course making sure that the oil in Iraq is made readily available to te rest of the world as determined by the powerful, the greedy and the monstrous and coincidentally those forces that control the petroleum based sources.

s I cannot argue with numbers I cannot see. However I can see some arbitrary statements in: "for wind energy there is needed too much area, too big propellors and many other technical problems (the density of air is very low and the wind has unpredictable intensity and direction).

I am paying close attention to what you are talking about.

I have read reports (will supply when I recover them) that there is enough wind in the western part of Nebraska to supply all the energy needs of the states surrounding Nebraska. The 'ar'ea' needs are trivial as the base of the propeller shaft is what, 4 m^2 max? What are the specifications that define a "too big propellors". There was initially a problem in direction of the wind that was corrected by direction seeking propellors (on free rotating swivels). Likewise there are control system that can adjust for maximum efficiency for different wind speeds.

Likewise, Xgen I see no reference to any river powered models.This was probably just an oversight.
Iam fioercely scepticval of reports such as the ione you presented, where i am not provvy to the information used, gthe calculations the swcience, gthe politics the whle enmchalada. Whagt should we all do Xgen trust you? Trust you are 100% ciorrect? trust that youren't consciously or subconsciously supporting established energy monopolies civil or governemntal? Shall we trust you to predict thagt the current energy usage rate will be carried into the next 100 yuears? Are the figures quoted taking into account energy conservation in the design and devlopemnt of structures and processes that are predicted to consume the energy? Have all possibilities been considered?

Why would you a scientist express by implication that what you provided in the way of argument and fact (as in the reports you citred) that nuclear power is the only possible future for us? Is your interest int the subject matter of this thread purely professional?

The report stated:
"here are the maximal technicaly available quantities for the world:" I would really like to see how these numbers are determined. What was it a few 'scientists' setting around the tabkle making predicitions with an ad ahoc assesment of future needs?

And most of all Xgen I would like to see how the report negates any advancement in energy sources development, such as hydrogen powered processes, as one single example. What is chilling about reports such as these is they get quoted as impecable truth and public policy gets estyablished based on the sjunproved assertions. Taken to the extreme any significant research into alternative fuel source development get minimized. There is already significant opposition to alternative fuel sources by esttablished fuel concerns, both civil and governmental.

Calculate how many metric acres opf corn are required 10^6 average sizde automobiles per annum, then calculate the available farm land that can be developed to produce diesel fuel in the form of corn oil, which I have seen in operation. Environmentally pure corn oil can solve many problems. Cxorn oil doesn't have the glamor of "high tech" associated with it and certainly seems palelin comparison to nuclear power doesn't it?

It is those who think linearly, such as the beauthy of nuclear fuel, which I might add will also provide a source of arms grade fuel at the same time providing electricity too cheap to meter.

Xgebn research the Texas nuclear plant in Bay City,Texas and then explain to me the beauties of nuclear power and explain the adminbitration of the nuclear systems regarding arms grade fuel, safety, storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

Finally, are there sufficient supplies of nuclear fuel spread over many locations in many parts of the planet such that the fuel sources are not geographically centralized? to eliminate serious political competition for access to the fuel.
Geistkiesel

Xgen,
Here is a small sampling of googled 'wind enrgy in Nebraska' as promised.
http://www.neo.state.ne.us/neq_online/dec2004/dec2004index.htm
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/generalag/nf304.htm
http://wind.dynalias.com/
http://www.nppd.com/About_Us/Energy_Facilities/facilities/wind_generation.asp
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/archive/page.cfm?pageID=132
geistkiesel

Xgen,
Here is a small sampling of googled 'wind enrgy in Nebraska' as promised.
http://www.neo.state.ne.us/neq_online/dec2004/dec2004index.htm
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/generalag/nf304.htm
http://wind.dynalias.com/
http://www.nppd.com/About_Us/Energy_Facilities/facilities/wind_generation.asp
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/archive/page.cfm?pageID=132
geistkiesel


Just a few notes:

As you may well know from other postings, I am in the wind energy conversion business. That is I have a patented wind energy conversion system which seems to resolve many of the negative factors that have restrained wind energy development historically; which investors have grabbed onto and are introducing physically.

So certainly I am in favor of wind development.

There are many issues to keep in mind when reading wind facts.

1 - Computing macroscopic wind potential and converting that into energy available can be grossly misleading.

1 - There are very real physical constrants on how close wind turbines can be located due to the turbulance and wind reduction caused by such a device. In general it is around (7) blade diameters between towers.

It is more complicated in that such distribution is not symetrical. That is the orientation orthogonal to the wind direction is not the same as the orientation down wind from towers and the wind direction frequently changes.

The reduces the available wind per acre substantailly from any macroscopic wind energy available view.

2 - Wind farm locations must be in an area natural topography or man made structures do not alter wind patterns, i.e. - hills, trees, buildings, etc.

3 - #2 generally makes wind sites in remote areas and then you have the cost of distribution from the site to a civilized consumer area.

4 - Wind is indeed very erratic. What is more disturbing is the wind veloicty cubed relationship and the fact that convential wind turbine systems actually shut down in high wind conditions. That is the macroscopic view of wind energy availalbe is radically more than what is currently being captured since 1 day of extraordinary wind can equal a full years wind energy output in the sites average winds and it is in those periods that today such systems capture none of that energy.

A study I did for a site in New Mexico some years ago showed that statistically a hybrid alternative energy concept is indicated. That is combining solar and wind substantially improves the stability of energy output.

When they had wind was more in predawn hours or stormy weather when solar was not available and vice versa.

5 - Also the wind farms of today and enviornmentalists clash from noise pollution in those rare populated areas with wind farms and bird lovers since these proppellers do kill birds.

6 - Mathematically there is a theoretical limit on wind energy conversion which says you can only extract approximately 60% of such energy.

Regarding Nuclear power I am also in favor of it's expansion, at least in the interim to full push for alternative energy facilities.

1 - Nuclear waste is only a problem because of our ignorance of shutting down the spent fuel reprocessing plants and storing spent fuel as rad-waste.

That can be overcome by reopening such plants and even recovering fuel from existing storage areas. We would be cleaning up the enviornment at the same time.

2 - It is a known technology which can quickly be installed and to stop using forgeign oil, etc.

3 - Conversion of existing nuke war heads into fuel for nuke plants solves two problems in one process.

The problem here is nobody wants such a plant in their neighborhood. :D

MacM,

I have driven among the wind farms of southern California. At first they appear very grand and even a little awe inspiring. But then you see them in the context of the desert beauty surrounding them and realize that they are a blight on the landscape. Same goes for huge solar cell farms, or solar/tower reflector farms, etc. I am a fan of nuclear (fission and hopefully eventually fusion).

How much do you estimate it would add to the construction cost of a power plant (one of the ugliest structures known to man) to build it completely underground?

It's just that I live in a rural part of south-central PA, and as I look out my office window, I see a red barn, a pasture with some horses, with some rolling forested hills in the distance. Quite beautiful actually. Would I pay a bit higher energy bill to preserve this? Yep.

MacM,

I have driven among the wind farms of southern California. At first they appear very grand and even a little awe inspiring. But then you see them in the context of the desert beauty surrounding them and realize that they are a blight on the landscape. Same goes for huge solar cell farms, or solar/tower reflector farms, etc. I am a fan of nuclear (fission and hopefully eventually fusion).

How much do you estimate it would add to the construction cost of a power plant (one of the ugliest structures known to man) to build it completely underground?

It's just that I live in a rural part of south-central PA, and as I look out my office window, I see a red barn, a pasture with some horses, with some rolling forested hills in the distance. Quite beautiful actually. Would I pay a bit higher energy bill to preserve this? Yep.

Unfortunately cost is not even a consideration for wind underground. Wind must have elevation. In fact there is a general increase in wind with altitude, it is called wind shear. Solar could be lowered down but I doubt the profit minded investors would give up their profit to appease those that want an unspoiled view of the desert.

Unfortunately cost is not even a consideration for wind underground. Wind must have elevation. In fact there is a general increase in wind with altitude, it is called wind shear. Solar could be lowered down but I doubt the profit minded investors would give up their profit to appease those that want an unspoiled view of the desert.
MacM, SL, check out some of the wind links I provided (google wind power nebraska). Some estimate that there is enough wind in western Nebraska to power all the electrical needs in all the surrounding states. The propeller shafts do not take uo that much space and can be situated on operating farmland. Fairly recent techniological advances has ironed out most of the bugs in wind genernation systems (prop design). Solar power has the limitation of the sun provideing 100 watts /m^2. I am not sure of the number but it is reprsentative. Rural areas can benefit as in systems that focus a few acres of sunlight on a central "boiler". Energy conservation is a tremendous energy source. In eastern Texas, the Nuclear industry widely advertises "electricity" .There are huge mionthly electric bills especially in the summer months $400+ is about average. The Nuclear provider (at Comanche Point(sic)) makes deals with building contractors to install as many electrical systems as possible in new home construction.
Across the river from where I live I see this orange smoke rising in the air daily. The plant is under EEO? fiat to install scrubbers, which it could do in few months of construciton, but all we see and hear are talks of the modifications," see theplans we have? in the works?" never seems to happen.

I still like my
Infinite wavelength water wave power generating system. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4080&stc=1)

with its inertial power source that is potentially eternal in maintaining a state of rotary motion. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4083&stc=1)
Geistkiesel

[indent]MacM, SL, check out some of the wind links I provided (google wind power nebraska). Some estimate that there is enough wind in western Nebraska to power all the electrical needs in all the surrounding states. The propeller shafts do not take uo that much space and can be situated on operating farmland. Fairly recent techniological advances has ironed out most of the bugs in wind genernation systems (prop design). Solar power has the limitation of the sun provideing 100 watts /m^2.

I did review your links. They give reasonable information regarding the theoretical issue of wind energy but are not geared to pragmatic issues of actually making use of the technology.

You should find these of particular interest.

http://p