Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
|
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus -- -- Colin Bignell |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
The big problem is that in order to sustain fusion, you need to keep the
plasma confined. To keep it confined you use magnetism, the electromagnets use current and its hard to use superconductors as the need very cold temps but fusion is very very hot so the power needed always ends up more than is being made. I suppose if e could find a material with superconduction properties at high temps then it might be easier, but then you also have the effect of the radiation from the fusion reaction, and this changes many materials very fast into completely useless stuff. So you need high temperature materials that do not melt or get affected by radiation. Then you need some way to efficiently extract the energy from the fusion reaction, again without the device being destroyed. As has been said. We know how to make a fusion reaction, but we do not know how to use it. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "Nightjar" wrote in message ... On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus -- -- Colin Bignell |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:35:14 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: The big problem is that in order to sustain fusion, you need to keep the plasma confined. To keep it confined you use magnetism, Or a lot of concentrated mass! -- AnthonyL |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote:
Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus Indeed. But its future is in doubt because of Brexit. From a report in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x "Fusion research in the United Kingdom faces an uncertain future after Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May conceded on 21 May that a post-Brexit Britain was willing to pay to fully associate with Euratom, Europes nuclear agency." But after 2 years of negotiation there is no deal with Euratom and Mrs May has said that we cannot continue to be a member because any Euratom disputes fall under the remit of the European Court - one of her most emphatic red lines. Whether some kind of "association agreement" is possible nobody knows, but since we seem to be going full pelt towards a hard Brexit, this seems unlikely. So it may go the same way as a lot of joint scientific projects with other countries in Europe - but, hey, it's a net saving of taxpayers' money isn't it. We have to look on the bright side. -- Clive Page |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 09:53, Clive Page wrote:
snip Indeed.* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.** From a report in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x I didn't think JET had much of a future anyhow with ITER the next big thing, and that it's more the future of Culham that's at risk. But then it's had a pretty good innings: I was at college with people who got jobs there straight after their doctorates and stayed there until they retired at 60. Though I'm sure it's a total myth that more than one retirement do featured a toast to "fusion: an almost limitless source of research funding." -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/18 09:53, Clive Page wrote:
On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote: Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus Indeed.* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.** From a report in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x "Fusion research in the United Kingdom faces an uncertain future after Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May conceded on 21 May that a post-Brexit Britain was willing to pay to fully associate with Euratom, Europes nuclear agency." But after 2 years of negotiation there is no deal with Euratom and Mrs May has said that we cannot continue to be a member because any Euratom disputes fall under the remit of the European Court - one of her most emphatic red lines.* Whether some kind of "association agreement" is possible nobody knows, but since we seem to be going full pelt towards a hard Brexit, this seems unlikely.** So it may go the same way as a lot of joint scientific projects with other countries in Europe - but, hey, it's a net saving of taxpayers' money isn't it.* We have to look on the bright side. We are already pretty much tegher on replacing the functionality of Euratom with our own regulatory authorities. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...-11061801.html JET is part European funded, but it is not based in Europe. Its in Culham. If the EU and Euratom want to cut off their noses,to fund less than £150m of JET a YEAR out of the £350m a WEEK that we dont need to pay Brussels and the £320m a WEEK that we dont need to pay renewable energy companies with should be a piece of ****. And the EU can **** off. We had joint projects with european nations before we were in the EU at all. "Ariane is a series of a European civilian expendable launch vehicles for space launch use. The name comes from the French spelling of the mythological character Ariadne. France first proposed the Ariane project and it was officially agreed upon at the end of 1973 after discussions between France, Germany and the UK. The project was Western Europe's second attempt to develop its own launcher following the unsuccessful Europa project. The Ariane project was code-named L3S (the French abbreviation for third-generation substitution launcher). The European Space Agency (ESA) charged the EADS subsidiary Astrium, presently Airbus Defence and Space, with the development of all Ariane launchers and of the testing facilities, while Arianespace, a 32.5% CNES (French government space agency) commercial subsidiary created in 1980, handles production, operations and marketing. Arianespace launches Ariane rockets from the Guiana Space Centre at Kourou in French Guiana." -- "I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun". |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
"Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Of course there is with not having to accept anyone from the EU that decides that their prospects in the UK are better than where they are coming from, and the UK deciding for itself what it will do about government financing infrastructure and what it does about renewables and climate change. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
In article ,
Jeff wrote: Of course there is with not having to accept anyone from the EU that decides that their prospects in the UK are better than where they are coming from Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns across the UK. -- *Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Jeff wrote: Of course there is with not having to accept anyone from the EU that decides that their prospects in the UK are better than where they are coming from Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns across the UK. But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/18 10:38, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote: "Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Of course there is Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic. ROFLMAO. You mean you think that post brexit we will have a labour government? -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge wrote: On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote: "Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: *We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Of course there is Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic. We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the country, but I can't. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
"Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Nightjar wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Huge wrote: On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote: "Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Of course there is Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic. We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the country, but I can't. Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system is no more democratic than the EU one Of course it is when the government stuffs up badly enough like Blair and Brown did, the voters can see if the other lot can do any better. Not possible with the unelected oligarchy that decides what the EP gets to vote on but does not get to write any legislation or even amend existing legislation either. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the country, but I can't. You can at the next election. That's the difference. Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their ****ty list system. How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in that constituency? Do we vote in our civil service? And how about the H of L? Very democratic, that. Giving the population the chance to elect absolutely everyone does not guarantee getting the best people for the job. It may not have occurred to you, but giving anyone a job solely on their political beliefs matching yours may be a good thing to help keep your job secure, but may well not be in the best interests of all. -- *Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 15:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Huge wrote: On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote: "Huge" wrote in message ... On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: *We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Of course there is Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic. We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the country, but I can't. You can at the next election. That's the difference. No, I can't. I have never lived in a constituency where my vote would make any difference as to which party takes it. Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their ****ty list system. From my point of view, there is no difference in the two systems. In any case, the influence the EU has on UK legislation was grossly overstated by the Leave campaigners. A count of primary and secondary legislation active in 2014 showed that just 29% of them had their origins in EU legislation. This is probably the most accurate way to assess the real impact of the EU on UK law*. In addition, since 1999, in the Council of Ministers, the UK has opposed just 2% of EU legislation, abstained on 3% and given its full support to 95% of it. Hence, most of that 29% has had our full support. *It is possible to juggle the numbers to show anything up to 62% (75% was an outright lie) but, to do that you have to include every EU regulation issued, despite the fact that some, such as regulations on the import of fruit and vegetables into the EU, are only in force for a single day and some, such as the regulations on Schengen, have no effect in the UK. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ... This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the whole cabinet. Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely alternative) would do better? Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where the UK system is just perfect? There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to that. -- *Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic. We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. I actually feel quite sorry for you if you really do consider you are ruled by the EU 'unelected oligarchy'. You must lead an extremely odd life. Perhaps that consists of Hoovering all day with some ancient heavy machine which needs replacement. -- *Never test the depth of the water with both feet.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:57:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. These people that crave a 'Big Brother' style of fascistic, autocratic government such as that represented by the EU most likely suffer from an insecure attachment pattern; a condition arising from early childhood when the infant's needs were not consistently met by its principle care- giver. This fosters life-long anxieties, raised cortisol levels and a desperate need to have every facet of their lives rigidly set out in stone for them to follow. In the absence of same, they typically grow up to become fat, tragic, unemployable wasters constantly feeling threatened and undermined by those who are not similarly afflicted. Sad, really. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:57:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove. These people that crave a 'Big Brother' style of fascistic, autocratic government such as that represented by the EU most likely suffer from an insecure attachment pattern; a condition arising from early childhood when the infant's needs were not consistently met by its principle care- giver. This fosters life-long anxieties, raised cortisol levels and a desperate need to have every facet of their lives rigidly set out in stone for them to follow. In the absence of same, they typically grow up to become fat, tragic, unemployable wasters constantly feeling threatened and undermined by those who are not similarly afflicted. Sad, really. Never mind. Keep at the therapy. You'll be fixed eventually. Hopefully. -- *I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/18 10:12, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote: We have to look on the bright side. There is no "bright side" (of Brexit). Pore ole Huge. Still a believer after all those Euro****s have ****ed in his face. -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus And every year for decades there has been a new flavour being touted around by a reputable organisation looking for funding. But, so far, the only real progress has been from the "mainstream" strategies of Tokamak or laser compression. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 22:00, newshound wrote:
On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. *From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes I understood that the low cost of uranium made fast breeders uneconomic, but my point was that instead of comparing fast breeders to conventional fission power stations they should be compared to fusion research, i.e. a long term research goal. The actual advantages of effective fast breeders appear to be almost unlimited power reserves, continuous fuel processing which could lead to less hazardous waste. Fuel requirements so low they could be satisfied by extracting uranium/thorium from sea water. In effect the promised benefits are similar to the benefits promised by fusion. You might argue that fast breeders have been tried and the technological challenges are formidable: corrosion, fuel contamination/separation, etc..., but to an ignorant person, such as myself, they seem much simpler than the problems of fusion, much more likely to be achievable. If you say we shouldn't do this fast breeder research because in future renewables will be able to provide power more economically, surely this argument applies even more to fusion research? |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 03/07/18 19:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 22:00, newshound wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. *From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. * * Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of * research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe * there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes I understood that the low cost of uranium made fast breeders uneconomic, but my point was that instead of comparing fast breeders to conventional fission power stations they should be compared to fusion research, i.e. a long term research goal. The actual advantages of effective fast breeders appear to be almost unlimited power reserves, continuous fuel processing which could lead to less hazardous waste. Fuel requirements so low they could be satisfied by extracting uranium/thorium from sea water. In effect the promised benefits are similar to the benefits promised by fusion. You might argue that fast breeders have been tried and the technological challenges are formidable: corrosion, fuel contamination/separation, etc..., but to an ignorant person, such as myself, they seem much simpler than the problems of fusion, much more likely to be achievable. If you say we shouldn't do this fast breeder research because in future renewables will be able to provide power more economically, surely this argument applies even more to fusion research? The theory is that fusion will provide: - energy long after fissile/fertile materials are exhausted - less long lived isotopes. JET actually recieves only about £200m a year from Euratom. This is not that much compared to say what farmers hget from the EU CAP(£3bn) or what the NHS costs UK taxpayers. (£60bn) It is not clear either whether the creation of long lived istopes by neutron bombardment could not, in theory allow fissile materials to be created for any atomic weight greater than iron. E,g, like Cobalt 60 (Cobalt 60 is a vicious gamma emitter used in medical ap[plivations with a half life of under 6 years. So e.g. an Aga stuffed full of the stuff would make a handy house heater until it had all decayed - effectively 15 years or so and te fule canister would be totally safe after 60 years). Frankly I dont care WHAT nuclear technology we use. It all produces some sort of nucler waste, it is all possible to operate safely, and what counts is getting as much of it online as quickly as possible. Right now 'uranium in a kettle' boiling water reactors look like the cheapest and crudest there are. BUT they work. Well enough and safe enough. We dont need research. We need better regulations that do not unfairly penalise nuclear power, and to get those, we need a campaign of education about the true value of windmills solar panels and nucera reactors. Its sad that actually the best chance of getting reactors is to play the Green card. Even though CO2 induced warming is a crock of ****. -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 04/07/2018 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/18 19:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 22:00, newshound wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. *From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. * * Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of * research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe * there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes I understood that the low cost of uranium made fast breeders uneconomic, but my point was that instead of comparing fast breeders to conventional fission power stations they should be compared to fusion research, i.e. a long term research goal. The actual advantages of effective fast breeders appear to be almost unlimited power reserves, continuous fuel processing which could lead to less hazardous waste. Fuel requirements so low they could be satisfied by extracting uranium/thorium from sea water. In effect the promised benefits are similar to the benefits promised by fusion. You might argue that fast breeders have been tried and the technological challenges are formidable: corrosion, fuel contamination/separation, etc..., but to an ignorant person, such as myself, they seem much simpler than the problems of fusion, much more likely to be achievable. If you say we shouldn't do this fast breeder research because in future renewables will be able to provide power more economically, surely this argument applies even more to fusion research? The theory is that fusion will provide: - energy long after fissile/fertile materials are exhausted - less long lived isotopes. JET actually recieves only about £200m a year from* Euratom. This is not that much compared to say* what farmers hget from the EU CAP(£3bn) or what the NHS costs UK taxpayers. (£60bn) It is not clear either whether the creation of long lived istopes by neutron bombardment could not, in theory allow fissile materials to be created for any atomic weight greater than iron. E,g, like Cobalt 60 (Cobalt 60 is a vicious gamma emitter used in medical ap[plivations with a half life of under 6 years. So e.g. an Aga stuffed full of the stuff would make a handy house heater until it had all decayed - effectively 15 years or so and te fule canister would be totally safe after 60 years). Frankly I dont care WHAT nuclear technology we use. It all produces some sort of nucler waste, it is all possible to operate safely, and what counts is getting as much of it online as quickly as possible. Right now 'uranium in a kettle' boiling water reactors look like the cheapest and crudest there are. BUT they work. Well enough and safe enough. We dont need research. We need better regulations that do not unfairly penalise nuclear power, and to get those, we need a campaign of education about the true value of windmills solar panels and nucera reactors. Its sad that actually the best chance of getting reactors is to play the Green card. Even though CO2 induced warming is a crock of ****. + 1 to all that! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 04/07/2018 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/18 19:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 22:00, newshound wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. *From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. * * Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of * research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe * there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes I understood that the low cost of uranium made fast breeders uneconomic, but my point was that instead of comparing fast breeders to conventional fission power stations they should be compared to fusion research, i.e. a long term research goal. The actual advantages of effective fast breeders appear to be almost unlimited power reserves, continuous fuel processing which could lead to less hazardous waste. Fuel requirements so low they could be satisfied by extracting uranium/thorium from sea water. In effect the promised benefits are similar to the benefits promised by fusion. You might argue that fast breeders have been tried and the technological challenges are formidable: corrosion, fuel contamination/separation, etc..., but to an ignorant person, such as myself, they seem much simpler than the problems of fusion, much more likely to be achievable. If you say we shouldn't do this fast breeder research because in future renewables will be able to provide power more economically, surely this argument applies even more to fusion research? The theory is that fusion will provide: - energy long after fissile/fertile materials are exhausted The theory is with breeders + sea water extraction fuel is effectively unlimited at current total energy rates. i.e. 1000's of years. - less long lived isotopes. I might be mistaken but I though breeders offered the possibility of neutron bombardment effectively "eating" long lived radio nucleotides. Ok, I accept this is optimistic but the moment we are comparing it to fusion optimistic is the measure we are using. JET actually recieves only about £200m a year from* Euratom. This is not that much compared to say* what farmers hget from the EU CAP(£3bn) or what the NHS costs UK taxpayers. (£60bn) I think that is probably it. The money actually invested in fusion is relatively small. I was confusing myself that the government was really investing large sums in it. It is not clear either whether the creation of long lived istopes by neutron bombardment could not, in theory allow fissile materials to be created for any atomic weight greater than iron. E,g, like Cobalt 60 (Cobalt 60 is a vicious gamma emitter used in medical ap[plivations with a half life of under 6 years. So e.g. an Aga stuffed full of the stuff would make a handy house heater until it had all decayed - effectively 15 years or so and te fule canister would be totally safe after 60 years). I'm not sure what you are suggesting? Do you mean neutron bombardment by a fusion reactor could produce something akin to a heat battery? Frankly I dont care WHAT nuclear technology we use. It all produces some sort of nucler waste, it is all possible to operate safely, and what counts is getting as much of it online as quickly as possible. Right now 'uranium in a kettle' boiling water reactors look like the cheapest and crudest there are. BUT they work. Well enough and safe enough. AIUI this technology isn't scalable, i.e. if we used it globally to produce the bulk of all current power requirements, uranium would be potentially exhausted within the reasonable 50-60 year lifespan of a generating plant. When I say current energy requirements I mean including heat and transport as well as electrical generation. We dont need research. We need better regulations that do not unfairly penalise nuclear power, and to get those, we need a campaign of education about the true value of windmills solar panels and nucera reactors. I think we do need research precisely because current technology and fuel supply works at current Nuclear deployment levels, but it wouldn't work as primary energy supplier at global levels. It is also clear that the current reactors are costing a lot more than they should. I don't believe that is entirely down to unreasonable safety requirements. By that I mean even with very high safety they could be much cheaper. If I was Elon Musk I would be looking for a nuclear solution cheaper than current coal. Buggered if I know why he wants to go to Mars. Its sad that actually the best chance of getting reactors is to play the Green card. Thatcher understood the green benefits of Nuclear so I don't see that has changed much in the last 40 years. Even though CO2 induced warming is a crock of ****. Possibly, but I don't expect that to be reliably proved/accepted within the near future. Hence the need for low/zero carbon power. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 03/07/2018 19:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 22:00, newshound wrote: On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote: On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. *From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. * * Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of * research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe * there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A *lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same. In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a 250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs. The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the Japanese took longer. But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese seem to think so). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor Yes I understood that the low cost of uranium made fast breeders uneconomic, but my point was that instead of comparing fast breeders to conventional fission power stations they should be compared to fusion research, i.e. a long term research goal. But some people believe there is *no* nuclear waste from fusion. There is, of course, but why let facts get in the way. The actual advantages of effective fast breeders appear to be almost unlimited power reserves, continuous fuel processing which could lead to less hazardous waste. Fuel requirements so low they could be satisfied by extracting uranium/thorium from sea water. In effect the promised benefits are similar to the benefits promised by fusion. History shows that there is no need to think now about really long term power reserves, the pace of evolution of technology has always been sufficient. The capital cost of fast reactors is high, and they will always produce fission products and activated reactor structures which have to be dealt with. You might argue that fast breeders have been tried and the technological challenges are formidable: corrosion, fuel contamination/separation, etc..., but to an ignorant person, such as myself, they seem much simpler than the problems of fusion, much more likely to be achievable. Perhaps as a less ignorant person I would say that fusion looks conceptually simple, but it's turned out that instabilities make sufficiently effective containment difficult. (There are also formidable engineering difficulties in getting the energy out). If you say we shouldn't do this fast breeder research because in future renewables will be able to provide power more economically, surely this argument applies even more to fusion research? I'm not against fusion research and would not rule out fast reactors either. As I said above, maybe the Russians, Chinese, and Indians are well on the way with it. But in Europe and America the initial enthusiasm has waned, for the reasons I said. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 04/07/2018 12:46, newshound wrote:
History shows that there is no need to think now about really long term power reserves, the pace of evolution of technology has always been sufficient. I'm not sure that is true if non breeder Nuclear was adopted on a global primary power provider scale. i.e. then we have reserves in the 50-100 year ball park. This could cause fuel price pressure in the very near future. The capital cost of fast reactors is high, and they will always produce fission products and activated reactor structures which have to be dealt with. [snip] I'm not against fusion research and would not rule out fast reactors either. As I said above, maybe the Russians, Chinese, and Indians are well on the way with it. But in Europe and America the initial enthusiasm has waned, for the reasons I said. I thought Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the reason it waned. The moment Nuclear became only a bit player in global energy supply the total uranium reserves were no longer a problem, hence no need to breed. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/18 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309 Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate power economically. Actually it hasnt reaslly even got top te 'generate (net*) (controllable**) power technically' bit. From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable. It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically. No pint while straiught single pass fission is even chepaer and the fuel is cheaper than chips. Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported? Fission doesn't need basic research. It's all about development. We know how to build a fission reactor that works, we just want to build better ones. That's commercial develoment IF, the government gets the 'man with the red flag' of over paranoid nuclear regulations out of the way.... Government involvement in nuclear research is more at the educational level than the project level. *more power out than in ** to exclude H bombs.. -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion power
On 30/06/2018 17:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:21:37 -0700, harry wrote: More BS? http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ovel-approach- fusion-power-0309 Dunno about that, but whatever happened to the scheme the BBC advertised ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mentioned in the Helen Czerski BBC4 prog earlier this year ? https://firstlightfusion.com/ Yup. More smoke and mirrors. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
wanted B&Q discontinued ceramic floor tile fusion brick (GREY) | UK diy | |||
Fusion Power won't work. | UK diy | |||
KRYLON Fusion paint and acrylics | Metalworking | |||
NetObjects Fusion 8 | Woodturning | |||
Krylon Fusion Spray Paint | Home Ownership |