More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309

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

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

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

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 €œfully 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

On 30/06/2018 09:53, Clive Page wrote:
snip

Indeed.Â* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.Â*Â* 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

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.Â* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.Â*Â* 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 €œfully 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.Â* 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.Â*Â* 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.Â* 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".

"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.

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.

"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.

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

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:

Â*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

"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.

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.

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:

Â*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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

Â*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?

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.

Â*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.
Â*
Â* Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
Â* research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
Â* 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

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.

Â*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.
Â*
Â* Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
Â* research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong,
maybe
Â* 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 fromÂ* Euratom. This is not
that much compared to sayÂ* 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

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.

Â*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.
Â*
Â* Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
Â* research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong,
maybe
Â* 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 fromÂ* Euratom. This is not
that much compared to sayÂ* 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.

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.

Â*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.
Â*
Â* Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
Â* research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
Â* 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

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.

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.

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