| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Energy breakthrough nuclear fusion |
| 2006-05-22 |
| Fusion reactor shows its metal Agençe France-Presse Monday, 22 May 2006 Physicists say they have cracked a problem facing nuclear fusion, touted as the cheap, safe, clean and almost limitless energy source of the future. The US researchers say they have found a way to cut down erosion of the metal reactor wall, which would be a crucial step to improving efficiency. They publish their work online today in the journal Nature Physics. In fusion, atomic nuclei are fused together to release energy, as opposed to fission, the technique used for nuclear power and atomic bombs, where nuclei are split. In a fusion reactor, particles are rammed together to form the charged gas plasma, contained inside a doughnut-shaped chamber called a tokamak, by powerful magnetic coils. A consortium of countries signed a deal last year to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in southern France as a testbed for an eventual commercial design. But many experts have been shaking their heads at the many challenges facing the ITER designers. One challenge has been the phenomenon of edge localised modes, or ELMs, sudden fluxes or eddies in the outer edge of the plasma that erode the reaction chamber's inner wall. The tokamak's inner wall is an expensive metal skin that absorbs neutrons emitted from the plasma. And erosion would mean that the wall would have to be replaced more often. Eroded particles also have a big impact on the plasma performance, diminishing the amount of energy it can deliver. A team led by Todd Evans of General Atomics, California, believes that the problematic ELMs can be cleverly controlled. The scientists found that a small resonant magnetic field, derived from special coils located inside a reactor vessel, creates 'chaotic' magnetic interference on the plasma edge, which stops the fluxes from forming. The experiments were conducted at the General Atomics' DIII-D National Fusion Facility, a tokamak in San Diego. Nuclear fusion is the same process used by the Sun to radiate energy. In the case of our star, hydrogen atoms are forced together to produce helium. On Earth, the fusion would take place in a reactor fuelled by two istopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, with helium as the waste product. sounds clean to me, much cleaner than fission Deuterium is present in seawater, which would make it a virtually limitless resource. Tritium would be derived from irradiating the plentiful element lithium in the fusion vessel. The US$12.8 billion (A$21.6 billion) ITER scheme entails building the largest tokamak in the world at Cadarache, near the southern French city of Marseille. bad idea: US is too generous with technology. We should prevent idiot cultures like Islamofascists getting the benefits of technology that grows from a meritocratic free society. If the US works out how to make fusion reactors they should build them and keep the info TOP SECRET If necessary, build reactors and man them in other WESTERN nations for a fee. But keep control of the knowledge so that should Francistan fall to the Islamonazis, they can simply blow it up and retreat back to the US if necessary. Free energy should be a privelidge for the civilised only. The partners are the European Union, the US, Japan, Russia, China, India and South Korea. It is designed to be a testbed of fusion technologies, with a construction period of about 10 years and an operational lifespan of 20 years. If ITER works, a prototype commercial reactor would be built, and if that works, fusion technology would be rolled out across the world. Then put ehanol/methanol in cars and we can stop importing Soddy oil. Oil from Canada/Australia/South America/Europe should be enough for plastics production Other problems facing fusion technology include the challenge of creating a self-sustaining plasma and efficiently containing the plasma so that charged particles do not leak out. In existing tokamaks, no one has achieved a self-sustaining fusion event for longer than about five seconds, and at the cost of using up far more energy than is yielded. more work clearly needed. get to it in SECRET!!! A huge jolt of heat of nearly 100 million°C is needed to kick-start the process, which then has to be sustained by tiny amounts of fuel pellets. with ABC Science Online |
| Posted by:anon1 |
| #17 Imr gna repwr me plane wth Mystr Fushn like Bak tu duh Futr virgn 2. /mucky channeling |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-05-22 23:19 |
| #16 Valentine: "I'm holding out hope for breakthroughs from the Z-pinch device." Not that sure. Where you get the efficiency, pray tell? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-05-22 23:12 |
| #15 Shouldn't I have one of these reactors in my flying car by now? |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-05-22 21:15 |
| #14 Fusion -- the cheap, safe, clean and almost limitless energy source of the future -- only decades away since 1951. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-05-22 21:10 |
| #13 The environazis will HATE fusion reactors and ya wanna know why? Because they wont be using He-3 as a fusing product. There isn't enough of it on earth. Which means you use a standard tritium/deuterium mix to try to initiate a fusion reaction which in turn DOES leave some medium to short term radioactives (think about 5 to 50 years equivalent of the stuff). Me personally I'm holding out hope for breakthroughs from the Z-pinch device. That sucker is breaking rules of known physics every so often. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2006-05-22 14:22 |
| #12 Environazis don't want cheap, clean energy. They want us all in public transportion, eating tofu and chewing bark when we get sick. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-05-22 14:08 |
| #11 Good thought Danielle. They're already on it. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2006-05-22 12:25 |
| #10 "A huge jolt of heat of nearly 100 million°C is needed to kick-start the process, which then has to be sustained by tiny amounts of fuel pellets." What about using powerful lasers to superheat the process? |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-05-22 11:46 |
| #9 I don't know if I would want a future like 'Star Trek' -- too coy and 'perfect' for my taste. I'll be satisifed with 'Babylon 5' How about both, you get tired of one, move to the other. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-05-22 11:32 |
| #8 I think environazis will love a fusion reactor, since it doesn't have pollutants other than helium, a benign gas. You forgot heat. More importantly, the environazis aren't against pollution so much as they're against civilization and humanity. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-05-22 11:17 |
| #7 I don't know. Nuclear is clean and safe too. Good luck building a plant in the US. The environmentalist anymore care less about the environment and more about their political power. I also hope this takes off. We should be investing heavily into this type of tech (as well as coal-to-petro conversion as mentioned in a different thread). I don't know if I would want a future like 'Star Trek' -- too coy and 'perfect' for my taste. I'll be satisifed with 'Babylon 5'.... (not to start a flamewar or anything....). Islamists would make it 'Nazi Germany'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-05-22 10:51 |
| #6 And so what if it takes a long time to build? Cos shit happens in the intervening period, known in academic circles as history. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-05-22 10:50 |
| #5 "I think environazis will love a fusion reactor, since it doesn't have pollutants other than helium, a benign gas." But it'll make them talk funny. They won't like that. |
| Posted by: random styling 2006-05-22 10:36 |
| #4 And thanks, Fred, for correcting my posting booboo |
| Posted by: anon1 2006-05-22 08:59 |
| #3 I think environazis will love a fusion reactor, since it doesn't have pollutants other than helium, a benign gas. And so what if it takes a long time to build? It has been pointed out on this blog before that the long-term thinking of the Islamonazis is one of their strengths in the WOT and our short-term goals our a weakness for us. Having a long-term goal and working towards it has seen Islam begin to win the demographics war, begin to progress on the slow march of chipping away at Western culture. Meanwhile Western culture seeks to win short-term goals in a forever war. We cannot win this unless we think long-term also. And on yesterday's interesting discussion someone pointed out that for Islamofascism to shrivel up and blow away like dried up dog poo, you have to cut off the money to the saudis. It may take a long-term solution to do that effectively. I sincerely hope fusion works and I hope the government spends money on researching this properly. Even if it only becomes a reality in my children's (should I have any) lifetime, it will ensure the future is Star Trek, not the Dark Ages with a burqa. |
| Posted by: anon1 2006-05-22 08:57 |
| #2 Does anyone think the Environazi's will allow a fusion reactor in the United States? Even in a 100 years? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-05-22 08:40 |
| #1 So after 30 years, if it works, a prototype reactor will be built say 20 more years. If that works then they will rolled out, say another 20 years before there is enough to make a difference. So it might be a solution in 70 years time. I remember when they were saying abundant almost free energy from fusion reactors was only 30 years away. At this rate, I'll get to hear fusion reactors are only a 100 years away. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-05-22 06:56 |