Simulation show high energy output from fusion

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently energy production from fusion is in the domain of possible.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-fusion-simulation-high-gain-energy.html

Well yes. We can plainly observe the energy output every day when we walk out of our doors or open windows. In terms of getting it on the grid... well that's a bit more complex. What many people don't realize when they say fusion isn't practical or possible to contain and use Hydrogen Bombs as examples is that Hydrogen fusion weaponry uses the rare hydrogen isotope tritium, whereas stars fuse hydrogen in the much more common form, deuterium. Tritium is relative easy to fuse, it is highly radioactive and because of that the half-life causes it to decay very quickly, thus making it hard to obtain. Deuterium is much more common, but doesn't fuse easily, it has to be under immense pressure, such as the core of a star. Even Jupiter, who's mass makes earths look like a pebble does not have enough pressure to undergo stellar fusion. As I recall the most recent design involves deuterium gas inside a metal sphere that is hit with high powered x-ray radiation, creating the needed conditions for stellar fusion for a brief moment of time. The energy released likely will vaporize water to turn a turbine much like nuclear power plants do now. The benefits being that the waste product is nothing more than helium gas, and the water shouldn't be saturated with gamma radiation. The only issue that may arise is that if the design of the hydrogen in the metal sphere doesn't work, we are now back to square one, down several trillion dollars.

Look up at the sun (use dark glasses to protect your eyes).

ruveyn

Of course it's theoretically possible since the Sun gets all it's energy from nuclear fusion. The question is whether it's practical, most past designs of thermonuclear fusion reactors resulted in more energy consumption than the amount of energy it produces.

One must also consider the cost in terms of energy and money in producing the hydrogen isotopes used in fusion fuel. The production of tritium on such a massive scale is going make fusion extremely expensive and drive up the cost of electricity. EVEN IF we can build a thermonuclear fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes.

Are scientists any nearer to solving the containment problem yet? That has always historically been the biggest issue to overcome, with the fusion reaction tending to blow apart the reactants thus stopping further fusion. The sun overcomes the problem due to its massive gravitational force providing an equilibrium holding the reactants together but scientists have been trying using massive toroidal magnets - any joy with them yet?

its not strictly neccesary for fusion, only sustained fusion.

also tritium isnt neccesary.

Unsustained fusion does us little on no good. Besides we already have it. It is called an H-bomb.

ruveyn

Well a hydrogen bomb puts out quite a bit of energy now doesn't it? We really don't need to sustain that kind of nuclear reaction in any case. It also works with tritium, the fusion we want is with the more common deuterium. That will keep the cost down in terms of reactant, we as humans have to make sure we don't get out of hand if we try to make some sort of deuterium reactor that is constantly undergoing fusion. Case in point, plutonium reactors tend to get messy (and radioactive) when things start going bad. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather not get a 4th degree sunburn if something goes wrong in a fusion plant.

The confinement time and pressure for Deuterium-Deuterium fusion is much higher than Tritium-Deuterium fusion. Even so, while deuterium can be refined from seawater, the process of electrolysis and then isotope separation will still be VERY expensive and consume large amounts of electricity.


I passionately believe that gaseous nuclear fission(particular the Nuclear Lightbulb design) , and NOT thermonuclear fusion, is the future of nuclear power. I daresay that fusion will never be as efficient or as effective as gaseous fission! Using a Tokamak reactor with magnetic confinement, gaseous fission is considerably more controllable than solid/liquid fission and in the case of an uncontrolled chain reaction the gas fuel supply can be shut off.

simple mass to energy conversion tells us otherwise, the rest is a matter of method and engineering.

i agree though that there are plenty of fission alternatives that will work short term, but anyone using lithium will suffer from the same fuel problems as deuterioum and tritium.

my main problem with the a gas light bulb as compared to a molten pool reactor is the inherent safety danger in pressure vessels under sustained pressure, especially at the extreme temperatures found in the bulb.

but the very reason a gas light bulb is so effective is its internal temperature, in fusion that internal temperature is orders of magnitude higher.

Fusion converts more mass to energy than fission. The problem is no one knows how to sustain a fusion reaction. The longest fusion reaction on record is a little over a minute and more energy was consumed than produced by the reaction.

So far, sustained controlled fusion has been a pipe dream and a will of the wisp.

ruveyn

It may very well be possible using the Tokamak configuration to generate circular waves in the ring of plasma. If this can be done, the energy released by the fission reaction can be directly converted into electricity.