Fusion plants
Moderator: Moderators
Seriously this is nothing special, the US in cooperation with some other places has already developed this.. and there may be other "test" fusion reactors in other parts of the world, google Tokamak.
This test is nothing special, the amount of energy they get back compared to that which they put in probably doesnt break even or if it does its maybe a 1% increase.. nothing special..
The main problem with fusion reactors is that you need a massive magnetic field to contain the plasma/fusion reaction taking place inside the reactor, to do this you need superconductors which have the least resistance and can set up very good magnetic fields. However superconductive materials generally are only superconductive at very low temperatures, by very low I mean liquid nitrogen type temperatures.. obviously the heat generated by the fusion reaction conflicts with the cooling of the superconductive materials causing them to heat up and generate resistance breaking up the magnetic field.. this is the main block to this sort of technology..
This test is nothing special, the amount of energy they get back compared to that which they put in probably doesnt break even or if it does its maybe a 1% increase.. nothing special..
The main problem with fusion reactors is that you need a massive magnetic field to contain the plasma/fusion reaction taking place inside the reactor, to do this you need superconductors which have the least resistance and can set up very good magnetic fields. However superconductive materials generally are only superconductive at very low temperatures, by very low I mean liquid nitrogen type temperatures.. obviously the heat generated by the fusion reaction conflicts with the cooling of the superconductive materials causing them to heat up and generate resistance breaking up the magnetic field.. this is the main block to this sort of technology..
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
I've done a course on quantum mechanics and nuclear physics if that helps :pneddiedrow wrote:How many of you ever read a book on the subject? Honestly now... I'm with Deci on this one.
More seriously one of the largest stumbling blocks is keeping the magnetic field toroidal. Now I'm not entirely sure about this but I think the problem lies in that the particles have their own inhernt quantum magnetic fields, and at the temperatures needed for fusion the particles are problably moving relativisticly, making their magnetic fields and their interaction with the toroidal containment field a really, really, really complicated problem of statistical relatavistic quantum mechanics
As Hl has shown Physics is the source & sollution of all Evil... burn those Heretics.. Actually even already built JET (curently biggest fusion reactor I believe) already produces slightly more energy then it needs it.Deathblane wrote: So sure they might have got a lot of energy out, but on ballance they're probably still in the red.
ITER which is getting built in France is already planned to produce few times more energy then it will need it.
So fusion reactors are definatly future.
ITER will be build in 10 years.mehere101 wrote:But how far in the future? I think before we deal too much farther with fusion power we need to deal with alternative fuel options.
Use of fossil fuel more efficiently is curently priorty from researching alternative fuel (making efficent alternative fuel will probably take some time so don't expect it to soon).
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
I wouldn't say alternative solutions are taking that long to come about. For example wind power is making a fair impact in scotland and the rest of the uk at least.
There about 20-30 wind gens near my town actually - they just 'sprung' up over the last year. I hear they're reeling in a fair amount of cash for us too...
There about 20-30 wind gens near my town actually - they just 'sprung' up over the last year. I hear they're reeling in a fair amount of cash for us too...
Wind power sucks though, the maintain costs are way too high to compared to fossil fuels power plants. It's not realistic to try and supply a full country with that kind of power systems, it can only exist due to government support.I wouldn't say alternative solutions are taking that long to come about. For example wind power is making a fair impact in scotland and the rest of the uk at least.
There about 20-30 wind gens near my town actually - they just 'sprung' up over the last year. I hear they're reeling in a fair amount of cash for us too...
According to wikipedia the maximum they got out of JET was 0,7 * power usage, so it's still a net loss.Actually even already built JET (curently biggest fusion reactor I believe) already produces slightly more energy then it needs it.